I have heard...

I was an elderly prima gravidae at the age of 31. Nowadays that seems quite young for a first child.
I hope all is well with the Susseses, baby boy or not.

Psst! I have heard, from a reliable source that there's a young woman about to give birth to Harry and Meghan's baby. Yes - believe it or not, she's a surrogate and they have her stashed away in a chalet in Windsor Great Park. Megan's 'bump'? inflatable.

Yes, it's twins and here's the couple looking after them.

yawn.. why am I even reading your posts.

? ?

There was no need for any further posts on this thread, after the OP gave us the news!
Thanks, GG.

Enjoyed this thread! Meghan who???

I know this to be true as I have it on good authority from someone who was standing on the other side of Windsor Great Park when they heard Meghan mid labour shriek ‘Arghh. Ow, ow, ow. And if you and your royal tackle come anywhere near me again I’ll chop it off’.

My reliable source then witnessed Harry hurriedly leaving shouting ‘Well I’m off to watch the marathon then’.

So it is true.

Her Majesty the Queen is reported to have visited them yesterday so there might be a chance that it was to see the new baby. Seems a bit near B-day to go and take a house warming present.

Why aren't the Sussexes in Sussex?
I'm too confused.
I love your photo of the twins BradfordLass that's neat, as they say in America.

Reported by whom? Gagagran
Do you have a reliable source?. It wasn't on any news I listened to.

Well, let's just hope it's a boy or a girl, whenever it arrives and whenever they choose to tell us. Not that I am overly bovvered at all.

BTW I was down in my notes as an 'elderly primigravida' at 28!
To be fair I was way older than all the other mums on the ward at the time.
How things change - dd had her two at 38 and 39.

You sound a bit peremptory there Grammaretto!

It was reported in the Mail online today. If you choose to doubt that, it's up to you.

If it's in the Mail it must be true

Im shure this must be true. We herd it from the purson whose never rong about anyfing. Im bored of wayting now.

The report I read said the Queen visited them over Easter weekend as she wanted to see them in their new home before the birth of the baby. Personally I have very little interest in when the baby is born or what she has - I just wish for both mother and child to be well, as I would for any new parent.

I actually suspect this is true. Will be interesting to see, if only out of curiosity.

This has given me a chuckle anyway
None of it matters, what ll be will be and when it happens it happens I wish them all the very best and couldn’t really muster up more interest in any royal births than that
I too was elderly on my notes when I had my third at 28 none of my children had even started their families by then my eldest was 34 and 36, my second was 29 and 34 and my third was 28, 31 and 34 so must have all been in their dotage

Prince Charles is first in line to the throne, then his eldest son, Prince William, then his children, then Prince Harry and his children.

After that come the children of Prince Charles' sister and brothers - I think the brothers' children take precedence of Princess Anne's but I am not quite sure about that.

None of this has come up on my news feed. Just saying!

can't wait for next installment

well, the cynic in me wonders if the announcement is being held back until Friday, the day after the Conservative and Labour parties lose hundreds of seats in the local elections on Thursday.

Anyone else remember "Send reinforcements, we're ready to advance" being sent back to HQ and arriving as "Send 3/4p we're going to a dance". I must be old!!

Witzend I was an elderly prima gravida at 24 according to my notes, hope I've spelled/spelt everything well enough to satisfy everyone.

Well; it's obvious to me even from this distance that she's hanging on for May 1st. Labour Day!, and an inducement if necessary! It's all about party loyalty.