Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Edward and Sophie's baby

260 replies

LucieB · 13/11/2003 11:01

Anyone else think its a bit odd that mother and baby still haven't been reunited. Apparently the baby was delivered by c-section on Saturday and Sophie still hasn't been to St George's to see her, despite the press saying that both mother and daughter are doing well. If mother is doing well, why haven't they transferred her to George's to be near her daughter, or vice versa. All a bit strange....

OP posts:
aloha · 14/11/2003 09:54

Er, Gosh2, didn't you post this on another subject?
"So why are we judging? Being a mother is difficult enough without all the old witches out there gathering around the pot.

This thread is so depressing, I just dont think any of us can judge, I know I can'

You also said you feel judged as a mother who works full time.

So why judge older mothers? Esp as there is plenty of evidence that older women make great mothers.

Sophie's been married four years, and in that time she's had IVF, an ectopic and a baby. I'd hardly call that hanging about, personally.

I was 38 when I had my son BTW. Motherinferior's just had a problem-free home birth for her second child at 40. There are so many mothers over 35 on this site!

Jaybee · 14/11/2003 09:58

Heard on the radio on the way in that it is unlikely that Sophie and her baby will be reunited until after the weekend when they think that Sophie will be well enough to travel. They said that they currently expect the baby to remain in hospital for up to a month.

Twinkie · 14/11/2003 10:04

Message withdrawn

SueW · 14/11/2003 10:16

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

lucy123 · 14/11/2003 10:33

Quite right Twinkie. It does annoy me sometimes that the media seem to have decided on what exactly constitutes a "caring father" and there can be little tolerance of anything other than that. People deal with trauma in different ways anyway.

I must say though that I thought I was in a twilight zone for a minute there! Please use quote marks next time or I'll end up a nervous wreck!

Jaybee · 14/11/2003 10:41

Many dads carry on going to work whilst their partners are in hospital. A colleague's ds arrived 7 weeks early by emergency cs and they were in hospital for about three weeks. The dad used to go into hospital first thing in the morning, spend a bit of time with the two of them, come into work - visit again over lunchtime and go in on the way home - he wanted to spend time with them both once they were at home. I don't think that Edward attending a function (which at the end of the day is his job) deflects from him being a father.

musica · 14/11/2003 10:42

When I was born, my dad dropped my mum off at the hospital, and then went to work. He phoned up about 6 hours later to see if I had been born! (He was the boss by the way, so it wasn't that he couldn't get the time off).

kayleigh · 14/11/2003 10:48

I think it shows what a doting husband he was for going to the charity event. He more than likely didn't want to go but because Sophie (apparently) wanted him to go on her behalf he attended.

zebra · 14/11/2003 11:11

I think Gosh2's comments are funny -- over 35 "too old" for a first??!!! Sorry, I can't take that seriously. Not all of us are organised, mature (& lucky) enough to get our first out by 30, you know. Maybe you wouldn't choose to do things otherwise, but try not to judge those who do?

My ex-boss, his wife had all 3 of hers after 40 (no special problems).

doormat · 14/11/2003 11:36

I hope everything is well for sophie and the baby

naughtynoonoo · 14/11/2003 11:49

I am not a royalist at all, but I really do feel for Sophie, apparently she was meant to be discharged today, but they are keeping her in. It must be awful to be apart from your new baby and she probably hasn't even seen it - poor thing.

Batters · 14/11/2003 12:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SoupDragon · 14/11/2003 12:47

Well, I guyess we won't be forwarding this thread to Edward's email address.

LIZS · 14/11/2003 13:06

According to the BBC they have now been reunited, presumably at Frimley Park as Sophie has not been moved.

M2T · 14/11/2003 13:21

Wow thanks LIZS! That's fantastic news.

CnR · 14/11/2003 13:40

Great to hear that things are improving for them. Here is the link

julia3 · 14/11/2003 13:46

I am new to this - just wanted to add my pennysworth to this discussion. I married at 23 - in late twenties discovered we had a sperm problem - finally after years of IVF etc had ds at 36. In all of this time I had to grin and bear jibes about putting my career before having a baby - but felt that I had a right to guard my own privacy and not explain the real reasons. Even now people - especially medical practitioners - just assume we left it too late and that is why we only have one child. We can never always know what people have been through - although ironically we know more about Edward and Sophie because they are in the public eye. Personally I feel desparately sorry for her and feel that she has been let down by others - did Edward really need to go to Mauritius four weeks before the baby was due?

dejags · 14/11/2003 14:51

see here mother and baby have indeed been reunited...

To add my tuppence - I think it is impossible to know how they felt. Obviously everything was planned for a full term pregnancy and they have had to do their best in unforeseen circs....

dejags · 14/11/2003 14:52

see here mother and baby have indeed been reunited...

To add my tuppence - I think it is impossible to know how they felt. Obviously everything was planned for a full term pregnancy and they have had to do their best in unforeseen circs....

CnR · 14/11/2003 15:29

I think Edward was there on royal duties; let's face it enough people would complain if he were to give them up even if his wife was 7 months pregnant. And they weren't to know this would happen.

Mog · 14/11/2003 16:32

Was going to react to gosh2 but then thought the post sounded deliberately provocative. Is this a real mumsnetter?
(Had children at 37 and 39, completely trouble-free pregnancies)

sykes · 14/11/2003 16:33

I wondered if gosh2 was real. Has she posted elsewhere?

CnR · 14/11/2003 16:36

Yes, she has been posting since at least December last year.

zebra · 14/11/2003 16:38

There's so much publicity about older women having trouble conceiving... I think Gosh2 is completely ignorant in not realising that the vast majority of women can conceive after 35, it's just likely to take longer. And as for complications... again, most first-time mothers over 35 will be fine, it's only a little bit more risky. I think we're all being a bit harsh on Gosh2, but then again, she's being quite ignorant, maybe not entirely her fault given the rubbish the media in this country spit out, sometimes.

After all, just because some tabloid newspaper rants and raves and scaremongers on the subject, doesn't make it true....

bobsmum · 14/11/2003 17:05

"I have friends who are on IVF, others who are just having continual miscarrages, and the message is the same once we are over 35 we are just too old."

I really really hope that none of these friends of yours are members of Mumsnet. I also hope despite your very strong feelings on this issue that you are still able to feel at least a small inkling of sympathy for these heartbroken women - Sopie included.

Swipe left for the next trending thread