Edward and Sophie's baby

[LucieB]

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....

I read gosh2's comment last night and was too shocked to reply. A lot of you have since posted what I felt. I'm nearly 34, hubby is 37 and we've not finished our family yet. We have a dd and have had a few set backs this year. Don't think I'm too old at all! Thanks for saying what you all have said .
So pleased that Sophie and her little girl are back together. Now maybe they can choose a name for her!!

Well, as others have said, what nonsense Gosh2 talks! I wasn't too old to have dd at 34 or ds at 37. We concieved both of them naturally, even though dh had testicular cancer before we were ttc.

What a relief that mum and baby are fine and Sophie must be ecstatic to be able to cuddle her little bundle - congratulations to them both. (You never know, when they get home Sophie may visit this site.)

I had my first aged 20 and my last aged 35. I must say that at 35 I felt ancient compared to how I felt at 20. However, so long as we can still ovulate nature must think we are suitably youthful for parenthood. So Gosh2, stop playing God.

I'm really pleased they have been able to see each other and wish them all the luck in the world as new parents. I guessed abruption and heavy blood loss for poor Sophie, I hope she has someone on hand to recommend heaps of Floradix and arnica.
Also feel gosh2's comments are out of place on this thread and pretty insensitive in general.

Just read today that in the 1940's, prior to contraception, 1 in 5 births were to women over 40. It used to be fairly commonplace, allbeit not the women's first child. Nowadays when women are giving birth to fewer children they should be even more capable of giving birth at this age.

Gosh2, I've know you've been posting for a while, and I hope you were just having a bad day. I don't suppose it's nice to see all this stuff, but it really does strike at your heart to be told you are too old to have your much loved child. I don't want to get personal, but your comments hurt me. Being an older mother isn't all gravy - I worry quite a bit whenever I read about people who die in their 40s about whether I will see my son into adulthood, let alone see and know my grandchidren, but it doesn't help to be criticised for having him when I was married to the man I knew I'd stay with and would be a wonderful father.
Older mothers give their children lots of advantages too, you know. And 35 is NOT too old. Studies show that around 70% of 40 year old women who have never had children will get pregnant in a yaer - nature clearly doesn't think they are too old.

Gosh2 - What a ludicrous concept!! 35 too old???
Made me laugh.

My Mum had my 1st brother aged 36 and the 2nd on her 40th birthday!

Really.... what AAAARE you talking about, where do you get your info?

I've re-read gosh2's post and whilst she's obviously wrong- or at least over simplified something I'm sure that she didn't mean to be offensive.

There has been a lot of rubbish in the media recently about the so-called dangers of postponing motherhod (and of course we're all meant to find the time to have wonderful careers as well), and there are a lot of misconceptions around. For example I wonder how many people on this thread know that numerically- more babies with Down's Syndrome are born to mother's under 35 than over 35 (not as a %- just sheer numbers because more babies are born to women under 35). I know that young friends with a baby with DS talk of constantly having to "explain" why they have a baby with DS when they are so young.

Anyway I'm glad to hear everyone is reunited and I hope that the little girl has no lasting problems from her rather traumatic entrance into the world.

Another who had a baby over 35, 2nd actually - had dd at age 36 - fell pregnant really easily, without even trying... I am not over the hill yet...

And I had a baby at 42 - she kind of snook up on me while I was busy reading books about the menopause.

how dare GOSH2 write so blithely about 'continual miscarriages'... if you've had them ,even writing those words down is deeply upsetting.

have they named their little girl yet?

I just have a feeling they are going to call her Elizabeth or lily, lilibet.

Does anyone remember how long it was before fergie announced the name of Beatrice.
Iam sure it was about 5 or 6 weeks.

I womder if they will announce her name when they are both released from hospital; kind of as they 'introduce' her to the media.

I bet Elizabeth, Anne or Jane...... or Britney

there was loads of people in the betting shop yesterday - do you think this was why?

dh said it was football..........

Before they announce the name they have to tell the Queen first to seek her approval. Poor Sophie - can you imagine having to consult your MIL before naming your child. Anyway Liz is probably too busy getting the guestvroom ready for George!

Name her after me!!!!!!

I think Elizabeth as well. Or is that Elisabeth?

Imagine having to run it pass your mil, mine wanted siobhan. I bet she names her Kylie or maybe do a posh and becks and call it buckingham or whereever they lived or conceived it.

I heard they are calling her Mooncup.

(but that'll be my geriatric addled brain I expect...)

I was thinking Charlotte or Caroline, but I don't know why. I do remember it being a long time before Beatrice's name was announced.

Maybe we should e-mail them the girl's name thread "Help needed...to find a girl's name" on here today.