that could explain why some scandinavians are so well behaved…
British bookies weigh in: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/05/world/europe/britain-royal-baby-name/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
I’m guessing July 12th, and a girl. “Princess Charlotte” would be nice.
Well, so much for July 12th…
I think she lied to us about the due date. I can hardly blame her given the media frenzy. The last month of pregnancy is hard enough without the entire world checking every five seconds to see if you’ve birthed already.
She never told us a due date. Just “mid-July,” which is what it still is. And the fetus doesn’t have a calendar.
The media-invented due date was the 13th. Obviously the baby wasn’t born then, but it still could have been the due date. Or maybe her due date is the 19th and it won’t actually happen until August 1st.
I am going to put my money on July 22. Then the kid can share a birthday with my daughter.
I thought she had specified one. Score one for her then. I do not envy her all that scrutiny. Daily enquiries from my neighbors and close relatives were bad enough the last time I was pregnant. I cannot imagine having a few billion people wanting to ask you that question.
I did.
My daughter’s due date was October 3. I added two weeks and told everyone my due date was October 17 - figuring first deliveries are often late and that was the absolute day they’d wait to induce and that by October 3rd I would already be very tired of “haven’t you had that baby yet.”
She was born September 20 - and at seven and a half pounds was HUGE for a baby everyone thought was a month early 
Kate’s early hospitalization for severe morning sickness would have played havoc with any plans to mislead about the due date. It was said at the time that she was under the 12 week “safe” point but they disclosed the news as they couldn’t leave her hospital stay unexplained. She’s since been reckoned to be about 10 weeks along.
Usually when they lie about a due date, they claim it’s further out so they will be under less scrutiny when it really rolls around. If they’d fibbed and said she was due mid-August, anyone who could count could figure out she would only have been six weeks along at the time she was hospitalized. It doesn’t seem believable that they’d announce a pregnancy six weeks in, unexplained hospital visit or no.
If she was really twelve weeks in when they said ten, she doesn’t really buy any time as two weeks past due is still roughly on time. She could reach 42 weeks right on the day she’d lied about being due.
I’d think they’d fudge the date by at least a month to buy themselves time, and I can’t imagine the doctors have let her run a month over due.
If they want BADASS, they’ll have to work “Shaft” into the names. They’d have to come up with a new arrangement for “God Save The King.” though.
Have you no faith in Rule #34 
NOW look what you’ve done, Sam. It’s freaking roasting in London these days.
I always knew I could affect the weather that way. 
No, really. Last “summer” I bought two big fans and you know what happened then.
Looks like you might be lucky, then, but don’t expect them to name it after her.
BBC reports the Duchess is in the early stages of labor (labour) and has been taken to the hospital.
Hope the doctor has a big catcher’s mitt.
Push your Royal Highness! Push!!!
I say old chap. Do they take breaks for tea and scones during labor? 
I bought an aircon unit last year, so am happy to take the blame.
It’s incredible to think this new heir might not take the throne for 60 years. He/she will rule in the next century.
Charles is 64 and still waiting. Then William gets his time as king. Quite a wait for this new heir.
I would guess, that if Charles and William stay healthy, the coming heir will have a reign that won’t be all that long.
If William lives to be at least the age Elizabeth is now that would make the heir to be in it’s fifties before becoming the monarch.