The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Life and Lifestyle (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/)
-   -   Royals Born By Caesarean (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/royals-born-by-caesarean-10488.html)

kil 07-05-2004 06:01 AM

Royals Born By Caesarean
 
Do you know how royals are born ?

=> by ceasarean ?

=> or normally ?

royal_sophietje 07-05-2004 07:04 AM

Catharina-Amalia, normal birth
Willem-Alexander, Constatijn and Johan-Friso: ceasarean
Queen Beatrix: normal
Late Queen Juliana: normal
Princess Diana of Wales: normal
Prince William and Harry: normal
Lady Louise Windsor (daughter of the Wessexs) : ceasarean

liv 07-05-2004 03:38 PM

Maud Angelica Behn - natural
Princess Ingrid Alexandra - natural
Princess Louise of Belgium- natural
Princess Laeticia of Belgium- natural
Princess Elisabeth of Belgium - ceasarean
Prince Gabriel- natural

corazon 07-05-2004 04:53 PM

Peter and Zara phillips--Normal
Princess Beatrice of York--normal
Princess Eugenie of York--Ceasarean

SpiffyBallerina 07-05-2004 08:32 PM

Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark=caesarean
Prince Joachim of Denmark=natural

Josefine 02-07-2005 12:29 PM

is this information public or is it rumours?

SpiffyBallerina 02-07-2005 12:51 PM

I read the facts of Frederik and Joachim's birth from QMII's memiors. I don't think there's a more reliable source than their own mother!
As for the others, I am sure that Elisabeth of Belgium was caesarean and her brother, Gabriel, was not.

kil 02-08-2005 01:40 PM

What about the little princes of Greece ? (Olympia, Constantin, Achilleas, Odysseas, Arrietta & Ana-Maria ?)

The children of Spain ? (Juan, Pablo, Miguel, Froilan & Victoria)

Nikolai and Felix of Denmark ?

:)

ally_cooper 02-09-2005 05:39 AM

The Urdangarin Kids were born by natural part.
Froilan and Victoria de Marichalar born by caesarean.
Arrietta and Ana Maria were born by natural part.

ElisaR 02-09-2005 07:55 PM

Queen Elizabeth II: ceasarean

Prince Philip: ...on the dinner table

Elsa M. 02-09-2005 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElisaR
Prince Philip: ...on the dinner table

:D Really? Is that universally known?... poor lady :o

norwegianne 10-08-2005 10:29 AM

I think it very much, as with commoners, depend on the situation.

LaChicaMadrilena 10-08-2005 10:38 AM

And what about Prince Felipe of Spain? He must have been such a big baby... I meen... LOOONG!:D

Warren 10-08-2005 10:56 AM

Prince Philip
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elsa M.
:D Really? Is that universally known?... poor lady :o

Yes Elsa, another of the fascinating background stories of Prince Philip. The family were staying at Mon Repos, their house in Corfu; his mother, Princess Alice (aka Andrew of Greece) "was thirty-six and in a high state of nerves from other than natural and immediate causes, and was thought by the doctor to stand a better chance." So on doctor's orders Prince Philip was delivered on the dining-room table.
source: "Philip" by Basil Boothroyd

kelly1972 10-11-2005 03:57 PM

Queen Elizabeth had all of her children by c-section. And as far as I know all of her grandchildren except Eugenie and Louise were born natually. All of the grandchildren were born in hospitals.

Her_Majesty 08-10-2006 03:41 AM

Royals born by Caesarean
 
I wondered: Which Royal babys have been born by Caesarean?

I just know about Prince Willem-Alexander (*1967) and Infanta Leonor (*2005)! :flowers:

Does anyone know about other Royals?

Regards

UserDane 08-10-2006 03:55 AM

Crown prince Frederik of Denmark was born by caesarean.

RhapsodyBrat 08-10-2006 03:57 AM

Infanta Leonor's eldest cousin Froilan was born through C-section, and so will Princess Kiko's soon-to-be-born third child.

I read that Queen Elizabeth II was born through the same manner, is that true? her granddaughter, Lady Louise Windsor was born through emergency C-section. i can only imagine the scare and the nervousness felt by her parents.:unhappy:

liv 08-10-2006 07:52 AM

Princess Mathilde gave birth to Princess Elisabeth by caesarian section.

kelly1972 08-10-2006 09:51 AM

I had read that Queen Elizabeth II had all 4 of her children by caesearean . Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward at Buckingham Palace and Princess Anne at Clarence House. As for her grandchildren all I know is that Lady Louise was born by c-section.

betina 08-10-2006 10:00 AM

I heard that King Edward 6. was born by c.section too

Her_Majesty 08-10-2006 10:06 AM

does anyone know about Prince Friso and Prince Constantijn? did Beatrix gave birth to them by a ceasarean , too?

*SofiaM* 08-10-2006 10:52 AM

I'm no expert on births but is there a limit as to how many times you can have a C-section? Is there a time when doctors advise you to do so or???:blush: :biggrin: Thanks!

Oppie 08-10-2006 10:59 AM

There is no limit to how many you can have. Many times especially in the past once you had one c-section, all of your other children would also need to be born that way, but this does not always happen (Princess Mathilde is a good example)

Current thinking suggests that you wait 18 months between kids, but that is subjective and it doesn't matter how the first baby was born. I think if you had two children close together and the first was caesearan then the second one would be more likley to be born the same way.

Reasons for having a caesearn depend. In some cases the mother requests it, it was very popular in the between 60-80's. Other could be for medical reasons the baby is 'upside down' (Princess Elisabeth along with non royal baby Shiloh Jolie-Pitt) other times labour is progressing to slowly (Infanta Leonor), medical emergency (Lady Lousie Windsor) or high risk pregnancy such as twins (Prince Nicholas and Aymeric)

betina 08-10-2006 11:02 AM

One of my freinds in Denmark was born by cesarian and her mother was told that she could only have 4 children that way.

*SofiaM* 08-10-2006 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betina
One of my freinds in Denmark was born by cesarian and her mother was told that she could only have 4 children that way.

Yes that was the reason I'd asked. I thought I'd heard somewhere that women are advised to have only 3 children that way. (But what do I know??) :rolleyes:

Thanks for your reply oppie. :flowers:

Bella 08-10-2006 12:43 PM

Wasn't Princess Eugenie born by Ceasarian?

pretoriana18 08-10-2006 12:49 PM

Guillaume of Luxemburgo born by cesarian too...

selrahc4 08-10-2006 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly1972
I had read that Queen Elizabeth II had all 4 of her children by caesearean . Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward at Buckingham Palace and Princess Anne at Clarence House.

None of the Queen's children were born by ceasarean...where did you read that?

princess leonor 08-10-2006 01:45 PM

Not only Froilan but also Infanta Elena's daughter Victoria Federica was born by cesearian.

SusanE 08-10-2006 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betina
I heard that King Edward 6. was born by c.section too

This is an old wives' tale. Edward was born on October 12 and his mother Jane Seymour died on October 24. Women who had caesareans at this time did not survive, let alone survive for 12 days. Jane died of puerperal fever also called childbed fever. There are various dates given for the first successful caesarean and all are either in the late 1700s or the 1800s.

Henri M. 08-10-2006 05:40 PM

Queen Beatrix and Princess Máxima
 
When Princess Máxima delivered her first baby and the doctors gave a live televized press conference and told the Princess delivered it via natural way, there was surprise with many journalists and reporters on the various channels.

In 1967, 1968 and 1969 the then Princess Beatrix gave birth to Prince Willem-Alexander, Prince Friso respectively Prince Constantijn. All three of them via a caesarean. (In Dutch: keizersnede (Emperor's Cut) And that while eeeh... Princess Beatrix was 'well equipped' (broad hips) for a smooth delivery.

It was more or less expected that also Princess Máxima wanted to do it 'the royal way' but she did it all by herself.

:flowers:

Lady Jennifer 08-10-2006 06:50 PM

I never heard that Queen Elizabeth had her kids by C-section. How was Princes Aiko of Japan born? C-section or Natural?
Yes I've heard that as well. My friend has 3 kids...first was born natural- 2nd was C-section (she had a 10pound baby boy). They told her to wait at least a year & a half before even trying to have a 3rd....well needless to say- it didn't happen (her 3rd came a year later & by C-section)
They say it can put a strain on your body to have C-sections so close together (or something like that).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Oppie
Current thinking suggests that you wait 18 months between kids, but that is subjective and it doesn't matter how the first baby was born. I think if you had two children close together and the first was caesearan then the second one would be more likley to be born the same way.


Oppie 08-10-2006 06:58 PM

In cases like this it is always strongly suggested, but not enforced rules, if you have four caesearans and get pregnant again, the doctors really have no choice, they can't force a natural birth. Same with having two children close together.

I have also heard that Queen Elizabeth and her mother had c-sections for all there children but I can't find a link. On the other hand Prince Philip was born on the dining room table (but I don't know if this is a urban legend or true)

Mari_* 08-10-2006 07:30 PM

What about Christian Of Denmark??

mandyy 08-10-2006 07:59 PM

Princess Kiko of Japan is going to give birth to her 3rd child by c-section probably on Sept. 6, 2006.

RhapsodyBrat 08-10-2006 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mari_*
What about Christian Of Denmark??

Prince Christian was born through normal delivery.:smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by betina
One of my freinds in Denmark was born by cesarian and her mother was told that she could only have 4 children that way.

that's what i know too, and what we're told. i have two friends who have 3 siblings each because they were all born through C-section. but then, i have another classmate who has 7 siblings and they were all born through C-section.:idea: so i guess it can depend on the woman's capacities and how your doctor can handle it.

kelly1972 08-11-2006 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4
None of the Queen's children were born by ceasarean...where did you read that?

I believe I read it in the book Royal Children by Ingrid Seward(Editor in chief of Majesty Magazine). I will double check to make sure it is correct.

LaChicaMadrilena 08-11-2006 09:38 AM

Laura Ponte, wife of King Juan Carlos nephew, Beltran Gomez Acebo, gave birth to her two kids via caesarean.

*SofiaM* 08-11-2006 11:37 AM

How about Marius, Ingrid and Sverre?

Cmd 08-11-2006 01:16 PM

For Ingrid and Sverre, I would imagine it was a natural birth as she left the hospital the same day!

Avalon 08-11-2006 04:36 PM

Marius was born through natural delivery as well. Good for Princess Mette-Marit! :flowers: 3 kids - all natural.

Her_Majesty 08-11-2006 04:40 PM

What about Haakon Magnus and Märtha Louise? I think Sonja gave birth through natural delivery as well, didn't she?:huh:

*SofiaM* 08-11-2006 06:41 PM

Also Infantas Elena, Cristina and Felipe. They were born through a natural delivery I'm sure. I could be wrong!

Mari_* 08-11-2006 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RhapsodyBrat
Prince Christian was born through normal delivery.:smile:

Thank you RhapsodyBrat :flowers:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ...sOfIa....
Also Infantas Elena, Cristina and Felipe. They were born through a natural delivery I'm sure. I could be wrong!

Yes they were :flowers:

Lakshmi 08-12-2006 01:17 AM

I heard Alexandra of Denmark had a difficult delivery of one of her sons. Did she have Caesarean?

wymanda 08-12-2006 02:31 AM

Princess Margaret of Great Britain was born by C-Section at Glamis Castle in Scotland in 1930.

LaPlusBelle 08-12-2006 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oppie
In cases like this it is always strongly suggested, but not enforced rules, if you have four caesearans and get pregnant again, the doctors really have no choice, they can't force a natural birth. Same with having two children close together.

I have also heard that Queen Elizabeth and her mother had c-sections for all there children but I can't find a link. On the other hand Prince Philip was born on the dining room table (but I don't know if this is a urban legend or true)

In Majesty by Robert Lacey (1974), it is stated that the Queen Mum gave birth to QEII by caesarean (pg 3).

tigerlilly2005 08-13-2006 06:24 PM

louis and puline ducruet were born bei c-section.and camille gottlieb too.

Aussie Princess 08-13-2006 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda
Princess Margaret of Great Britain was born by C-Section at Glamis Castle in Scotland in 1930.

How can they make a caesarean in an at home birth? wouldn't they have to be taken to hospital?

LaPlusBelle 08-14-2006 11:11 PM

They all had their own anesthetists (sp?) and doctors and such, didn't they?

hilal 08-16-2006 05:59 AM

In Royal Family of Jordan

Prince Hamzah
Princesses Iman and Raiyah

betina 08-16-2006 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakshmi
I heard Alexandra of Denmark had a difficult delivery of one of her sons. Did she have Caesarean?

I didnt hear that. She had an epidural with both of her boys but that is very normal to have that. She delivered naturaly

Piaa 08-17-2006 07:08 AM

A friend of mine had her first via C-section and 6 weeks after the birth fell pregnant again (c-section delivery again)

Whether a natural or c-section delivery they always recommend your body takes a break of at least 12-18 months before the next pregnancy

Mwa 08-17-2006 04:36 PM

Princess claire of belgium had her twins (Aymeric and Nicolas) by C - section

LadyK 01-07-2007 10:49 AM

I'm more curious as to why some of these royals had a ceasarean- where they elective or required? I understand why some of the subsequent births were ceasarean, as it wasn't until quite recently that doctors have been saying that a women can have a vaginal birth after a ceasarean birth, but why were the first ones born by ceasarean?

I know Letizia had Leonor vis c-section because Leo was in the breech position (buttocks first), which can cause serious problems to the baby, as it may not get enough air during the birth.

Oppie 01-07-2007 11:36 AM

In terms of being required. There would be two different kinds the first is 'crash' which means something happens and they need to get the baby out right away. The second would be a problem in which it would be safer to have a caesarean.

Lady Louise Windsor would have been a crash, because the placenta tore so she needed to be born right away to save both her and her mothers life.

I would also make an educated guess that the Belgium twins (Nicolas and Aymeric) were also crash since we first heard that Claire was on bed rest and then she had the twins soon after. Without knowing the details I would guess that they tried to stop her labour, but something happened with one of the twins and they decided that it was safer for them to be born right away.

In the second category is Elisabeth of Belgium who was breach, Leonor of Spain who (as my understanding) had non progressive labour (labour stopped or slowed down) and caesearn becomes the safer option. If I was wrong about the Belgium twins then I would say that they were a high risk pregnancy which also means the caesarean is safer.

I don't know about the older kids, but again guessing that caesarearn was the norm for some of them when they were born, so I guess that would fall under the elective side.

Penny Lane 01-07-2007 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella
Wasn't Princess Eugenie born by Ceasarian?

Yes I believe Eugenie was a c-section delivery.

scooter 01-07-2007 10:20 PM

[quote=Oppie]There is no limit to how many you can have. Many times especially in the past once you had one c-section, all of your other children would also need to be born that way, but this does not always happen (Princess Mathilde is a good example)

Current thinking suggests that you wait 18 months between kids, but that is subjective and it doesn't matter how the first baby was born. I think if you had two children close together and the first was caesearan then the second one would be more likley to be born the same way.
In the USA, women are advised to not have more than three c sections. In fact you are advised after two, to consider not having another pregnancy. The reason is that while you open the same incision scar on the skin, each c section produces another incision on the uterus, in a different location. This leads to weak spots in the uterine wall. If one goes into labor, there is an increased chance, with each additional scar on the uterus, of a rupture which would cause rapid maternal fatality

TLLK 01-08-2007 12:56 AM

Scooter- I agree. My ob-gyn made it quite clear that after two C-sections that any future children would also be born by C-section as well.

Sometimes the size of the child makes a natural delivery impossible. My second child had very broad shoulders and a large head, so even my C-section was some what difficult.

Biri 08-19-2009 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pretoriana18 (Post 489396)
Guillaume of Luxemburgo born by cesarian too...

Which one? The current Heir or his uncle?
King Robert II of Scotland was also born via Cesarean. His mother Marjorie Bruce, the daughter of Robert I Bruce, died at birth.

Biri 08-19-2009 04:09 PM

I wonder how many Royals were born premature and survived?
I remember:
Emperor Claudius of Rome (10 BC - 54 AD)
Robert II, King of Scotland (1316 - 90)
Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (1864 - 92) the eldest son of the future King Edward VII of Great Britain
Lady Louise Windsor (b.2003)
Alexandra Long (b. 2007) the youngest grandchild of Princess Ragnhild of Norway and her husband Erling Lorentzen; the only child of their youngest daughter Ragnhild Alexandra (b.1968) and her husband Aaron Long

Do you know about some more?:flowers:

The second and last birth of Queen Silvia were homebirths, as well as the second one of Empress Farah (she wrote that in her Memories):
Prince Carl Philip's - in the Royal Palace (Kungliga Slottet) in the centre of Stockholm
Princess Madeleine's - in the Drottnindholm Castle near Stockholm
I wonder if it was the Queen's choice to give birth at home or the births simply "went very fast"? And was the King present at them?
As refers to Empress of Iran I suppose it was the second option; she gave birth in the dentistic cabinet...gosh, I hope Shah didn't hear her screams...

So Prince Philip was premature??

magnik 08-19-2009 04:56 PM

I read somewhere that all children of Bertie and Alexandra were born premature.
Because Alexandra doesn't want presence of her mother-in-law Victoria during
childbirths she always give her wrong date of the all deliveries.

Infanta Leonor (2005- ) - premature about month, caesarean
Infanta Sofia (2007- ) - after due date, same as sister by c-section
Princes Nicolas and Aymeric born premature on 13 Dec 2005; date of due was Jan 2006
Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich (1891-1941) -2 months earlier
Elizabeth I (1533 - 1603) - premature

Mari_* 08-19-2009 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaChicaMadrilena
And what about Prince Felipe of Spain? He must have been such a big baby... I meen... LOOONG!:D

:smile: Well actually it was a natural birth, very quick and pain-free! So I've read!! He was 55cm long, not to long :lol: I was 54cm!

Iluvbertie 08-19-2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly1972 (Post 299364)
Queen Elizabeth had all of her children by c-section. And as far as I know all of her grandchildren except Eugenie and Louise were born natually. All of the grandchildren were born in hospitals.


Can you tell me where you heard that all her children were born by C-section?

I can't find that in any of the books I have on either her or her children.

Angelica 08-26-2009 04:12 PM

Does anyone know anything about Crown Prince Frederik's birth? He was born with C-section but why? I have heard that his mother had huge difficulty delivering him at the palace so she was admitted to the hospital to have a C-section! Is that true? If yes, does anyone know anything more about it?

Maura724 08-26-2009 05:16 PM

Yes, that's true, but I'm not sure exactly what happened - I've heard it was dangerous for both the mother and the baby and that there was some sort of medical emergency. There was a royal forums newsletter once which mentioned Frederik's birth in passing, but it sounded like there was a brief time when they weren't sure if either of the two would survive. Whatever was wrong must have been just a chance happening, because Joachim was delivered naturally a year later and everything was fine. Margrethe herself doesn't give very many details in her memoir, simply noting (with her usual magnificent aplomb and dignity) that she found all the drama "annoying."

Maybe there are some Danish members who know more?

ashelen 08-26-2009 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maura724 (Post 984462)
Yes, that's true, but I'm not sure exactly what happened - I've heard it was dangerous for both the mother and the baby and that there was some sort of medical emergency. There was a royal forums newsletter once which mentioned Frederik's birth in passing, but it sounded like there was a brief time when they weren't sure if either of the two would survive. Whatever was wrong must have been just a chance happening, because Joachim was delivered naturally a year later and everything was fine. Margrethe herself doesn't give very many details in her memoir, simply noting (with her usual magnificent aplomb and dignity) that she found all the drama "annoying."

Maybe there are some Danish members who know more?

why annoying? i would say worry, if her or the child wehre in danger! anyones knows really what happen?

Katrianna 08-27-2009 01:44 AM

The Queen by saying she found all the drama "annoying", it was probably that she didn't like being fussed over and may have been embarrassed. In all fairness the Queen may not have been told of the actual danger so as to keep her calm. I've worked in Labor and Delivery and sometimes we had to keep the real situation from the mother until after a safe delivery because we didn't need a panicked mother to add to the emergency. Sometimes we moved so fast that the mother really didn't know about danger until after the surgery.

amina1 08-27-2009 03:35 AM

I guess royals or non royals, most women decide to go with C-section only if it's necessary (big baby, wrong position, premature birth..), they say it's better to do the it natural way, recovery is faster then the C-section,
But what amazes me the most is Princess Letizia of Spain; how slim she ends up looking only 3 months after giving birth to a big baby (ex; Leonor) by C-section, I mean flat stomach :ohmy:,
& it's much difficult or challenging to lose stomach baby weight after a C-section...tummy tuck..I don't think so!!
Any ideas??

salma 08-27-2009 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hilal (Post 491767)
In Royal Family of Jordan

Prince Hamzah
Princesses Iman and Raiyah

Are you sure?

Maura724 08-27-2009 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katrianna (Post 984563)
The Queen by saying she found all the drama "annoying", it was probably that she didn't like being fussed over and may have been embarrassed. In all fairness the Queen may not have been told of the actual danger so as to keep her calm. I've worked in Labor and Delivery and sometimes we had to keep the real situation from the mother until after a safe delivery because we didn't need a panicked mother to add to the emergency. Sometimes we moved so fast that the mother really didn't know about danger until after the surgery.

Yes, and even if she had been worried at the time, she seems like the type who later on would have been very calmly thinking, "well, all that was rather a lot of fuss about nothing."

Biri 08-28-2009 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salma (Post 984620)
Are you sure?

In memories of Queen Noor, which I read, I can think it was Rayiah only

RADKER18 09-03-2009 10:22 AM

All of Princess Stephanie Children were born by C-Section I know Louis was because his umbilical cord was wrapped around his body , Not sure why the other 2 were also .

Biri 06-01-2010 11:54 AM

Bacause it passed only 17 months after first C-section, also Pauline had to be born via this way.
And for the woman after two Caesarians, it's too risky to give birth naturally.

As for premature babies: Also Prince Karim Aga Khan was such a baby.

Angelica 06-24-2010 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiffyBallerina (Post 110264)
Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark=caesarean
Prince Joachim of Denmark=natural

Ok, that I can't understand! How could Prince Joachim, who is only almost a year younger than Prince Frederik, be born naturally after a caesarian? There is always a danger of complications if there is a natural birth after a caesarian, which in this case happened 12 months before!!

Can someone explain?

Maura724 06-24-2010 12:13 PM

I don't have any idea about the medical details involved, Angelica, but I do know that Margrethe mentions the issue briefly in the book "Queen in Denmark":

"A caesarian was considered [for Joachim], but the doctors judged that he could manage by himself."

So I guess for some reason they must have thought the risk of complications was minimal, but I don't know why.

Duchessmary 06-24-2010 12:23 PM

Doctors now a days are usually in favor of a "natural" birth if the previous one was a c-section.

Nathalie Cox 06-24-2010 12:29 PM

What about Caroline, Albert and Stephanie?
And about Andrea, Charlotte, Pierre and Alexandra?
I don't know why i have the impression that the Casiraghis were born in the natural way, while Alexandra was born by a c-section

kelly1972 08-27-2010 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 982197)
Can you tell me where you heard that all her children were born by C-section?

I can't find that in any of the books I have on either her or her children.


If I can remember correctly it was in the book Royal Children by Majesty editor Ingrid Seward. It was written a long time ago and I think Eugenie is the most recent birth in there. It starts off with the Queen and Philip and goes through their children and then grandchildren and other members of the royal family. It's an awesome book, try to check it out.

Biri 08-28-2010 06:15 AM

But C-section has to be performed in hospital, and all QE,s births were homebirths (all sons in Buckingham Palace, a daugter in Clarence House)

Does anyone know how many royal twins were born naturally:

I remember that the Belgian ones (Nicolas & Aymeric) & the French ones (Luis & Alfonso) were born via C-section, but what about the older ones? (from the previous generation, as to say)

It's supposed that in case of twins, the natural birth of both is possible only when both are in the right position ("heads down")

kathl29 08-28-2010 09:19 AM

Although I don't believe that QE's births were caesareans they could have been performed at the palace.

Other serious operations were carried out at the palace prior to this time they set up a room as an operating theatre - ie they brought all the equipment to the palace instead of taking the patient to the hospital.

mattep74 08-28-2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kil (Post 110028)
Do you know how royals are born ?

=> by ceasarean ?

=> or normally ?

According to the swedish yearbook Aktuellt från 1977, 1979 and 1982 all three royal kids in Sweden are born normally. Victoria is the only one born in a hospital, Karolinska hospital, since it was Silvias first delivery.

CarlP and Madde are born at the Royal Palace in Stockholm.

And in another note: The king missed Victorias birth since he was in another part of Sweden and missed CarlPs since he was on a official visit to West Germany

Biri 08-28-2010 12:49 PM

Madeleine was born in Drottningholm Palace, not in the Royal Palace in Stockholm, like her brother.

Esmerelda 02-15-2011 06:09 PM

Princess Elisabeth of Belgium had to be born by Caesarian. I read somewhere that the umbilical cord got wrapped around her neck at one point,

Tsar bobo Iv 05-29-2012 04:29 PM

were all of princess Margaret children born by C-section

Molly2101 05-29-2012 07:03 PM

We were just discussing the risk of having a normal delivery after a c-section at work today (I am a midwife), and our Registrar was saying that the risks of having a normal delivery and the uterus rupturing is very limited, as opposed to the risk associated with a subsequent c-section. VBAC (the term used to describe normal births after a c-section) statistics are quite good in a lot of places, I just think that in many of the Royal situations it is perhaps a case of "you have had one before, just have another one incase anything were to go wrong." I read Sophie requested to have another c-section with James, mainly because the situation with Louise was so traumatic she did not want to relive it, and she also wanted Edward to be there. This is quite a common reason for having a c-section (previous traumatic delivery), which is a fair reason as a prior traumatic delivery can severely effect a woman's abililty to bond with their baby.

I also heard that Queen Elizabeth had her children naturally, it was just her mother who had to have c-sections. There were also rumours that the Queen Mother had ferility problems, though I am not sure how concrete those are.

Eugenie was breech, hence why Sarah had a c-section, but she also had scoliosis which perhaps added to the reasoning behind it.

Biri 05-30-2012 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1421802)
I read Sophie requested to have another c-section with James, mainly because the situation with Louise was so traumatic she did not want to relive it, and she also wanted Edward to be there. This is quite a common reason for having a c-section (previous traumatic delivery), which is a fair reason as a prior traumatic delivery can severely effect a woman's abililty to bond with their baby.

And she was not so young already (nearly 43); it is also a common indication for c-section - older mother, more risk of complications, as I read.
If James had been, for example, her fifth child and all previous four she had naturally, she could have tried to give birth naturally to him, but in her situation...no,no,no. Too risky!

Molly2101 05-30-2012 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri (Post 1422175)
And she was not so young already (nearly 43); it is also a common indication for c-section - older mother, more risk of complications, as I read.
If James had been, for example, her fifth child and all previous four she had naturally, she could have tried to give birth naturally to him, but in her situation...no,no,no. Too risky!

Yes, it is true that a lot of "older mothers" choose to have c-sections as it is deemed to be safer. After the age of 40, one's body does not labour as well as it is essentially "tired". The risk of ending up with an emergency section due to "failure to progress" is considerably higher than say if one was 25. (I hate the term older mother as I do not feel 40 is old, but in terms of procreation anything over the age of 35 is considered old.) IVF is also another reason for c-sections too, which we are to believe James was. (Some articles state he was a natural conception, other state he was IVF. We will never really know.)

Biri 06-03-2012 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1422378)
IVF is also another reason for c-sections too, which we are to believe James was. (Some articles state he was a natural conception, other state he was IVF. We will never really know.)

My mother's friend had IVF and gave birth naturally (Age 34, first child).

More premature babies: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Cassius Taylor (although I read in some English newspaper an interview with Lady Helen soon after the birth of Estelle, that she had to have all her children a month early due to some problems with her liver);)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...orn-reign.html

Molly2101 06-14-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri (Post 1424276)
My mother's friend had IVF and gave birth naturally (Age 34, first child).

It is rare but it does happen. They often tend to induce IVF babies earlier than other babies, also due to the fact that they are "more precious". I disagree completely with it as all babies are precious, but IVF is treated very differently. This is the norm for the hospital I work at, as well as surrounding areas.

Meraude 06-14-2012 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1430445)
It is rare but it does happen. They often tend to induce IVF babies earlier than other babies, also due to the fact that they are "more precious". I disagree completely with it as all babies are precious, but IVF is treated very differently. This is the norm for the hospital I work at, as well as surrounding areas.

In Sweden I would say that the norm is natural births even with IVF babies, but it's true that there are more caecareans and induced deliveries when it comes to IVF babies, the reason is due to the mother's age (older mothers) and as doctors know the pregnancy lenght in an IVF pregnancy and don't want the pregancies be more than 7 days overdue.

Molly2101 06-14-2012 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1430455)
In Sweden I would say that the norm is natural births even with IVF babies, but it's true that there are more caecareans and induced deliveries when it comes to IVF babies, the reason is due to the mother's age (older mothers) and as doctors know the pregnancy lenght in an IVF pregnancy and don't want the pregancies be more than 7 days overdue.

I have read research that Sweden is well known for it's normal delivery rates, much more than the United Kingdom. I would love to visit a Swedish Maternity Unit.

It is true that the main reasons for the increased c-section number is due to maternal age. Women over the age of 40 do not labour particularly well, therefore they are not often given the chance to proceed to a normal delivery as complications occur.

Meraude 06-14-2012 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1430459)
I have read research that Sweden is well known for it's normal delivery rates, much more than the United Kingdom.

In the county where I live 80% of all deliveries were vaginal, 12,5% planned caecareans and the rest unplanned/emergency caecareans in 2011.

Rice 11-22-2012 02:44 PM

Does anyone know about Queen Paola's pregnancies? And Princess Astrid?

sarahedwards2 11-23-2012 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101

It is true that the main reasons for the increased c-section number is due to maternal age. Women over the age of 40 do not labour particularly well, therefore they are not often given the chance to proceed to a normal delivery as complications occur.

My mom's youngest brother was born when my grandma was 41, he was full term and I think born naturally. He was the last of my grandparents' 6 children. But my mom was 43 when my youngest brother was born, and she had him C-section 10 weeks early because of placental separation, just like Sophie and Louise. My mom laboured for 30 hours; after feeling her fluid start to leak, she went straight to the hospital after dropping me off at morning kindergarten, and my brother was born the next afternoon.

Archduchess Zelia 11-23-2012 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri (Post 1130246)
Does anyone know how many royal twins were born naturally:

I remember that the Belgian ones (Nicolas & Aymeric) & the French ones (Luis & Alfonso) were born via C-section, but what about the older ones? (from the previous generation, as to say)

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark delivered her twins, Vincent and Josephine, naturally.

HereditaryPrincess 11-23-2012 09:20 PM

I'm not sure whether this is the right thread for my question, but does anyone know how many royal children were born at home? Or are most of them born in hospital nowadays? I think that two of the Behn sisters were born at Martha Louise's and Ari's county residence, but apart from that I'm not sure.

Mariel 11-23-2012 10:16 PM

Reaching way back into Scottish royal history, Margery, wife of a Stewart, was delivered of her baby Robert at an abbey near where she fell off her horse while hugely pregnant. She died (probably of blood loss) and a skilled person at the abbey successfully delivered the infant, who later became king.
Margery was the daughter of the famous leader Robert the Bruce. Her husband was one of the "hereditary stewards" who eventually became hereditary kings of Scotland. The kings were elected in those days. Margery's son, born by caesarean, did become King Robert.
I see now that Biri already "announced" this birth in history.

sarahedwards2 03-19-2013 12:46 AM

I read in "The Royals" by Kitty Kelley that Charles was born by C-section, and that Elizabeth was under general anesthesia for it. I don't know the reasoning behind it; but the Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) isn't much bigger than me (5'4" vs. my 5'2"), and you try delivering a 7 lb. 6 oz. baby naturally at my size. Also, I am now older than she was when Charles was born (she was 22 years 208 days, and I'm 22 years 219 days). I can't imagine the prospect of having a baby at my age in this decade! I'm waiting a few more years to at least get married, and then I'll think about childbearing (even though I've been fertile for almost 10 years now).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises