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

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

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

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

Thank you RhapsodyBrat :flowers:
Yes they were :flowers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Royal Family of Jordan

Prince Hamzah
Princesses Iman and Raiyah

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

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

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

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.

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.

Yes I believe Eugenie was a c-section delivery.

[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

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.