The royal baby due date has come and gone… and gone… and gone… leading some observers to theorize that maybe Kate Middleton either wasn’t entirely correct or entirely honest about when her firstborn is due.
Reports had said the baby for Kate and Prince William was due July 11, but now close to a week later there are still few signs of progress on delivery. Crowds of curious onlookers and reporters have been camped out in front of the Lindo Wing of St. Mary’s Hospital for days hoping to catch a glimpse of the Duchess of Cambridge as she prepares to give birth, but so far they’ve gotten nothing.
Even last week, when Kate Middleton went to the hospital for a routine checkup, she managed to evade press, who only found out later that she’d been there that day.
Tabloids, hungry or some kind of update about the royal baby due date, have been searching for clues that could tell when Kate Middleton will go into labor.
One tidbit came from the Daily Mail , which reported that Duchess Camilla told some people at the Little Harbour children’s hospice in Cornwall, “We are all just waiting by the telephone. We are hopeful that by the end of the week he or she will be here.” That unsubstantiated report has led to speculation that Kate Middleton may have been wrong about her due date, or that the royal family fed false information to the press to throw them off.
That seems unlikely. If Kate Middleton were to lie about her due date to throw off the close to 180 reporters camped outside the hospital or thousands more across the globe ready to report on the royal baby, she would be more likely to give a later date. That would have kept the reporters in the dark until the little boy or girl were born.
The most likely answer is that the royal baby due date is being pushed back by mother nature.
Kate Middleton still may have a trick up her sleeve to keep reporters from knowing the royal baby due date. USA Today reports that Middleton has made backup plans to have the baby not at St. Mary’s but at a hospital near her parents place in Buckelbury.
