Guessing game: There is only one thing which matters, beyond, of course, a safe and happy delivery. And that is the sex of Baby Cambridge
The ‘no parking’ signs have gone up around St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington. London’s smartest florists are on standby. The easel — on which the news from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be transmitted to the world — is polished and waiting by the door of the Buckingham Palace Press Office.
Meanwhile, the bookmakers are already raising a toast to the unborn future monarch. This might have been a very lean spell. Being an odd year, there’s no World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games or Euro Championships for the punters to chew on. At Wimbledon, the only surprise will be if Andy Murray doesn’t do it this year.
But never mind. The bookies are churning out more odds on the poor royal baby than they did on Royal Ascot.
Hair colour, eye colour, names, delivery date? A noisy bloke in a camel hair coat can give you a price.
You can even take a flutter on which magazine will get the first exclusive photos (Horse & Hound at 50:1 anyone?).
There is, though, only one thing which matters, beyond, of course, a safe and happy delivery. And that is the sex of Baby Cambridge.
Constitutionally, we are told that this is no longer of any importance. As the Deputy Prime Minister, architect of the new royal equality reforms, keeps reminding us, this will be the first royal baby born under new non-sexist rules.
And it is, indeed, true that thanks to Nick Clegg’s Succession to the Crown Act, the child, whether boy or girl, will be indisputable heir to the heir to the Heir to the Throne. Previously, any Princess would have been superseded the moment a younger brother came along.
But the sex of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s child still has important implications. If it’s a boy, there will be howls of frustration and anguish from modernisers.
For Mr Clegg’s quest to amend eight ancient pieces of legislation — and then get 15 other Commonwealth parliaments to follow suit — will have been a lot of fuss about nothing. The appetite for any further constitutional meddling will disappear.
The sex of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's child still has important implications. If it's a boy, there will be howls of frustration and anguish from modernisers
What’s more, it will end the so-called sororial rebellion among the aristocracy. Those elder daughters, currently plotting with their human rights lawyers to overturn centuries of male primogeniture and prevent all the estates, titles and Titians going to a younger brother or some dim male cousin, will see their campaign stalled for another generation.
In other words, a boy will be a victory for the status quo. A girl will maintain the momentum for change. What the modernisers are really hoping for is that the Cambridges first produce a girl and subsequently have a boy. For only then will sex equality be truly enshrined in our constitution.
So I have some good news for them. I’m convinced it’s a girl. Seeing a photograph of Flight Lieutenant Wales at the helm of his helicopter the other day, I was reminded of my very first royal scoop, more than 20 years ago.
History repeating? Seeing a photograph of Flight Lieutenant Wales at the helm of his helicopter the other day, Robert was reminded of his very first royal scoop, more than 20 years ago
I happened to be covering a Foyle’s literary luncheon for another newspaper and the guest of honour was the Duchess of York, then celebrating the publication of her book, Budgie The Helicopter.
I well recall broadcaster Sir David Frost’s introductory speech: ‘Ma’am, you have raised the helicopter to a literary art form.’ But, even more clearly, I recall the pre-lunch drinks where I was introduced to the Duchess.
Offered a glass of champagne, she cheerfully replied: ‘No thanks. I’m expecting again!’ The Palace had yet to breathe a word. Here was a world exclusive, served up with the canapes.
Back at the office, I made straight for the library for the latest press cuttings on the Duchess. ‘It’ll be a girl,’ said the librarian nonchalantly.
Back at the office, I made straight for the library for the latest press cuttings on the Duchess. ‘It’ll be a girl,’ said the librarian nonchalantly.
Robert is certainly not saying that pilots don't have sons. But, the more he investigates, the more he finds a pro-girl bias
How did he know? ‘The Duke’s a helicopter pilot. I used to be one and I had girls. All the pilots had girls.’
Six months later, the arrival of Princess Eugenie — a sister for Beatrice — proved him right. And, from my own limited experience, he has been proved right ever since.
I don’t claim to have known many professional helicopter pilots — perhaps half a dozen — but they have all had girls. I hadn’t given it much thought until the sex of the royal baby took on constitution-changing importance.
The Duke of Cambridge, like the Duke of York before him, flies choppers for a living. So too, for that matter, does Prince Harry. And, gradually, I noticed that the ‘evidence’ started stacking up.
A few weeks ago, interviewing an ex-Army North Sea chopper pilot on an unrelated topic, I nudged the subject around to family matters. Bingo. ‘Four girls,’ he replied.
Just this weekend, I was talking to the daughter of a distinguished former Army helicopter pilot. One of three girls, she concurred completely: ‘All my Army childhood friends seemed to be girls.’
Just flimsy anecdotal coincidence? No doubt hover-boys from Culdrose to Cranwell will bombard the Mail with proud photos of bouncing boys to poo-poo my theory.
I am certainly not saying that pilots don’t have sons. But, the more I investigate, the more I find a pro-girl bias.
There has been surprisingly little in the way of serious scientific research on the subject but, what there is points in the same direction.
An obstetrics expert at the University of Texas conducted a 1987 survey among personnel at a U.S. Air Force base and discovered the sex ratio among non-flying personnel was 50:50. Among the fighter pilots, however, the number of boys to girls was an astonishing 38:62.
The report suggested that extremely high G-forces may do something to a chap’s parts which predisposes him to begetting girls. A handful of other reports have aired similar theories about G-force and sperm.
Evidence? A report suggests that extremely high G-forces may do something to a chap's parts which predisposes him to begetting girls. A handful of other reports have aired similar theories
The idea certainly has enough credence to generate periodic debates in pilot chatrooms. So I decided to seek an industry perspective. The Ministry of Defence says it has no data on the subject. At the Helicopter Club of Great Britain, a spokesman says he couldn’t say one way or the other. But this is a club for chopper enthusiasts of all ages and both sexes.
What about the professionals — mostly young men of child-producing age — who spend all hours in the air, just like the Duke of Cambridge?
At the Hampshire HQ of the Army Air Corps (which has more chopper pilots than the RAF and the Royal Navy put together), senior pilot Major Phil Button is intrigued. ‘Officially, we’re just like everyone else — and I have a son and a daughter,’ he says. ‘But, come to think of it, personally I would say I know more pilots with girls.’
The birth of a baby girl would be good news for the modernisers. But it would also be good news for monarchists everywhere when you compare the track records of kings versus queens
At the Surrey headquarters of the British Helicopter Association, which represents the industry, I get a similar response.
‘There’s no statistical proof and we have no official position,’ says a spokesman when I put forward what will henceforth be known as Hardman’s Theorem on Rotary Wing-Induced Reproductive Sex Ratios.
‘But, speaking personally, I’d agree. It’s certainly something I’ve noticed over my life as a pilot.’ And he’s a man who has spent 35 years in both civil and military cockpits.
I ask the obvious question. He laughs and replies: ‘Yup. Two daughters.’
All of which may be good news for the modernisers. But it’s also good news for monarchists everywhere when you compare the track records of kings versus queens.
Of our 40 sovereigns since 1066, just six have been queens. Yet ask anyone to name their top five monarchs and the chances are their list will include Victoria and Elizabeths I and II.
So, my money — and my hopes — are on a girl. As of last night, you could still get 8-13. Go on. Give it a whirl.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355098/Its-girl-With-Kates-baby-day-seasoned-royal-watcher-ROBERT-HARDMAN-says-infallible-slightly-potty-theory-gender-.html#ixzz2Y2R3PasB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
