I think it is somewhat too early to claim credit for being “right” about Mary’s pregnancy.

So apparently sometime on or before 5 January 2005 when the original article was posted, Mary was pregnant? This was apparently “barely concealable” at the time, even though it was not noted (by Aphrodite or any other commentators) during a royal tour some six weeks later.

And now Mary is due to give birth in late October, almost eleven months later? My bet is more on maths in The Mercury: “Given the birth is expected in late October, it is likely the baby was conceived at the start of February.”

Excluding a premature delivery (which could still prove Aphrodite ‘right’ if it happens before the end of September), one would suspect that it is highly unlikely that Mary was pregnant on or before 5 January 2005.

Loved the gushing little journalist’s reference in The Mercury to Mary and that foreign bloke’s holiday as “secluded bliss”.

Is that Scandinavian for a “good bonk” or Gazza Bailey’s brave new London Sun direction for the Mock.

Oh well, at least it wasn’t a “love nest”. 

Must say though, looking forward to the page three girls in the Mock as are I am sure Messrs Kerr, Winburn and Kohl, the paper’s venerable snappers.