Meghan Markle looks like she's having twins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am due in early May and I would kill to look that good. I look much bigger (although this is my third, but even with my first I am sure I didn't look that good).

Harry doesn't look too shabby either. My favorite look for him is when he does his 'I am a Prince' gesture. He takes regal to a whole new level. Then his happy face is just adorable.

How can one couple be so blessed genetically?

They really are nice looking. And they both look happy and very comfortable together - so important!

[Anonymous]

She looks great- not overly large at all. Good for her for not wearing a mumu style dress.

[Anonymous]

Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Okay, this photo has clearly been altered/photoshopped (look at the curve of the stone wall in the background) but I can't figure out why / how the alteration affected the appearance of Harry and Meghan -- was it done to make Meghan's shoulders look wider???

[Anonymous]

That curve is an arch.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That curve is an arch.....

Lol. And that is a Pure example of the wild speculation and where it takes some people’s minds...................... craziness on both sides.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if she’s using a surrogate and faking the bump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

I got pregnant on the first try with both of my kids---had my first at 35 and second one a month before I turned 38. Many women in my family have had natural pregnancies into their 40s---which is why I'm pretty fanatical about birth control until fully through menopause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

Well data aren't based on how you and your friends got pregnant. The data say that fertility decreases precipitously after age 35 so most women are indeed running out of time if they haven't had their first child by 35. Odds are she had some assistance and if she has twins I'd double down on that bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

Well data aren't based on how you and your friends got pregnant. The data say that fertility decreases precipitously after age 35 so most women are indeed running out of time if they haven't had their first child by 35. Odds are she had some assistance and if she has twins I'd double down on that bet.

You’re incorrect. The precipitous drop occurs after 40.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/22/no-womens-fertility-doesnt-drop-off-a-cliff-at-35/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1b12d806453

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

Well data aren't based on how you and your friends got pregnant. The data say that fertility decreases precipitously after age 35 so most women are indeed running out of time if they haven't had their first child by 35. Odds are she had some assistance and if she has twins I'd double down on that bet.

You’re incorrect. The precipitous drop occurs after 40.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/22/no-womens-fertility-doesnt-drop-off-a-cliff-at-35/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1b12d806453

I see your Washington Post and raise you an ACOG:

Female Age-Related Fertility Decline
ABSTRACT: The fecundity of women decreases gradually but significantly beginning approximately at age 32 years and decreases more rapidly after age 37 years. Education and enhanced awareness of the effect of age on fertility are essential in counseling the patient who desires pregnancy. Given the anticipated age-related decline in fertility, the increased incidence of disorders that impair fertility, and the higher risk of pregnancy loss, women older than 35 years should receive an expedited evaluation and undergo treatment after 6 months of failed attempts to conceive or earlier, if clinically indicated. In women older than 40 years, more immediate evaluation and treatment are warranted.

[Anonymous]

yeah we've all heard that data before and most of us have proven it incorrect. Its based on findings from the 1960s and health and nutrition have changed drastically in the past 50-60 years making those statistics moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twins wouldn't surprise me at all. She's what 36? Got preggers right away and doesn't have a lot of time left to have more. Probably IVF.

She’s 37, not 47. I had my kids at 36 and 38, no IVF involved - didn’t realize I was “running out of time”. Most of my friends here in DC had kids in their mid to late thirties with no issues. Why are people so amazed she got pregnant so fast? At 38 I got pregnant the second month of trying.

Well data aren't based on how you and your friends got pregnant. The data say that fertility decreases precipitously after age 35 so most women are indeed running out of time if they haven't had their first child by 35. Odds are she had some assistance and if she has twins I'd double down on that bet.

I wouldn't be so sure. Women over 35 have a natural rate of twinning that's higher than younger women. You are more likely to have twins over 35 than you are under 25, with no ART involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she’s using a surrogate and faking the bump.

I am starting to think that she is — just seems off.