Meghan Markle looks like she's having twins

[Anonymous]

She just doesn’t measure up to the regal Kate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MM drives basic white women like you crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Health and nutrition don't affect father time. Fact is that you will have a harder time getting pregnant after 35 and you will have a significant increase in risk for birth defects because your eggs are old. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't have kids whenever they want to, but to pretend that you can just get pregnant like that after 35 is not true and you do a disservice to other women by pretending that is the case.

[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.

+1
And since we’re comparing friends , 3 of mine have used IVF right around age 35-38.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MM drives basic white women like you crazy.

Sure does. Go Meg - making every pregnant woman jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MM drives basic white women like you crazy.

Sure does. Go Meg - making every pregnant woman jealous.

x100. The Meghan haters are in a league of their own.

[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.

No, the data do not say that. The data say that a 35 year old has an 80% chance of getting pregnant in a year. The decline starts to happen around 40 (although if you've already had a healthy baby at 35, again, the odds are in your favor to have another in your early 40s if you try for a year.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2004/01000/Angiogenesis_in_Early_Invasive_and.10.aspx

Now, what I WILL say, is that the years from 30-35 and 35-40 can go very quickly if you're having fun, so women who are 30 SHOULD start thinking seriously about their dating goals; and women who are 35 should start thinking VERY seriously about their dating goals and single motherhood if they're interested. I hate to see my girlfriend in her mid-30s still wasting her time on pointless relationships ...

[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.

+1
And since we’re comparing friends , 3 of mine have used IVF right around age 35-38.

have you all beat, ladies!

first at 38, second at 42
no interventions at all

[Anonymous]

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

Whoops, haha. I've clearly been hanging out too much on the "teach yourself Photoshop" forum.

How can one couple be so blessed genetically?

I agree, Meghan is blessed. But Harry? Are you really saying you'd find him good-looking if he didn't happen to be a prince?!

[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.

No, the data do not say that. The data say that a 35 year old has an 80% chance of getting pregnant in a year. The decline starts to happen around 40 (although if you've already had a healthy baby at 35, again, the odds are in your favor to have another in your early 40s if you try for a year.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2004/01000/Angiogenesis_in_Early_Invasive_and.10.aspx

Now, what I WILL say, is that the years from 30-35 and 35-40 can go very quickly if you're having fun, so women who are 30 SHOULD start thinking seriously about their dating goals; and women who are 35 should start thinking VERY seriously about their dating goals and single motherhood if they're interested. I hate to see my girlfriend in her mid-30s still wasting her time on pointless relationships ...

You can find one study from 2004 while the general consensus is different. Hey take your chances if you want but don't go crying to the TTC page saying you weren't told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why does she always have her hand on her stomach?

Yeah, this is over the top

Agree, but it could be a nervous/self consciousness thing too.

You always feel bigger than you are when preg and being under the microscope may make MM feel really paranoid so she kinda puts her hand there....?...which ironically really just draws more attention to it.

I thought her face and arms are bloated.

Her baby kicked her in a video (you can see the foot and everything against her stomach o.o) and you can see her hand move to touch the kick. First-time mom with movements and flutters. Hands to settle it down or bring comfort.

https://instagram.com/p/BrkAN_olYLj/

The kid is saying THIS DRESS IS TOO TIGHT!

Are you guys all older moms? Younger moms (including Markle's generation; I'm in it) often do stretchy tops/dresses and don't buy actual maternity stuff. All this pearl-clutching over the stretchiness of the dress just seems old-fashioned. If you're younger, it seems petty.

um...not so young. She's 37, or AMA (Advanced Maternal Age). I'm 40, so in her generation and I would never wear that dress, bought maternity stuff, etc.) Younger moms = 20-something to lower 30-something.

PP here. I didn't buy much maternity stuff at all, and I'm between your age and Megan's. When I think of those maternity tent shirts etc., I think of people in my mom's generation.

Perhaps a better term is cohort vs. younger moms. More recent cohorts of moms seem to be wearing less maternity clothes. That one should cover up one's pregnant belly just seems like a dated notion.

It’s not a young vs old. It’s a class distinction. If you wear high quality expensive and well tailored clothing it doesn’t stretch as easily. The women continuing to wear normal clothing late in pregnancy are wearing cheap ill fitting clothing for the masses.

Lol, okay. I wore normal stuff, J.Crew, etc. I was 113 lbs before pregnancy and I just didn't gain a lot of weight, and didn't really need maternity clothes aside from a few tops for work in the third trimester. I guess Megan and other younger generations are also all wearing "cheap" ill-fitting clothing. Get used to it; people are not wearing maternity clothes as much because norms are changing and people don't feel the need to cover up their bellies as much as in the past.

I bought a lot of off-the-rack stretchy Women's Plus size dresses from Ralph Lauren/Vince Camuto. Never stepped into a maternity clothing store.

So you got big everywhere? I don’t see how buying plus size clothing is any better than maternity clothing. Besides the fact if I purchased larger clothing instead of maternity, the clothing wouldn’t fit my legs, arms etc. Some of us just grow a big bump but remain small.

It worked for me. I got big in the chest/torso. Would buy 14-16-18 sized women's clothing. Cut in arm sleeves wasn't that different than smaller sizes, and of course the length of dresses/shirts didn't change much with the larger sizes. My point is that I felt I didn't need to go to a maternity line of clothing. I'm not saying it is better than going to a maternity clothing store, it was just how I shopped.

Why is buying plus size clothing better than buying maternity clothing? I see no difference unless you plan on remaining plus size post maternity.

I’m a size zero. 107 and 5’4. Even when I was early on in pregnancy and tried to buy larger sizes, it still didn’t look right. Just like this photo of MM doesn’t look right. Maternity clothing exists for a reason and you’re not cool for buying plus sizes. I’d rather die than have a size 14 hanging in my closet.

That's a shame. I have a friend who actually did die of cancer and I can guarantee you that she would happily be a 14 or 24 if it meant she could be here with her husband and children. How small your world must be.

[Anonymous]

I’m calling it. It’s a moonbump. I am convinced from several of the recent pictures. It’s disappointing because surrogacy is such a blessing and there should be no shame in it.

[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.

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.

+1. this is a fact. i think as you get older your body naturally releases more than one egg (maybe desperation before your fertility ends....).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m calling it. It’s a moonbump. I am convinced from several of the recent pictures. It’s disappointing because surrogacy is such a blessing and there should be no shame in it.

I agree. And, that would explain why she is constantly holding her bump. She doesn't want it to slip.

[Anonymous]

I just can’t believe she goes around in those high heels while that pregnant.