Meghan Markle looks like she's having twins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the baby arrives around mid to late Feb, then she was pregnant at her wedding.

She's not having twins. She's just due sooner than they want you to believe.

She's a skinny weight-obsessed/looks obsessed health nut, so it's not like she's packing on unnecessary weight with junk food. My sister is due this spring and she's not even wearing maternity clothes yet. Her belly no longer looks flat, but she certainly doesn't look like she has a ball under her dress like MM.

I gave birth to one of my DCs in February. Not to be too technical, but you count 40 weeks of gestation from the date of your last period. My last period was in the month of May. They got married in May, right? So she could be on track for a February baby, conceived after the wedding.

Which explains why she looks bigger/further along than the skinny women I know IRL who are actually due this spring...and aren't even wearing maternity clothes yet.

Except the baby is due in the Spring - so March, April or May. Not winter.

Twins.

Not twins.

I suspect the baby arrives in February and they say it's early...rather than confirm she was preggers at the wedding.

Alright PP is a bet. You’ve got 71 days until February 28th. Those babies look comfortably ensconced to me though.

If it isn't February, then it's March. She's too big for April.

I’ve been saying the babies are coming in late March all along. The PP however insists she was pregnant on her wedding day. Wedding was May 19th - February 19th would be exactly 10 months post-wedding and February 28th would actually be a delayed due date.

My theory is a late June pregnancy and safe delivery of twins towards the end of March. It also aligns perfectly with the announcement of her healthy 12-week scans around the 15th of October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she looks big at all.

Same.

She is carrying high.

That's what I thought too.

[Anonymous]

Do royals typically provide accurate due dates or identifiable info (i.e.: announcements related to scans at specific weeks)?

I would suspect they don't want people to know the exact time frame when they are expected at the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the baby arrives around mid to late Feb, then she was pregnant at her wedding.

She's not having twins. She's just due sooner than they want you to believe.

She's a skinny weight-obsessed/looks obsessed health nut, so it's not like she's packing on unnecessary weight with junk food. My sister is due this spring and she's not even wearing maternity clothes yet. Her belly no longer looks flat, but she certainly doesn't look like she has a ball under her dress like MM.

I gave birth to one of my DCs in February. Not to be too technical, but you count 40 weeks of gestation from the date of your last period. My last period was in the month of May. They got married in May, right? So she could be on track for a February baby, conceived after the wedding.

Which explains why she looks bigger/further along than the skinny women I know IRL who are actually due this spring...and aren't even wearing maternity clothes yet.

Except the baby is due in the Spring - so March, April or May. Not winter.

Twins.

Not twins.

I suspect the baby arrives in February and they say it's early...rather than confirm she was preggers at the wedding.

Alright PP is a bet. You’ve got 71 days until February 28th. Those babies look comfortably ensconced to me though.

If it isn't February, then it's March. She's too big for April.

I’ve been saying the babies are coming in late March all along. The PP however insists she was pregnant on her wedding day. Wedding was May 19th - February 19th would be exactly 10 months post-wedding and February 28th would actually be a delayed due date.

My theory is a late June pregnancy and safe delivery of twins towards the end of March. It also aligns perfectly with the announcement of her healthy 12-week scans around the 15th of October.

She looked further along than 12 weeks when they officially announced. She was already in maternity clothes. A skinny woman wouldn't look that far along for her first pregnancy. My friend is 20 weeks and still isn't in maternity clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do royals typically provide accurate due dates or identifiable info (i.e.: announcements related to scans at specific weeks)?

I would suspect they don't want people to know the exact time frame when they are expected at the hospital.

Everyone knew Kate was pregnant at 5 or 6 weeks because of her HG and her schedule slowdown. Meghan announced at 12-weeks with pregnancy in full swing and to relieve any worries about her going on a 16-day tour at the same time.

But generally they’re vague. Monaco’s twins weren’t announced until 23-24 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the baby arrives around mid to late Feb, then she was pregnant at her wedding.

She's not having twins. She's just due sooner than they want you to believe.

She's a skinny weight-obsessed/looks obsessed health nut, so it's not like she's packing on unnecessary weight with junk food. My sister is due this spring and she's not even wearing maternity clothes yet. Her belly no longer looks flat, but she certainly doesn't look like she has a ball under her dress like MM.

I gave birth to one of my DCs in February. Not to be too technical, but you count 40 weeks of gestation from the date of your last period. My last period was in the month of May. They got married in May, right? So she could be on track for a February baby, conceived after the wedding.

Which explains why she looks bigger/further along than the skinny women I know IRL who are actually due this spring...and aren't even wearing maternity clothes yet.

Except the baby is due in the Spring - so March, April or May. Not winter.

Twins.

Not twins.

I suspect the baby arrives in February and they say it's early...rather than confirm she was preggers at the wedding.

Alright PP is a bet. You’ve got 71 days until February 28th. Those babies look comfortably ensconced to me though.

If it isn't February, then it's March. She's too big for April.

I’ve been saying the babies are coming in late March all along. The PP however insists she was pregnant on her wedding day. Wedding was May 19th - February 19th would be exactly 10 months post-wedding and February 28th would actually be a delayed due date.

My theory is a late June pregnancy and safe delivery of twins towards the end of March. It also aligns perfectly with the announcement of her healthy 12-week scans around the 15th of October.

She looked further along than 12 weeks when they officially announced. She was already in maternity clothes. A skinny woman wouldn't look that far along for her first pregnancy. My friend is 20 weeks and still isn't in maternity clothes.

Please make up your mind. First she’s tiny and the bump is invisible now she looked huge and was clearly more than halfway through pregnancy? Please.

[Anonymous]

People carry differently. My uterus tilts forward and I carry way out front regardless of any weight gain. I look definitely pregnant at 20 weeks. I've also run into a tall, skinny woman who was 34 weeks and, what with wearing a loose sweater, I had no idea was pregnant. By that point I'm causing other people panic attacks wondering if I need to be rushed to the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the baby arrives around mid to late Feb, then she was pregnant at her wedding.

She's not having twins. She's just due sooner than they want you to believe.

She's a skinny weight-obsessed/looks obsessed health nut, so it's not like she's packing on unnecessary weight with junk food. My sister is due this spring and she's not even wearing maternity clothes yet. Her belly no longer looks flat, but she certainly doesn't look like she has a ball under her dress like MM.

I gave birth to one of my DCs in February. Not to be too technical, but you count 40 weeks of gestation from the date of your last period. My last period was in the month of May. They got married in May, right? So she could be on track for a February baby, conceived after the wedding.

Which explains why she looks bigger/further along than the skinny women I know IRL who are actually due this spring...and aren't even wearing maternity clothes yet.

Except the baby is due in the Spring - so March, April or May. Not winter.

Twins.

Except when she was in Australia she let it slip that she was 4 months along.

February or early March.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do royals typically provide accurate due dates or identifiable info (i.e.: announcements related to scans at specific weeks)?

I would suspect they don't want people to know the exact time frame when they are expected at the hospital.

To answer your question, no.

But they usually are not as vague as they have been.

Kate's birth months were common knowledge, just not the date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the baby arrives around mid to late Feb, then she was pregnant at her wedding.

She's not having twins. She's just due sooner than they want you to believe.

She's a skinny weight-obsessed/looks obsessed health nut, so it's not like she's packing on unnecessary weight with junk food. My sister is due this spring and she's not even wearing maternity clothes yet. Her belly no longer looks flat, but she certainly doesn't look like she has a ball under her dress like MM.

I gave birth to one of my DCs in February. Not to be too technical, but you count 40 weeks of gestation from the date of your last period. My last period was in the month of May. They got married in May, right? So she could be on track for a February baby, conceived after the wedding.

Which explains why she looks bigger/further along than the skinny women I know IRL who are actually due this spring...and aren't even wearing maternity clothes yet.

Except the baby is due in the Spring - so March, April or May. Not winter.

Twins.

Except when she was in Australia she let it slip that she was 4 months along.

February or early March.

Do you know what a 12-week scan is? It means the completion of three months. So of course she was four months pregnant. And amusingly at ONLY four months the babies would have been conceived in July. So I still don’t know where you’re getting February from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had people telling me I was a) having twins and b) about to pop when I was only 28 weeks pregnant with my 1st. I also got told it was a boy fairly regularly. She's a girl.

You have no idea.

Yep. Currently 23 weeks and judging by the various commentary I get people seem to think I'm going to pop any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do royals typically provide accurate due dates or identifiable info (i.e.: announcements related to scans at specific weeks)?

I would suspect they don't want people to know the exact time frame when they are expected at the hospital.

To answer your question, no.

But they usually are not as vague as they have been.

Kate's birth months were common knowledge, just not the date.

Umm no they weren’t. There’s a reason her births are nicknamed the Great Kate Wait. Reporters started staking out and speculating in April 2013. George wasn’t born until the end of July.

The great Kate Wait is well under way. All we know is she’s due. At some point in the future.


https://www.independent.ie/style/voices/colette-fitzpatrick-the-great-kate-wait-begins-how-will-we-cope-36803236.html

[Anonymous]

This is the dress Meghan is wearing today:

https://www.matchesfashion.com/us/products/1251094?qxjkl=tsid:38929|cgn:tv2R4u9rImY&c3ch=LinkShare&c3nid=tv2R4u9rImY&utm_source=linkshare&utm_medium=affiliation&utm_campaign=us&utm_content=tv2R4u9rImY&rffrid=aff.linkshare.3157217.37420


Does it look like she had it tailored as a maternity dress? I think she is carrying high. I never really bought maternity clothes, just bought larger sizes in regular clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the dress Meghan is wearing today:

https://www.matchesfashion.com/us/products/1251094?qxjkl=tsid:38929|cgn:tv2R4u9rImY&c3ch=LinkShare&c3nid=tv2R4u9rImY&utm_source=linkshare&utm_medium=affiliation&utm_campaign=us&utm_content=tv2R4u9rImY&rffrid=aff.linkshare.3157217.37420


Does it look like she had it tailored as a maternity dress? I think she is carrying high. I never really bought maternity clothes, just bought larger sizes in regular clothes.

Same. I wore my regular clothes until mid-2nd trimester, then bought just a few pairs of pants. Bought a couple of maternity tank tops, but otherwise wore the same tops as before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had people telling me I was a) having twins and b) about to pop when I was only 28 weeks pregnant with my 1st. I also got told it was a boy fairly regularly. She's a girl.

You have no idea.

Yep. Currently 23 weeks and judging by the various commentary I get people seem to think I'm going to pop any day.

I was in maternity clothes by 14w with my first. At a breastfeeding class the instructor thought I was imminently due. When I told her I had more than a month to go, she asked if it was twins. Nope, just one big boy! Different people carry differently. There’s a big range of “normal”.