Anonymous
12/31/2023 13:08
Subject: Gordon Ramsay Baby #6
Anonymous wrote:They had baby #6 probably for #5 since he’s so much younger than their other children. They wanted him to have a sibling closer in age rather than one who is 20+ years older. They know they aren’t going to be around much longer and baby #5 would be all alone basically.
+1
Anonymous
12/31/2023 13:07
Subject: Gordon Ramsay Baby #6
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is mental illness and narcissism. It is immoral, gross and disturbing. Just because you can buy a baby and buy a de facto modern slave to risk their life carrying it for you doesn’t mean you should.
They wanted a sibling for Oscar because he is so much younger than his siblings. They both will be loved and well cared for. I only think they shouldn't have named him Jesse James. Any other middle name would have worked.
They also could have done Felix which is super cute.
That’s literally what I just said a few responses up.
Anonymous
12/31/2023 12:47
Subject: Re:Gordon Ramsay Baby #6
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just found out and that’s exactly the first thing I thought about. She’s 49, I thought that’s the age you begin menopause? It’s ok if they used a surrogate but don’t know why someone would stage a photo in a hospital bed looking way too happy if they actually just gave birth.
I too am confused.
Not always. I’m 51 and not in menopause yet.
Same. I’m a walking ball of Estrogen. My grandmother had my Uncle when she was 50
Anonymous
12/31/2023 08:50
Subject: Gordon Ramsay Baby #6
Anonymous wrote:Uh as someone who is also 49 TRUST ME there is no WAY she carried and squirted out that kid. Even if she had an egg transplant .. I don’t think that would take. I wish they would just be honest. I think having a newborn at their ages is so selfish and irresponsible but that’s me 🤷♀️
Not true. My sister had her baby at age 48.