Countess Alexandra's False Pregnancy Rumours: March to June 2007

[Jang]

congratulations to them

 

[MissSaga]

I don't think she really is pregnant - there has been absolutely nothing about it since that stupid headline.

 

[queenofcelts]

If it is true I am happy for them! Real family must have children!

 

[bbb]

i'm afraid i take exception to that queenofcelts. what does that make my husband and me? we have a very happy family with our 3 cats and dog. it is a hurtful statement to childless couples.
i hope they are blessed with more children, but they also should be thankful for the 2 healthy boys they have.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Real family must have children!

This is really, really wrong. Families are not defined by the number of offspring, if any, they have.

 

[Smilla]

Maybe one of the administrators could change the title of this thread and add a question mark - otherwise everybody might think this has been confirmed.

 

[Lady Jean]

Excellent point!!

 

[Eva-Britt]

I think this is so stupid! (not the fact that she might be pregnant) but the fact that journalists always write those things when someone famous gets married! When will appear she is not pregnant than (ok it could be), quite sure there will be articles that the couple can't have kids or she is has had a miscarrage or whatever!

 

[Lakshmi]

I hope it is not true. I mean if she had a baby with Martin at some point, it would be wonderful...but pregnant at her wedding day..sort of tacky. She is not a teen. BTW she did not appear pregnant for me during her wedding.

 

[Smilla]

I hope it is not true. I mean if she had a baby with Martin at some point, it would be wonderful...but pregnant at her wedding day..sort of tacky. She is not a teen. BTW she did not appear pregnant for me during her wedding.

I agree, she didn't. But what's so bad of being regnant on your wedding day? It's not as if she's the trembling blushing virgin led to the altar for the first time - she's a grown woman with two kids!

 

[Roxsteve]

I guess she is not blue blood after all. She is a woman who fell in love and who was intimate with her fiancee. She is happy...let her be happy and enjoy her time if pregnant. Bad example for the kids, great for her.

 

[magnik]

So... Blue blood woman/man can't fell in love etc.?

 

[Smilla]

I guess she is not blue blood after all. She is a woman who fell in love and who was intimate with her fiancee. She is happy...let her be happy and enjoy her time if pregnant. Bad example for the kids, great for her.

I can think of worse eamles. She's held herself with grace and dignity during a divorce and its aftermath. She's handled her situation well. She's not an unemloyed teen but an adult woman and a resonsible mother. (I'm sorry, my keybord doesn't work correctly, so some letters are missing.)

 

[ysbel]

I guess she is not blue blood after all. She is a woman who fell in love and who was intimate with her fiancee. She is happy...let her be happy and enjoy her time if pregnant. Bad example for the kids, great for her.

Regardless of Alexandra's sexual relations or lack of sexual relations before she goes to the altar, I daresay that if Nikolai or Felix go to the altar never having had sex then most people will think they are gay or something is wrong with them.

I seriously don't think Nikolai and Felix, being little boys who will grow up to be men, will refrain from having sex before their own marriage, even if their mother was pristine as driven snow.

This requirement of no sex before marriage seems to be applied only to women. I don't think the boys will necessarily be influenced by their mother's example either way.

And somehow I don't believe that all the blue blooded princesses were necessarily virgins before they married. Princess Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland and youngest daughter of King Christian IX comes to mind. Didn't she get pregnant and give the baby away before she married the Duke of Cumberland?

 

[magnik]

And somehow I don't believe that all the blue blooded princesses were necessarily virgins before they married. Princess Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland and youngest daughter of King Christian IX comes to mind. Didn't she get pregnant and give the baby away before she married the Duke of Cumberland?

Yes she was. Father was Vilhelm Frimann Marcher (1841-1872) a lieutenant in the calvary.. Baby - a girl Marie Katharina Jørgensen or Jensen (1871-1964). Girl was adopted by Rasmus and Anne Marie Jørgensen of Odense. Marcher killed himself on 4 January 1872 after a confrontation with the King.

 

[Her_Majesty]

Just a question:

Alexandra isn't a member of the Royal House anymore, so who would announce a pregnancy then?
Maybe there won't be an official announcement at all since Alexandra is a "common" person again.

 

[magnik]

Probably there wouldn't be an official announcemen.
But many people like us want know/interesting about Countess Alexandra's present life.

Maybe her new father-in-law's company spokesman or she announce it or not or who know. We waite and see.

 

[ysbel]

She and Martin may hire a press agent to handle announcements like that.

Then again, she may not want to. She said she wanted to get a little privacy back.

 

[Roxsteve]

I guess she is not blue blood after all. She is a woman who fell in love and who was intimate with her fiancee. She is happy...let her be happy and enjoy her time if pregnant. Bad example for the kids, great for her.

What I meant by "blue blood" is that she is just as human as anyone else. I think it is great that she is happy and pregnant...I am very happy for her.

 

[kaffir]

Just like Caroline of Monaco when she married EA.

 

[Hilda Thomas]

Contess Alandria pregnancy

I agree with you, It is not medically wise for a woman to have a child past 35 years old humans have tried to change nature and have suceeded in some ways but in the long run it will be disasterous for the child. A woman's body start to go throuh changes at least when she is 40 years old. I know of many cases where children born of women who are past 40 years and these children (years later shows sign of retardation) hence the parents blame the hospital, doctors, nurses and midwives except themselves. In biblical times women gave birth to children late in life but that was by divine intervention for our creator's purpose. In early centuries women were marrried young and had gave birth to their children very young by the time they were 30 to 35 years they were considered to be old. In the late centuries humans have tried to change the law of nature and that is why there are so many retarded people in the world. My theory is my opinion

 

[ysbel]

Hilda, I think your medical facts are somewhat mixed up. Its been proven unsafe medically for a woman to give birth to her FIRST child after the age of 35 but not her THIRD child as Alexandra would be having if she were pregnant now. Remember she's already given birth successfully to Nikolai and Felix.

Compare her to Sophie, Countess of Wessex, and you can see the difference. Sophie didn't get pregnant until after she was 35 and she suffered first an etoptic pregnancy then a difficult birth with Lady Louise. Alexandra because she's given birth previously to two fine healthy young boys doesn't face the same risk that Sophie did.

Before the days of birth control, women had babies until they physically no longer could get pregnant and give birth. We don't have to go back to Bibical times to find women who successfully gave birth past the age of 35. Both of my grandmothers gave birth to healthy babies when they were older than 35 well before the 1950s. One of my grandmothers was almost 45 when she gave birth to her last child. The difference with them was that they started having babies very young - one grandmother in her teens and the other in her twenties.

Actually the only infant mortality either of them faced was when one of my grandmothers was 25 and the baby was too big for a natural delivery. They didn't have the means to do a Cesarean section and so the baby died.

But her child that was born when she was 44 was perfectly healthy.

 

[stellam]

I had my first and only child at the age of 37 and today she is a gorgeous, beautiful 13 year old.

Stellad

 

[Lena]

I´m happy for every child, that is the result of a mother (and grandmother) of 40+ and that is healthy
But what you are always forgetting in your personal examples/experiences is, that the risks are simply growing. If a woman of 35 years is giving birth to a healthy child, it does show, that she is able to give birth...yes...but it doesn´t change the fact, that her eggs would age...and that her body would age in the next 10 years. So if she would give birth again at 43...already 8 years went by! That is alot, considering, that a woman is just about 30-35 years fertile. Of course things can go also well at a birth with a mother of 40 years...and in most cases they even do.
And also prenatal diagnostics have improved...early contractions, eclampsia, Gestational diabetes, calcifying placentas...that are things, that can be controlled better these days. Even though one can´t control them completely.

But there is one thing, you can´t change...and that is the genetical factor. If you would go the normal way of getting pregnant (so without selecting the embryos) you have (compared to 25y) at 35y at 3 times higher risk of getting a child with Down Syndrom , at 40y a 10times higher risk...and at 48 years the risk is nearly 100 times higher! And Down Syndrom is only one of genetical syndroms. Older women have a much higher risk to miscarry. And as I´ve said the risk of getting the child way too early is also higher in older women. So many things, that a woman has to consider. One can always say, that this wouldn´t happen and many of these things can also happen to younger mothers...but IMO as older woman one should truly think twice...could I live with a handicapped child? Could I handle a miscarriage. Many ppl seem to think, this doesn´t happen to me...but what if?

 

[ysbel]

I´m happy for every child, that is the result of a mother (and grandmother) of 40+ and that is healthy
But what you are always forgetting in your personal examples/experiences is, that the risks are simply growing. If a woman of 35 years is giving birth to a healthy child, it does show, that she is able to give birth...yes...but it doesn´t change the fact, that her eggs would age...and that her body would age in the next 10 years. So if she would give birth again at 43...already 8 years went by! That is alot, considering, that a woman is just about 30-35 years fertile. Of course things can go also well at a birth with a mother of 40 years...and in most cases they even do.
And also prenatal diagnostics have improved...early contractions, eclampsia, Gestational diabetes, calcifying placentas...that are things, that can be controlled better these days. Even though one can´t control them completely.

But there is one thing, you can´t change...and that is the genetical factor. If you would go the normal way of getting pregnant (so without selecting the embryos) you have (compared to 25y) at 35y at 3 times higher risk of getting a child with Down Syndrom , at 40y a 10times higher risk...and at 48 years the risk is nearly 100 times higher! And Down Syndrom is only one of genetical syndroms. Older women have a much higher risk to miscarry. And as I´ve said the risk of getting the child way too early is also higher in older women. So many things, that a woman has to consider. One can always say, that this wouldn´t happen and many of these things can also happen to younger mothers...but IMO as older woman one should truly think twice...could I live with a handicapped child? Could I handle a miscarriage. Many ppl seem to think, this doesn´t happen to me...but what if?

Lena,

I'm not denying what you're saying for women over 35 who have a child for the first time.

What I am saying is that medical evidence has shown that a woman who has had a couple of children while under the age of 35 doesn't face nearly the same risks when they get pregnant past 35 or even 40 than a woman who first gets pregnant at an older age.

Its an important distinction that is well known in the medical community that both you and Hilda have overlooked.

 

[Charlotte1]

I´m happy for every child, that is the result of a mother (and grandmother) of 40+ and that is healthy
But what you are always forgetting in your personal examples/experiences is, that the risks are simply growing. If a woman of 35 years is giving birth to a healthy child, it does show, that she is able to give birth...yes...but it doesn´t change the fact, that her eggs would age...and that her body would age in the next 10 years. So if she would give birth again at 43...already 8 years went by! That is alot, considering, that a woman is just about 30-35 years fertile. Of course things can go also well at a birth with a mother of 40 years...and in most cases they even do.
And also prenatal diagnostics have improved...early contractions, eclampsia, Gestational diabetes, calcifying placentas...that are things, that can be controlled better these days. Even though one can´t control them completely.

But there is one thing, you can´t change...and that is the genetical factor. If you would go the normal way of getting pregnant (so without selecting the embryos) you have (compared to 25y) at 35y at 3 times higher risk of getting a child with Down Syndrom , at 40y a 10times higher risk...and at 48 years the risk is nearly 100 times higher! And Down Syndrom is only one of genetical syndroms. Older women have a much higher risk to miscarry. And as I´ve said the risk of getting the child way too early is also higher in older women. So many things, that a woman has to consider. One can always say, that this wouldn´t happen and many of these things can also happen to younger mothers...but IMO as older woman one should truly think twice...could I live with a handicapped child? Could I handle a miscarriage. Many ppl seem to think, this doesn´t happen to me...but what if?

Some royal examples to refute the whole 'women over 35 shouldn't get pregnant'

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucestor gave birth to her first child at age 42 and her second child at age 44. ( This was in 1942 and 1944 respectively) The current Duke of Gloucestor was her second child, his brother William died in an aircrash when he was 30. Both were prefectly healthy and intelligent, both have university degrees.

Alexandra herself gave birth to her first child at age 35 and her second at age 38. Both are healthy.

Infanta Cristina gave birth to her 4th child age 40, the others at 38, 36, 35. All healthy.

Princess Alexia of Greece gave birth to her 3rd child age 40, others at ages 38 and 36. All healthy.

Princess Laurentien gave birth to her 3rd child at age 40, others at age 38 and 36. All healthy.

Princess Mabel had her 2 daughters at ages 36 and 38. Both healthy.

Princess Caroline of Hannover gave birth to her 3rd child at age 42, no health problems there either.

Lord Nicholas Windsor's new wife is pregnant with their first child, she's 37 and got pregnant very quickly probably due to her age.

Using Hollywood Gena Davis gave birth to twins aged 46 and a single child at age 48. All healthy.

Most children who have Downs Syndrome now are actually born to mothers between the age of 30 and 34 over 70%. Few are actually born to older mothers possibly as they are more likely to ask for tests.

With the trend for women to marry later in life and the fact that women menstruate for longer than women did in the past means that more and more children will be born to 'mature' mothers. It's not something that people will frown upon as it seems some do now.

Miscarriages and problems with pregnancy can happen at any age. It's just as devastating to suffer a miscarriage at age 25 as it is at 40. What doctors warn about most nowadays is not so much the danger of getting pregnant latter in life but the fact that not everyone can, as fertility goes down. That was what happened with Sophie Wessex. It is easier to get pregnant when you're younger so women who delay motherhood need to be realistic about their chances of getting pregnant. That's why some are now looking into being able to freeze their eggs to use later in life when they do want to have children.

If Alexandra is pregnant at 42 goodluck to her, she's following a trend.

 

[Lena]

Most children who have Downs Syndrome now are actually born to mothers between the age of 30 and 34 over 70%. Few are actually born to older mothers possibly as they are more likely to ask for tests.

Yes...and do you know why? Because older mothers are more liklier to get amniocentesis done. OB Gyns practically advice it to nearly all women older than 35. And what would many do, if the child would be handicapped? Yes, Abortion

As I´ve said, I´m happy for every healthy child being born...but it is a fact, that the risks are getting higher and that you can be easier forced to deal with "unethical" methods (prenatal selection...abortion)
And all I want is, that women know about these possible risks and think about them. And therefore I´m always getting angry and into it, when ppl promote getting pregnant at 40+ and pretend, that it is the same as if getting pregnant at 25. Is that so hard to understand?

Women may menstruate longer, but many also seem to have problems to get pregnant these days. Our nutrition, way of living got more secure and stable in the western world...but as it seems one also has to deal with the side effects of this luxury (Keywords: chemical food, poisons in the environment, hormones...) This is of course not so much the problem of a woman, who already has children. But if you have waited until 40 and start with nr1...it could get tight.

For me it´s also a social aspect of women 45+ getting pregnant. Yes, Alexandra is a bit younger and the women, who get children az 35-40, I don´t wanna get started at. But due to these public trend and some Docs Frankensteins, who get 60 year olds pregnant, the age limit of getting children seems to get stretched more and more backwards...

 

[our_girl_Friday]

Yes...and do you know why? Because older mothers are more liklier to get amniocentesis done. OB Gyns practically advice it to nearly all women older than 35. And what would many do, if the child would be handicapped? Yes, Abortion

As I´ve said, I´m happy for every healthy child being born...but it is a fact, that the risks are getting higher and that you can be easier forced to deal with "unethical" methods (prenatal selection...abortion)
And all I want is, that women know about these possible risks and think about them. And therefore I´m always getting angry and into it, when ppl promote getting pregnant at 40+ and pretend, that it is the same as if getting pregnant at 25. Is that so hard to understand?

Women may menstruate longer, but many also seem to have problems to get pregnant these days. Our nutrition, way of living got more secure and stable in the western world...but as it seems one also has to deal with the side effects of this luxury (Keywords: chemical food, poisons in the environment, hormones...) This is of course not so much the problem of a woman, who already has children. But if you have waited until 40 and start with nr1...it could get tight.

For me it´s also a social aspect of women 45+ getting pregnant. Yes, Alexandra is a bit younger and the women, who get children az 35-40, I don´t wanna get started at. But due to these public trend and some Docs Frankensteins, who get 60 year olds pregnant, the age limit of getting children seems to get stretched more and more backwards...

OK, mods I know this is off topic of the thread, but it's something I get my panties in a wad about. Here are some of the numbers for risk:
Advanced Maternal Age
The incidence of fetal trisomies is directly related to maternal age.[SIZE=-1]7[/SIZE] The risk of having a child with Down syndrome increases in a gradual, linear fashion until about age 30 and increases exponentially thereafter (Figure 1).[SIZE=-1]8[/SIZE] The risk of having a child with Down syndrome is 1/1,300 for a 25-year-old woman; at age 35, the risk increases to 1/365. At age 45, the risk of a having a child with Down syndrome increases to 1/30. (By convention, maternal age refers to age at the estimated or actual delivery date.)
Historically, maternal age can be viewed as the first "screening test" for fetal chromosome abnormalities. In the late 1970s, about 5 percent of pregnancies in the United States occurred in women who were 35 years or older.[SIZE=-1]9[/SIZE] At age 35, the second-trimester prevalence of trisomy 21 (1/270) approaches the estimated risk of fetal loss due to amniocentesis (1/200).[SIZE=-1]10[/SIZE] Therefore, age 35 was chosen as the screening cutoff--the risk threshold at which diagnostic testing is offered.

I was 36 with my first and 39 with my second. When you see numbers like 1/30 risk of Down's with the age of 45 it sounds scary right, however put that into a percentage - 3% chance of that risk or the inverse is 97% chance of having a healthy baby. I never chose an amnio. I did chose other less invasive tests. I wanted to know as much as I could going in about the health of my baby. Didn't mean I was going to abort it knowing it might have down's or such. It means I wanted to know so we could prepare and the doctors could prepare. I think it is downright rude to think that the majority of people who have the prenatal testing would choose to abort if they found out their child was going to be "handicapped" - This has not been my experience at all. I am basing this on the research of the subject - being an older mother- and having MANY friends who have started later in life also. Where are your viewpoinbts coming from?

 

[Heike]

It´s true that an older mother is more likely to have complications in the pregnancy and the risk for the baby is also higher.

BUT, statistics remains statistics. For each individual, it is only a yes or no question. You get it, or you don´t get it. And don´t forget that even older mothers have higher risk than younger mothers, the chance that they don´t get it is still much higher than they get it!

I am sure that Alexandra´s third child will be born very healthy!!
I am also sure that everybody here wishes to see a healthy baby born despite all these discussions about high risk, old mother, retardation etc.
(Of course, under the assumption that she is pregnant.)

 

[altagrace]

My mother was 38 when she had me and 41 when she had my brother, both of us are healthy.
Forty two (42) is very much considered "child-bearing age"