Posted: 10:18 pm Sunday, July 20th, 2014

Should Duchess Kate wait to add a second heir? 

By Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

Prince George turns 1 on Tuesday and rumors are swirling that Duchess Kate is already pregnant again.

Childhood friend Jessica Hay told the media that a sibling was on the way for Prince George.

But what does the palace say? According to Parade.com:

“Kate’s inner circle are buzzing with the news that she is pregnant,” she said. “I’ve heard it from several different friends of theirs now and they’re saying that they think there’s going to be an official announcement in weeks.”

“But a spokesperson for Kensington Palace claims that Kate and Jessica are no longer in contact, telling ECT Canada: “The duchess has not spoken to Jessica Hay for very many years. She is not in contact with her at all….”

“We’ll treat Hay’s “revelations” sceptically for the moment. But notice thatKensington Palace didn’t go so far to actually deny that the duchess is expecting—could there be any truth to the rumors? We’ll have to wait and see…”

So is there other evidence that she is already pregnant? According to the International Business Tribune:

“Kate Middleton’s wardrobe has unusually changed, according to E! Online. The Duchess of Cambridge has reportedly been wearing loose-fitting clothes since July.
During the start of the Tour de France celebration, with the hot humidity outside, Kate was spotted wearing a long-sleeved, zipped-up dress. She allegedly even used her clutch bag to conceal her baby bump. Days prior she also donned on a belted red dress, again carrying a small purse to reportedly hide the growing baby inside her. It seems like she always had her hands poised over her belly, giving the impression that she’s hiding something. E! also reported that when she was snapped carrying a bouquet of flowers while wearing another loose-fitting blue coat, she seemed to have purposely placed the bouquet before her growing belly.”

All the rumors got me thinking about the optimal separation for the babies. I’m sure Kate has a lot of help but is 18 or so months enough of a separation? Is it too hard on the mother’s body to stretch back out that quickly or better because you don’t waste time getting all the way back into shape? (Although she looks in shape.) Would it take their focus off George too quickly? What do you think the optimum spacing is for sibs?

 

11 comments
missnadine
missnadine

She almost always has her hands in front of her, either just the hands but more often with a purse - it is something I noticed years ago, and it is odd. Look back at some of her past pics and you will see what I mean. It is an odd pose, IMO.


Shame on the "friend" for trying to sell her out. I am sure she can handle two kids so close apart. Lots of people had their kids very closely together


My mom had 4 kids, all less than 18 months apart. The Duchess got back into her great shape within a couple of months. She is genetically blessed for sure but she also seems very active.


Annoyme
Annoyme

It's a personal choice for the couple.

Moe_Green
Moe_Green

Maybe she is not pregnant.....Maybe she is just a fat cow.

RealKat
RealKat

If she is pregnant again, I would think they planned it this way because William and Harry were born close together and have always been close. He probably wanted a similar close relationship for his child(ren). Kate is also close in age to her siblings. I think it has to do with that. Plus, imagine the great pictures - the Queen, Charles, William, George (the heir), and new baby (the spare).

Moe_Green
Moe_Green

Finally! A subject worth discussing!

Why do people care for the inbred English monarchy? Especially Americans?

motherjanegoose1
motherjanegoose1

None of my business ! That's for sure. Mine were 5 years apart and it worked fo me. I was 27 and 32. I also went back to work. If I did not need to or had house help, perhaps things would have been different.

FRMRTCHR
FRMRTCHR

Thank you for my morning laugh.  I am sure the Duchess is waiting anxiously for our opinions on her very personal choices.

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

I believe the ideal separation to be 4-5 years.  Best for mother, best for young child, best for older child.  This is based on health and child development theory. Individuals make other decisions, of course.

scrappy-22
scrappy-22

It will vary between families, a big reason that family planning options is so important.  Personally my own age plays a bigger role in the timing than the time between the kids. Getting a little later start than most, maybe, does make it seem more important to plan baby #2 a little quicker. I think I am a year older than Kate, so I would think that is something to do with it... 

OMM
OMM

I believe that only the parents can decide when is the best time to add to their family. Different variables for each family play a part in the decision.

AtlantaMom
AtlantaMom

Before formula and birth control,  when women breast fed their children, they tended to be about 2 years apart.  If I was looking to nature for an answer, it would be 2 years.