WATCH: At 46 Gwyneth Paltrow says she’s “too old” to have more kids - here's why!

Is Gwyneth Paltrow too old for more kids?
Is Gwyneth Paltrow too old for more kids?

In a recent interview with ES magazine, newly remarried Gwyneth Paltrow said, of the prospect of expanding her family with producer Brad Falchuk: “No.” And a resounding no at that.

“Good lord… I’m too old,” said the 46-year-old, who’s already got two kids with ex-husband Chris Martin.

The actress describes their family dynamic as a “modern” one, saying she’s made it a point to stay as close as possible with Martin after their “uncoupling”, for the kids – “because the word 'divorce' is brutal,” she says. The point was and is to “remain a family”, even though you’re “uncoupling that romantic part.”

She says she’s still friends with Chris. In fact, they talk every day, he joined her and Brad, along with the kids, on their “modern honeymoon”, and she’s so very grateful for him. “I think Chris and I were meant to be together,” she says, and for giving her the greatest gifts of all, Apple, 14, and Moses, 11.

View this post on Instagram

Sunday brunch #modernfamily

A post shared by Gwyneth Paltrow (@gwynethpaltrow) on

Also read: Cardi B, Jennifer Lopez and other celebs making it work for the sake of the kids

So why not more kids? Is she really “too old” to add to her brood?

We’ve written extensively on when the best time, or right age, is, to have kids. Before 35, we’ve concluded, because fertility tends to decrease the older you get, while your risks of complications tend to increase. That being said, it doesn’t mean you absolutely cannot have a child. So many women over 35 have conceived and had perfect healthy babies, and there are numerous other avenues women can explore using fertility treatments.

Read more here: When is the best time for you to have a baby? Well, your body says before 35

So when the mom of two said she was “too old” for more kids, she didn’t mean she was unable to have more kids, nor that she didn’t want any more beautiful babies. By “too old” she actually just meant she’s too tired.

“It's great that women are able to have babies late into their forties, but... I mean, pfffff. I don't think I could be up all night,” she said. “I wouldn't survive.”

I mean... pfffff – yes!

Also read: Celebs who still vacation together for the sake of the kids

Having a newborn, at any age, is a challenge. One minute you’re living your best life and the next you’re responsible for a whole other person. You’ll find yourself preoccupied by their feeding, pooping and sleeping schedule, and at the expense of your own. So while we love our little ones and they’ve completely made the world all the more wonderful for us, going through the motions, 14 years later at 46 years old – yeah, I too, would be “too old” for that.

It’d be a firm, resounding no from me too.

Chat back

Would you add to your brood in your forties or fifties? Tell us by emailing and we may publish your comments.

Sign up for Parent24's newsletters.

Also read:

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For only R75 per month, you have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today.
Subscribe to News24