Rep: John Travolta, Kelly Preston "Not Expecting Twins"
Credit: John Shearer/WireImage.com
John Travolta and wife Kelly Preston are indeed expanding their family -- but with one baby, not two.
A rep for Travolta, 56, and Preston, 47, slams a new tabloid report claiming that Preston is pregnant with twins. "Totally false," the rep tells UsMagazine.com. "They are not expecting twins."
PHOTOS: Adorable A-list babies
On May 18, the Hollywood couple announced on their websites: "It's impossible to keep a secret...especially one as wonderful as this. We want to be the first to share this great news with everyone that we are expecting a new addition to the our family."
PHOTOS: Hollywood's most enduring couples
Travolta and Preston have a 10-year-old daughter, Ella Bleu. In 2009, their 16-year-old son Jett tragically died of a seizure.
Tell Us What You Think
41I am so thrilled for John & Kelly. How can anyone judge them for wanting to have another baby. The emptiness and the void that is in there life and their daughter's has to be unbelievable. You know the old saying until you have walked a mile in their shoes. DO NOT JUDGE THEM? Also, there was a time when women, my own mom included had a change of life baby in their 40's. My Mom was 47 also when she had my youngest brother. He was a god sent to my Dad when my Mom died at a young age of cancer. Back in the day, no one thought anything of having a baby at an older age. There is to much pressure (The old ticking time clock) put on women having babies at a very young age, If it is God's will a baby is welcomed at any age. I say Congratulations, John & Kelly and you and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers. May God Bless you.
I ask, who are all of you to judge on what age is, in your opinion, "too old to have a baby"? It's not up to us or any of you to decide when a child should be born. It's up to God. It's His will! My name is Maria. I'm almost forty four. My husband and I were married almost three years ago. I've been a daycare teacher for over twenty years and always wanted to be a Mommy. I love children. However I wasn't married until I was almost forty one. I am a devout Catholic and refused to even think about trying to have a child until after I was married. I wanted to do it God's way. My husband and I have been trying to have a child for almost three years. We have suffered the disappointment, heartache, and many tears for almost three years of being unable to conceive. Two years we found out why. I needed surgery to treat an ovarian cyst. When I had open stomach surgery, it was discovered I had endometriosis stage four. I never knew I had endometriosis. I have had surgery to treat this endometriosis and try to improve my fertility twice now. We are still trying to conceive. We have been praying and hoping for a long time now for the gift of a child! People, it doesn't matter what age the parents are. It has to do with God and His will for each person. If it is God's will for someone to conceive a child, then they will conceive! Age doesn't matter! Look at St. Elizabeth, Hannah, Sarah, and St. Anne! St. Anne concieved the Blessed Virgin Mary when she was in her forties! Are you going to tell me now that St. Anne and St. Joachim were selfish for concieving the Blessed Mary when she was in her forties? When she tried for so many years to be able to concieve, cried many tears, suffered much heartache, and ridicule for being infertile? I don't think so! It was God's will for her to concieve and she did concieve at forty seven! Unless you have suffered the heartache and intense disapointment of your heart and arms aching to be able to have your own child and not being able to concieve, please do not judge me or others who choose to try to concieve when we are in our forties! Thank you! Maybe instead of judging, you could say a prayer for Kelly Preston and her baby for a happy and healthy pregnancy and child? Thanks! May God Bless you all! Maria
Kelly is not expecting twins . . . or a baby. At her age she should not be trying to get pregnant for various reasons. It's obviously a new pet or baby by surrogate. No where does do Kelly or John say, "baby;" it only says, "new edition." As I recall, two of their puppies were killed not too long ago, so it is likely they are replacing them.
I thought they were adopting a dog. I thought I saw a photo of a dog next to a picture of them somewhere.Anyway, I suppose its good news. Must be a slow news day.
Seems such a blessing that out of their heartbreak, a new child will be coming into their family. I wish them the best, and I hope everything goes well.
Type your comment here
Angie it has been announced on ET that she is due around Thanksgiving, they are infact having a baby!
Umm Mrs. Pfc Boyd...the ARTICLE says baby, neither the official rep NOR the Travoltas have even uttered the word "baby". So CLEARLY it still could be a dog. Everyone is being ridiculously presumptuous.
To 4:55PM That was my point also! To Kelly- So what if they have a child that is disabled do you think it deserves love any less than a typical child? They loved their Autistic son and they are WONDERFUL parents, They provide a SAFE, STABLE, LOVING home for their children and THAT matters MORE than how old they are when they have a child or if said child has ANY sort of disability!
What the hell is wrong with you people.....it doesn't matter how old the parents are when they decide to have children. The important part is that they can provide a safe and loving home and family for that child. My father was older when he and my mother had myself and my brother and that has not lowered the quality of our lives in any way. We did get to know our grandparents ( for whatever that matters) and my children know and love my father. The Travolta's should in NO way be looked down on for wanting to add to their family.
For crying out loud people, it's a human baby. On "Entertainment Tonight", they said Kelly is due around Thanksgiving.
It's nice to see that so many of you have elderly folks in your family who are so healthy! I wish that it were the same for everyone, but it is not, and it is definitely not something that you can bank on. Sure, the Travoltas will have the financial means to make sure that this child is taken care of, and that they are taken care of in old age too. However, this child's children will likely never know their grandparents. Children born to older parents are unlikely to have grandparents, because their grandparents were of "grandparent age" with they had their own children. I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do this. I'm just saying that there are a LOT of things to consider beyond the risks of such a late pregnancy. There is the life of the child after that pregnancy.
Thank you Mrs.PFC.Boyd for appointing yourself moderator of this thread and finding it necessary to comment to each and every poster. I stand by what I said....why would someone take that kind of a chance at the age of 47? With the increased risk, it just seems like a foolhardy thing to do in light of the fact that there are so many other options. Rather than adopt a child who is in need, lets weigh the odds and run the increased risk of having a disabled child! How silly of me...it makes perfect sense....*rolling my eyes*
Also Angie it does say "John Travolta and wife Kelly Preston are indeed expanding their family -- but with one baby, not two." so CLEARLY it is not a dog.
May 27, 2010 - 12:29pm Sandeana Says:++++ Actually she can be pregnant and it NOT be IVF. Scientology is against that sort of thing if I remember correctly. @Angie from what the other media outlets have said it is a baby and they are not adopting but with that said Scientology does not allow surrogates and I think if I remember correctly they also do not allow IVF tho I'm not positive on that.
The announcement is still vague. If if is a baby, it is most likely through a surrogate. It could also be an adoption, but I seriously doubt she is pregnant. Everyone is just assuming that because they said new edition. It could be a dog for all we know. Even their rep didn't clear it up. He just said not expecting twins.
I think this is a great thing for them and for the person that said that their children would be taking care of them when they are elderly and disabled. Think about when i born my father was 29 he died 2 1/2 years ago i took care of him for 4 years i am now 26. if they feel they can physicaly and financilly take care of the child who are we to judge and who are you to say they are wrong.
@Terri he was also Autistic.
May 27, 2010 - 11:28am Think Ahead Says:++++ That depends on how healthy they are. There are MANY MANY older people that are very healthy and are not needing the help of their children. Heck my grandparents are 78 and 80 and my grandpa still rides his bike on the trail for 15-20 miles a day EVERY day! so while SOME may be unhealthy and their children have to take care of them not all do! This couple has the money that their children will not be burdened with their care as they can hire live in staff to care for them IF they need it that is.
While I'm glad about the happiness of John & Kelly beciming parents again, there is no denying that at her age of 47, this pregnancy is an IVF job.