Uma Thurman, 41, is expecting her third child, baby-daddy is Arpad Busson

When I first saw this Life & Style report claiming that Uma Thurman is totally allegedly pregnant, I thought, “Yeah right.” First of all, I can’t even keep up with Uma’s love life – she’s had an on-off relationship with Swiss playboy Arpad Busson for YEARS, and I actually thought they were currently “off.” Second of all, Uma always looks pregnant. I’m not saying that to be mean or anything – she’s a tall woman who gains weight almost exclusively in her boobs and abdomen. She’s looked pregnant for years. As it turns out, though, Uma actually is knocked up – her rep is confirming it!

Uma Thurman is reprising her role as a mom. The 41-year-old actress is expecting her third child, a source exclusively tells Life & Style.

“Yes, Uma is pregnant!” a friend of Uma’s tells Life & Style. “She hasn’t announced it yet, but a lot of her friends were asking her because they could tell the difference when they saw her at New York Fashion Week. She’s usually so skinny, but now she has the cutest little bump and a glow about her.”

Indeed, the former model kept covered up while sitting front row at Tommy Hilfiger on Feb. 12, wearing a baggy blouse and loose blazer. She also stepped out recently in NYC at the Room to Grow fundraiser, which supports babies born into poverty.

“She’s excited,” the insider shares. “She’s happy and just a few months along right now. She’s due in late, late summer.”

The father is her businessman boyfriend Arpad Busson, a friend of Uma’s confirms.

Uma has two children with her former husband Ethan Hawke.

[From Life & Style]

As I said, her rep is now confirming it far and wide. I didn’t realize her two kids with Ethan are so old now – Maya is 13, and Levon is 10. Ethan has had two more kids with his nanny-wife Ryan too. Us Weekly claims that Uma and Arpad got back together last year, which I have no memory of. Who knows? As for Arpad’s baby-daddy situation – he famously has two sons with Elle Macpherson – and Elle always said that he refused to marry her. He has a real thing for leggy blondes, doesn’t he?

Congrats to Uma, though. You rarely see photos of her kids, and I get the feeling she lives a very normal, low-key life in New York. I think she’s very focused on being a mom, and she’ll enjoy it the third time around too.

photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

87 Responses to “Uma Thurman, 41, is expecting her third child, baby-daddy is Arpad Busson”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

    • Cleo says:

      How could it? He’s done this before, right? His trick babies span the globe. What is UP with German model-types getting preggos with rich guys who want nothing to do with them? Heidi Klum’s case is the most blatant – I doubt she and Flavius were in lurve.

  1. LindyLou says:

    Love Uma! I hope the baby looks like her!!

  2. jc126 says:

    Congrats to her! I remember several times seeing pics of her and rumors about her being pregnant.

    Can’t believe her kids are that old, either!

  3. Marjalane says:

    Whenever I read about celebs with multiple kids via multiple partners, I can’t imagine how much energy must go into birthdays and holidays- you’de need a master flow chart to get it organized!

  4. mln76 says:

    Well congrats but there is that Lainey Blind that seems to fit this situation really well…
    I hope everything is OK

  5. mia girl says:

    Wow congrats to Uma

    So, is this the answer to Lainey’s recent riddle?

  6. Samigirl says:

    I *love* Uma. So happy for her, and I hope everything goes well for her and baby # 3!

  7. Ailine says:

    Just read the Lainey blind. The gist is an older woman (past reproductive prime), a well connected partner, drug use and concerns for the pregnancy. The woman is also concerned with being desirable. This is funny because I wanted to say that I think Uma hasn’t looked really attractive for quite some time. Her face has hardened as she’s gotten older. I hope the blind isn’t her, but it fits.

    • HadleyB says:

      41 is considered past reproductive prime? I mean, maybe if she was 46 or 47.. but she’s only 41.

      • Ailine says:

        A woman’s fertility peaks in her twenties. By the time she’s in her mud thirties/ forties, she is a reproductive dinosaur. The only reason most celebs concieve in their late thirties and late forties is due to fertility treatments. Women don’t have forever to get pregnant. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

      • NM6804 says:

        Actually, 40+ is past your prime considering the health risks and your fertility takes a serious dip. It’s also more difficult for your body to spring back (Bellucci who was 45 when pregnant with second child said it was physically harder than seven years ago) I guess your prime is between your 20is and mid 30ish so yes 40+ would be considered past your prime. She clearly hadn’t planned the pregnancy and the other children are much older so she probably thought herself that she is past the point of having another child.

      • muffin says:

        dinosaur, lol. don’t worry uma, it’s murphy’s law that 41 year old drug abusers will end up with healthy babies while 29 yr old moms like me who were afraid to consume sushi or a can of pop end up with children with lifetime developmental disorders. you’ll be fine.

      • Kate #2 says:

        After 25 or so your fertility starts to decline; after 35 it drops off a cliff. It’s still possible to get pregnant for some women, of course, but it’s not half as likely as people think. And a pregnancy after 45, and you have a 50% miscarriage risk.

        Older women do become mothers all the time, and those are the ones you hear about. You just don’t hear about all those who don’t, and in fact can’t.

      • Funnylilou says:

        @Normades: thank you for setting the medical record straight!
        The average menopause age in industrialized countries is 51, so a woman can perfectly conceive throughout her 40′s (women did conceive their last child in their late 40′s before contraception or still nowadays in super religious communities)
        the chance are better in the beginning of 40′s since it is within that decade that the fertility decrease before desapearing.

        @ailin: instead of telling other to get educated you should read a book or two and tone down your agressive rants and after that maybe decide that it is a great time to finally land into the 21st century!
        women are perfectlty able to conceive without any help till 40, late thirties are far from dangerous (since there is only 5% of difference between the fertility of a 25 and a 35 yrs old) as are the very beginning of 40′s….
        How do I know??? my dad is a fertility doctor!
        There are women who actually need a fertlity doctor at 27 and others who will get pregnant very easily in their early 40′s….nature is not fair

      • normades says:

        @Funnylilou: Word. I’m not saying it isn’t harder all around but there is no need to be alarmist and freak people out. I had my baby “later” in life (and with no medical “help”), so I’m kind of biased here.

    • Ailine says:

      OMG. There needs to be better education for women on this subject. Here is an article to get you started: http://m.npr.org/story/142725547?url=/2011/12/01/142725547/many-women-underestimate-fertility-clocks-clang

      Do not say you weren’t warned. Do not wait until you are 40 to try and get pregnant. You are high risk at 35. They start suggesting that you undergo tests. Do not think that your fate will be the same as some celebrity.

      • Zelda says:

        Jesus you make it sound like that is an option for everyone.
        I plan to have a partner if and when I have a child. If I do not find a long term partner before 40, I do not see myself in a position–financially, physically, or emotionally–to go it alone.

        So let’s all step off each other’s respective vaginas when it comes to the issue of when to conceive.

      • Kate #2 says:

        “High risk at 35″ is over-egging the pudding, as we say in the UK.

        Your fertility starts to decline at 25 on average. and then it accelerates enormously after 35 or so, yes. But you aren’t “high risk” at 35. It’s a perfectly common age to have a baby, and the slowdown in fertility between 25 and 35 is nowhere near as marked as that after that age. And again, those are averages. The chances are far lower, but they’re not impossible for most women. The real risks are for women in their 40s, because actually sustaining the pregnancy becomes as tough as getting pregnant to begin with.

        And as someone who started a family in her early 30s, I was LUCKY. I met a great guy who I loved and who loved me and wanted to have kids with me too. I wish I’d met him in my 20s, so I could have had a stack of kids. But I’m lucky I met him when I did. No way would I ever have wanted to be a single mother by choice.

        People telling women to hurry up and have babies seem to forget that you need a father for those babies.

      • Ailine says:

        @ Zelda. Don’t get so sensitive. I’m just presenting facts. Not everyone can have children and not everyone should. I just want to combat the belief that you can whenever you want. If you feel threatened by facts, maybe there are deeper issues you are dealing with.

      • Ailine says:

        I don’t make up this stuff. I read it from medical experts. Depending on your medical history and doctor, you might be asked to undergo tests. Second, just because the truth is uncomfortable does not mean it should be ignored. I’ beginning a period of reproductive decline and I have no children because I can’t afford them. But at least I can say that I knew about my fertility risks and will not be surprised should I have difficulty conceiving. Knowledge helps you to set priorities. Of course sometimes your life doesn’t work out the way you planned…but if you are in the position to have kids and you want them, why not go for it? If not, wait.

        Oh obviously conceiving naturally at 40 is not impossible. I never said it was. I just don’t think women should assume that they will be one of those women. Look at Khloe Kardashian or giulianna rancic or bethenny frankel. She just miscarried, most likely due to her age.

      • Zelda says:

        I think you’re misreading my tone. I don’t even know that I want children. I think I’d be fine without them. We’ll see. Maybe.

        But running around to three places in the same thread using language like “OMG” and “you were warned…”

        Sheesh. Alarmist. Science is science, and reality is reality. They have to live together.

      • Ailine says:

        @ Zelda I’ve read too many stories where women were like, I wish I would have known. Too many.

      • normades says:

        From babycenter:

        “There’s a big difference in egg viability between the early 40s and the mid- to late 40s. “There’s a steep drop in fertility in the 40s,” says Julia Johnson, chair of the reproductive endocrinology and infertility department at the University of Massachusetts. “Your odds of getting pregnant at 41 are much better than they are at 43.”

        A recent study in the medical journal Fertility and Sterility confirms Johnson’s point. Researchers found that 40-year-old women treated for infertility had a 25 percent chance of achieving pregnancy using their own eggs. By age 43 that number dropped to 10 percent, and by 44 it had plummeted still further, to 1.6 percent. Among women who did get pregnant, the miscarriage rate was 24 percent for 40-year-olds, 38 percent for 43-year-olds, and 54 percent for 44-year-olds.”

        Uma is 41.

      • Funnylilou says:

        @Normades:brilliant! thank you for setting back the medical record straight some people are truly ignorant!The average menopause age in industrialized countries is 51, so a woman can perfectly conceive throughout her 40′s (women did conceive their last child in their late 40′s before contraception or still nowadays in super religious communities)

        the chance are better in the beginning of 40′s since it is within that decade that the fertility decrease before desapearing.

        @ailin:
        you really should apply the advices you spread here: get educated… and not in afghanistan’s perfect knowledge of the women body function imaginary school based on the good ol’ knowledge from middle age

        instead of telling other to get educated you should read a book or two and tone down your agressive rants and after that maybe decide that it is a great time to finally land into the 21st century!

        women are perfectlty able to conceive without any help till 40, late thirties are far from dangerous (since there is only 5% of difference between the fertility of a 25 and a 35 yrs old) as are the very beginning of 40′s….
        How do I know??? my dad is a fertility doctor!
        There are women who actually need a fertlity doctor at 27 and others who will get pregnant very easily in their early 40′s….nature is not fair

      • Jacq says:

        Ailine – STFU. Seriously. You can post all the links you want. No one here is open to being “educated” by you. If I have a question about childbearing and fertility, I’ll ask my OBGYN. You aren’t saving anyone from anything – you would be saving yourself embarrassment if you just quit while you are ahead.
        Why do I get the overriding feeling you’re an early 20-something trying to lecture the adults?

  8. gee says:

    She’s like the most beautiful alien ever.

  9. Asli says:

    The guy seems douchy to me. It’s just a vibe.

  10. Maxine says:

    Lainey’s blind item solved!

  11. oxa says:

    I remember the first time I saw Elle Mcpherson on the David Letterman show. She had just done Sports Illustrated and was married to Kelly Bensimons’s photographer ex at the time. Silly cow was speaking english wiz a french accent, that confirmed her stupidity for for me.

  12. Zelda says:

    Spotted that same Lohan/Moss dent myself.
    Love Uma, but…yeah.

  13. the original bellaluna says:

    Come on, guys, kids aged 10 and 13 aren’t “SO OLD!” when it comes to having another baby. Heck, mine were 15 and 18 when I had my “surprise!” baby.

    And I really hope she’s not the answer to that BI.

    • merski says:

      Looks like it, though. Just look at the intro at Lainey Gossip and the article about Uma. She kind of indirectly confirmed it… Hope the kid will be ok. :/

    • Relli says:

      I agree. My sisters are 13 and 11 years older than me, its like the best of both worlds. I have all the benefits of having siblings but never really lived with them. They were both out of the house and in college by the time i reached 2nd grade. So I have never fought with them or felt any rivalry AND i had someone cool to take me to my first shows and teach me stuff i could never go to my mom about AND it kept my mom young :)

  14. Tweakspotter says:

    Yes! I’m turning 40 soon…I would love to have another baby. Congrats to Uma I love her.

  15. Jessica says:

    Lainey isn’t always right. Far from. I just don’t believe that Uma is a drug user. Just my opinion. Just because Lainey says it doesn’t make it so.

    To the person above who said women in their mid-30s are reproductive dinosaurs…. I’m 34, almost 35, and healthier than almost anyone I know. I don’t feel at all like a reproductive dinosaur. I got asked for my hall pass today picking my son up in the admissions office for a doctor’s appointment…hard to reconcile that with being a dinosaur or any sort, reproductive or otherwise. That statement seems just a wee bit alarmist. There is a lot more than comes into play with fertility than just age, although certainly age is an important factor. But at 34, I’m not exactly worried about having more kids asap so I don’t genetically mutate them with my dinosaur genes. There’s very, very little risk having children in your 30s as opposed to in your 20s.

    • merski says:

      The thing is though, with Lainey’s blind riddles, that they always come directly from her sources. She knows a lot of well connected people who know those things first hand. That’s my take and that’s why I’m prone to believing it. Whether or not her sources may be wrong every once in a while – that is a different issue.

    • Karen says:

      Gossip is a buffet so you choose which part of the table you want to sample from. I sample from the “Uma better pray to whatever higher being she believes in to wish that child is born healthy and without complications”.

      To put it frankly, I believe Lainey’s BI.

    • VML says:

      I really like Uma but I also believe the blind, although it sucks to know that she’s a user. It’s not too hard to believe because he’s known for using cocaine and that’s how most people get introduced to drugs – by being in the same company.

    • Andie B says:

      My only child was born 5 weeks after I turned 36. The midwife told me straight faced that the medical term for me was a ‘geriatric mother’. Didn’t impress me much, as I felt pretty young and healthy. There were complications at the end leading to an emergency c-section. They do say the risks are higher after 35, but the maternal urge does not just strike women aged 18 to 35.

  16. BlackMamba says:

    OMG…That Lainey blind was spot on. I hope everything turns out good for her :)

  17. Gossip PHD says:

    This guy, Arki Busson was a main Madoff Feeder – he lost hundreds of millions for his investors.

  18. Jayna says:

    Well, how refreshing. A rich playboy who dates women his age.

  19. Camille (The original) says:

    I hope all goes well for her.

    The first thing my hubby said when he heard this news was ‘well when you have nothing else to do..’. I had to laugh (even if it was a bit mean lol).

  20. T.C. says:

    Why is everyone fighting over 41 being an older age instead of a pregnant woman hooked on cocaine? That’s the larger problem.

  21. Kim says:

    Both are way to old to be having a baby.

  22. Adrien says:

    Why is everyone making a fuss about her being pregs at 41? She had kids in her 30s so she likely not encounter any problems carrying her term. There are higher risks for 40 + women if they never had a child before.

  23. Dena says:

    In what position are her feet placed in the first picture? They look weird and it’s not the shoes.

  24. anytime says:

    i hate the terms baby-daddy or baby-mama. /csb

  25. Embee says:

    It’s true that number of risks go up substantially in a woman’s late 30′s. I delivered just 3 months shy of my 35th birthday and because of my age I was offered, but not pushed into taking, amnio and other tests related to developmental issues for my (thank goodness, healthy) baby. My neighbor was termed “geriatric” pregnancy by her doctor for delivering at 37. Still, hysteria over 41 seems misplaced when the parties in question are using and the father has a history of having babies but not making a commitment to the mother.

    I hate what cocaine and other stimulants do to people’s brains/personalities. And for some it is permanent. I just cannot stand the way Uma looks all silly and little-girlish with this dude. Come on! She’s like, Mensa-smart and used to be pretty zen and she’s using?!?!? Tragic.

    • Funnylilou says:

      @Embee: you neighbour obsiously had an abusive docteur!! My dad is a specialist in fertility very recognised and revered in his field and he took specific care of women after 42 because the age bracket where everything change is 42/43, before the risks are more than rare, even if there is some and believe it or not but within the thirties eveything is considered perfectly normal, they add some tests during the pregnancy after 38… but throughout all the thirties (so till 40) the pregnancies are all considered under normal conditions, except if it is a specific case with previous health issues (blood pressure, diabetis, etc..)

      a “geriatric pregnancy” is actually something quite rare: it is a pregnancy that has naturally, and the key word here is naturally (in most case women are in shock to be pregnant!) occured to a woman in her 50′s (and yes that happens, in UK ,France, Italy or Germany, there are each years several hundreds of full (not interrupted) “geriatric pregnancies)
      so far from being pregnant at 37 …

      Our society tends to enhance a lot the situation when old men can still conceive because it complies fully with the patriarcal scheme which our society is built on, but we do not communicate at all on the “still ongoing” fertility of ageing women, it is a great taboo and the taboo gets stronger and stronger since the age where a woman is supposed to stop thinking of conceiving gets younger younger in the popular beliefs.It is an other way to put women under control, under a scare control.

      If one take a look into the birth records of the last two centuries, one will be amazed at how often a baby had a woman in her late 40′s as a mother (since women had no control toward their fertility with a contraception they had babies until nature wanted it, till pre-menopause)

      Nature had planned an age where everything stops this average age is 51, as nature is very logical things take a plunge few years before the menopause and not almost 20 years before!!

      I can’t believe how much people are still taking old beliefs into full account and are still so uninformed toward this subject!

      people get informations! get educated! a woman in her early 40 is still in her fertility prime!!

      • normades says:

        Thank you for this wonderful post Funnylilou. Like you said, in the age of no birth control women were having children well into their 40s.

      • Embee says:

        I absolutely agree with you that there is a patriarchical doble standard and that women can and frequently do have safe and healthy pregnancies/babies well into their 40′s.

        I do recall getting info while I was pregannt regarding the statistical probabilities of chromosomal disorders as the mother ages. I googled it and found this, which cnoforms with my memory: “At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.”

        Obviously, that means that a 45 year old woman has a 29-in-30 chance of having a healthy baby, which is great! But when you’re pregnant you worry obsessively about these things, and the numbers really support the hysteria. I can recall looking at the drop from 1000 to 400 for my age bracket and feeling like a black cloud had moved over the sun.

  26. danielle says:

    Wow, shocked at all the vitriol directed at the woman who commented about women having fertility problems as they age. I’m 36, and while I would hardly assume I can’t get pregnant, I don’t assume that I easily could either – certainly not like I did when I was early 20s.

  27. eljeran says:

    WOW! Dinner with Nelson Mandela? I bet that just chapps Angelina Jolie’s ass