To wonder whether there will be no childless female celebrities in the future.

In your title you had said “no childless celebs in the future”.

While technology helps more achieve their parenthood dreams there are many women for whom childlessness has nothing to do with being biologically unable. So there will always be childless celebs.

I don’t think 40 was ever the cut-off for having children, for both celebrities and regular women. You can look up the stats - tens of thousands of women give birth over 40 every single year. You picked a handful of celebrity women who had a baby at 39-42, I gave you a much longer list of celebrity women who are 40-45 who are child-free. I’m sure if we revisited my list in 5-10 years, most of the women will still be child-free. I just don’t buy the idea that every 40+ celebrity woman is just biding her time and relying on reproductive technologies. A lot simply don’t want children.

Also agree with PP, that normal course fertility treatment is not out of reach financially for most couples.

I am not sure why you think fertility treatment/assisted reproduction is not affordable by ordinary women if they want to have children. Yes, there are limitations on access to NHS-funded teatment and, yes, some sorts of complex treatment can be very expensive, and it can also be expensive if you need repeated cycles of treatment.

However, if you need 'routine' IVF and are not eligible NHS funding, the costs are not out of the reach of most women, although I accept that some women on very low incomes might not be able to afford them (and that that does raise questions of fairness).

I was not eligible for NHS funding due to my age when we were ttc (started IVF when I was 41). We were just an average couple income-wise. We found the money to pay for three full cycles and a frozen embryo cycle plus additional money for complementary treatment such as supplements and acupuncture. We did this by cutting back on other things. We were lucky enough to have two children as a result. I reckon our treatment cost a total of around £20k (about £10k-£12k for the actual treatment) over a period of about six years. This was some time ago and costs have risen since then but so have earnings. I don't think basic IVF is beyond the reach of most women although, as I have said above, more complex treatment and numerous cycles of treatment is a different matter.)

What I can say, however, is that the costs of our IVF and complementary therapies were an absolute drop in the ocean compared with the costs of bringing up children that all parents have, such as food, clothing, accommodation, furniture and equipment, activities, holidays and the huge costs of childcare and loss of earnings/earnings potential (in latter case, for me, as I was the primary carer).

I get your point that celebrities are likely to have access to lots of money, but I think the real issue for most ordinary women is not the cost of IVF in itself but the more general issue of the costs of raising children.

Why do you think the only reason for people being childless is the lack of reproductive technology. It doesn’t matter what technology exists there will always be childless people: voluntarily and involuntarily.

Also OP conceiving from frozen eggs has very low success rates.

iirc about 15-20% of English women never had children in the 1800s, I think a lot were never able to marry for financial reasons or there were no men of suitable status or income (guess this problem had always been with us tbh)

I mean, none of this is a surprise to those of us who read Jane Austen, but the general decline in TFR in modern times is more related to married couples limiting the size of their families. Although the rise of singles is definitely a factor too.

Same, I'm 46, got plenty of friends, all between 35 and 55. most of us have no kids by choice. A good 85% I'd say.

If you think perimenopause with a toddler or menopause with teenagers is the wotse thing than can happen then you have very little life experience. Read books. Women have always had babies in their late 30s and 40s, it's not something feminists invented with the Pill.

Re-reading your post, you’ve definitely (consciously or unconsciously) cherry picked those celebrities!

How about:

Alexa Chung
Miquita Oliver
Anna Kendrick
Tessa Thompson
Perdita Weeks
Aubrey Plaza
Britt Lower
Janelle Monae
Marin Ireland
Cici Coleman
Bella Mackie
Lana Del Rey
Cheryl Burke
Mircea Monroe
Sian Clifford
Avril Lavigne
Cristin Milioti
Natalia Tena

All 40-45, all child-free.

I have no idea who these celebrities are. I know many women who decided not to have children.

The other thing is, whenever I watch a series, I google the cast and in most cases at least half the actresses who are 45+ are child-free. I watched White Lotus S3 not long ago and in just one season of that show alone there were multiple child free actresses:

Parker Posy (57)
Leslie Bibb (52)
Natasha Rothwell (45)
Jennifer Coolidge (64)

Gosh OP, I’m finding the exact opposite. I am coming across more and more female celebrities who are child-free at 40. I posted this on another thread but copying here:

“Celebrities turning 40 in 2026” popped up on my Instagram, so I googled the women to see how many had children:

Lady Gaga - 0
Lindsay Lohan - 1
Lena Dunham - 0
Mischa Barton - 0
Leighton Meester - 2
Brittany Snow - 0
Megan Fox - 4
Alexandria Doddario - 1
Mary-Kate Olsen - 0
Ashley Olsen - 1
Charlotte Le Bon - 0
Amanda Bynes - 0
Kat Dennings - 0
Emilia Clarke - 0
Jameela Jamil - 0”

I’m 44 and child free and would say 70 percent of my friends are too. Maybe it’s the circles you mix in but I’ve known these women years and many could have had children and are in relationships but haven’t wanted to.

Ew.

So men thinking local women are “too modern” and them desiring silent bangmaids is a global thing, I see! 😆

Surrogacy is already completely banned or highly restricted in most of the world. 'Lifestyle' surrogacy is mostly an American thing, and then only in a few states.

Out of all of my close female friends only one had kids and we always joked that if I ever wanted one, she would carry it and I would pay for her boob job and tummy tuck.

I think that as the effects of climate change become more and more evident, more and more women will choose not to have children. Surely the best reason not to have a child is a realistic assessment of how difficult life would be for that child? It's not all about money, either. The world is starting to go downhill very quickly, and it's a one way trip.

I think that surrogacy isn't in the best interests of the child 99% of the time - taking a baby away from its mother at birth. And that's before thinking of the birth mothers wellbeing.

I hope that legislation reduces this option, particularly when done for lifestyle reasons eg I didn't want to be pregnant due to my work schedule/ figure etc.

I was that younger woman who had zero interest until like you say suddenly one day the urge struck and with 4 years I had 3 children! So yes people do change their minds 🤣

Obviously us ordinary mortals can’t afford those things, but if you’re a celebrity and you can afford to have a baby on your own timeline, and as much childcare as you want etc, there’s sort of no reason not to?

No matter how much money you have, you can't get away from the huge responsibility of being a parent. The endless worry is still there no matter how rich you are. Speaking for myself, even the 'good' parts of having children just don't appeal and I wouldn't want to do it even if I was loaded.

Having said that, I too have noticed a recent trend in high profile women getting pregnant in their 40s. I don't think it has an awful lot to do with the realities of life for 'ordinary' women however.

At 39, they want DC but don't want them yet, that's extremely self indulgent, trying to squeeze the last drop of child-free months.
I'm sure their future DC can't wait to have a mother that's dealing with perimenopause when they're toddlers, full blown menopause when they're teenagers, fun times.

I was at hen-do a couple of weeks ago. There were 14 of us, all aged between 37-42 and only 2/14 women had children or wanted children. The other 12 were happily childfree