Carla Bruni: Baby Bumping At The G8 Summit

Carla Bruni: Baby Bumping At The G8 Summit

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, France’s First Lady, was on hand to greet the wives of the delegates who will take part at the G8 Summit which is happening at the Villa Strassburger in Deauville, France today (May 26).

As the radiant mom socialized with her fellow first ladies in the French resort town – where their spouses are attending a summit of G8 leaders – there didn’t seem to be any attempts made to hide her noticeable bump beneath her loose fitting smock dress.

Dressed in an unbelted, loose-fitting white dress and black overcoat, the 43-year-old wife of French President Nikolas Sarkozy took some time to pose for pictures.

The Italian-born singer and model appeared radiant and delighted to be in front of the camera and in the company of her colleagues.

A reporter for Canadian news channel CTV, was quoted as saying: “When she touched her belly and rubbed her belly the entire French delegation of reporters gasped at the press centre. It’s the first time she ever did that.”

Rumors of the Bruni-Sarkozy pregnancy were put to rest when Sarkozy’s father told reporters he was “mad with joy” that the couple was expecting a child.

The baby, due in early fall, is confirmed to be a boy.

The Italian born stunner has a 10-year-old son Aurélian, from a previous marriage and her husband has three sons – Pierre, 26, Jean, 25, and Louis, 14 – from two previous marriages.

View Slideshow »»

View All Photos »»

Filed under: Carla Bruni

Photo credit: Fame

44 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Josie123

    Deauville is in France, not England ;)

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Why can’t our first lady ever look this classy? Did you see her next to Kate- she looked like a freak. Never will understand why anyone calls her fashionable? And I used to work for Vogue.

    Reply
    • anonymous

      I think Michelle Obama not only always looks classy but down to earth. Why compare her to a young woman in her late 20s or a retired model…. She is smart, articulate, intelligent and graceful… all our first lady should be.

      We dont need a first lady decked out in VOGUE outfits when our country is in the worst recession in years…..

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        She is classless and inarticulate and furthermore she and Carla are the SAME AGE. I find her oafish and a true embarrassment to our country. Their is no warmth nor sense of depth. Hilary Clinton seems like an Italian granny compared to her.

        I am a lifelong democrat who voted for her husband but I think she lacks the elegance and genuine nature of Laura Bush. A woman almost 20 years her senior.

        Reply
        • anonymous

          Yes her and Carla may be the same age but Carla looks much older even with her HEAVY MAKEUP and EXTREMELY BAD PLASTIC SURGERY. Seems like she may be addicted to BOTOX… is that even healthy for her unborn child??
          Not an ideal role model with French girls UNLIKE the remarkable role model American girls have in Michelle Obama…

          Reply
          • Anonymous 71

            The only girls she gives a damn about are the poor little inner city kids. Where is she now when the Midwest needs her. Oh thats right, she is accompanying her useless husband on ANOTHER HOLIDAY, while our country is going up in flames.

            Some HOPE.

          • Anonymous

            Go ask your republican leaders for help. Why should anyone give a flying fig about people in the Midwest. You guys vote Republican year after year while they cut all programs that benefit the poor and middle class. You can’t have it both ways. You are either for or against programs that provide a safety net for people in need. It’s going to cost this country milions of dollars to rebuild the Midwest. Why should I pay for that especially for people who believe in no government intervention. If you want to rebuild the midwest, raise taxes of the people that live there.

          • Anonymous@RichmondVA

            The midwest is one of the poorest regions on the country. Where do you live that you cannot know that. The difference is when these people are hit hard with tragedy, they don’t whine and expect the government to GIVE THEM A BETTER LIFE than they had in the first place ( like the inhabitants of new Orleans). When interviewed all the victims in the Midwest said, thank God we are alive we can rebuild. Compare and contrast that with the victims of Katrina who when asked said “who is going to help us now”. A decade later and many of those people who VOTED DEMOCRAT still expect handouts. Get off your a** and do something for yourself.

            Btw Colorado, Utah, new Mexico, Missouri and Kansas all went for OBAMA in 2008. Please get your facts straight.

          • Anonymous

            You obviously have never looked at the 2008 electoral map because if you had you would know that 3 of the 4 states you listed went to McCain. Or did Fox tell you differently. Utah? Seriously!?

          • Sammie FROM OK

            That is ignorant and completely false. Please do your research and while you are at it, look up the meaning of the word compassion and understanding.

          • Anonymous

            At least midwesterners work hard and earn their lives. If you are black you can get knocked up by ten different men and get welfare and STILL have people calling you victims.

            If you account for all the aid minorities get from government subsidies it is 72%. Those poor people my a**. Get off your lazy butts and get a job and stop whining.

          • Anonymous

            Yay — well said, Anonymous 5:32 pm.

            If all these ignorant, anti-tax, anti-government folks can’t learn through education, maybe at least they can learn by direct experience in times like this — if you strip the government of its ability to provide for people in hard times (like when tornados strike), then you should not expect anyone to step up and help you. Sarah Palin and Glen Beck are certainly not going to help you — that’s for sure. They have their money and are d#m-well going to keep every cent to themselves. (Disgusting.)

          • Tara

            You make absolutely no sense. Big government enables a society of apathetic, non ambitious and ambivalent citizens. Why is it negative to expect a community to stand on their own two feet.

            To compare natural disasters where countless hardworking individuals are affected to those who use the welfare system as a way of life is rather disingenuous. Federal programs should be a stepping stone to get mobilized again if you have earned it. Allowing complacency and decades long dependence on tax payers money is counterproductive to the principles upon the foundation of the nation.

          • Leahsmommy

            I agree with you that it’s different if it is a one time thing. Also if it’s caused by God\weather, whatever it’s not the same as loving off of the system and cranking out ten kids and expecting others to pay for your responsibility.

            I used to feel sorry for the victims of Katrina (am a democrat and also half African American). But there has to be a point where one must take accountability to get themselves straight. The government can only do so much

          • Anonymous

            Huh? Talk about illogical. Has this happened in Sweden??? Or Canada? Or any one of many big-government countries which are currently kicking all of our kids collective butts in educational achievement and social awareness.

            Read a newspaper, please.

          • Tara

            Oh yes compare powerhouse countries like Sweden and Canada. THAT IS WHAT IS ILLOGICAL dear.

            SWEDEN- 9 million
            Canada- 33.7 million
            USA-308 million.

            Neither Sweden nor Canada are expected to financially support NATO NOR UN operations.

            GET A BRAIN PLEASE!

          • Tara

            Additionally both CANADA AND SWEDEN have very different immigration policies. Sweden in particular is careful to vet anyone trying to live illegally off of government benefits. That is how their population stabilizes. They root out the cr*p. The USA has surprisingly lax rules, contrary to popular belief, and allows any Joe off the boat with a sob story to benefit off of the backs of LEGAL CITIZENS taxes.

            you would do well to read a bit of the weekly UN finance reports. They detail specifically which cow try allocates the most foreign funds. You will see that 80% is from USA. In order to balance this deficit out the only thing to do is require US nationals to be more proactive in supporting themselves through the private sector.

          • Burgina

            @anonymous 12:56 and @tara
            I agree with what you both say in part. Tara yours is much more based on fact than emotion which I can appreciate. It’s true it’s an unfair comparison. AMERICA has much more demands placed on them and we indeed have an enormous immigration problem. I originally came from Germany, where we are the second biggest donated to foreign aid after the USA. If I am correct last year Germany gave 10$ billion and USA gave 39.9$ billion. These funds do not include military, nor food and medical for natural disasters. This is solely for a countries infrastructure. Sweden is a generous country but their numbers cannot compare. I have to say Canada should be ashamed of how little they offer. Basically they are the Switzerland of North America.
            @anonymous your intention seems valid and from the heart but it’s much more emotional and as a German I must say I have difficulty relating to it in the big picture. Unless the USA stops being the worlds babysitter you will not be able to solve the problems in your own country. This starts by making it’s citizens more accountable for their own lives. Taking control away from an individual is extremely adverse and does not truly improve society.

          • Anonymous

            Burgina you rock. Great analysis.

          • Anon.

            Oh, please, Ms. Anonymous-posting-under-different-names-but-actually-the-same-bitter-person!!!

            I agree with with 3:31 and 4:15 posters, and especially with the sentiment that Carla Bruni looks awful — botoxed-to-death, almost!! She is the same exact type of woman as Rachel Zoe… which is fine if you idolize that type of woman, but in my opinion, it’s disgusting. With all due respect, Carla was once a gorgeous model with a beautiful voice, but at a certain point you have to let go and move on.

          • Anonymous 71

            Paranoid much?. The one above was my only post. Why is it when more than one person hates a liberal you say it cannot be possible and must be spam.

          • anonymous

            Anonymous 71- I am deeply sorry for all the dangerous weather conditions in the midwest right now.. Tornado, flood etc… The prayers of the rest of the country are with you all. I were shocked to see damage in Joplin, MO earlier in the week. I know when disaster strikes in makes us super sensitive to things and I think if I lived in midwest I would be upset to see President and first lady traveling around world instead of coming to see damage and people in my area. :(
            That being said, I do think Michelle Obama cares about all kids not just poor inner city ones and I dont think she has control over going to UK with her husband to represent our country.

          • Tristabelle

            I know we are not supposed to care about looks, but everyone ripped Barbara Bush and Laura Bush for looking matronly- and god knows they tortured Hilary. Do not remember the outcry then.

            To be honest I think Michelle would benefit from plastic surgery. She has extremely pronounced features which are less than flattering. She also carries herself like a football player. I like her and her politics but let’s call it what it is people.

    • Anonymous 71

      She is thoroughly lacking grace and femininity. Plus did you see how they screwed up the state dinner with the Queen. Tres horrible;)

      Reply
      • anonymous

        We are Americans we dont have a Queen… sorry for the protocol faux pas… Just seems everyone is all over what President and First Lady do no matter what…
        Our president married a smart, successful woman did you want him to marry some piece of eye candy???? why must everyone be so superficial?

        Reply
        • Tara

          I know this reply was directed at someone else. I personally think she is fine. But I do take issue with the fact that you claim The president and first lady do not get fair representation in the media. Seriously? Not one of the mainstream stations ( you cannot count CNN, msnbc or fox- because they have their own bias) ever gives him the harsh critique they gave Bush. And if anyone dare call the OBAMAs on broken promises you are considered a racist. He has been given a pass for not delivering for the past three years. The only reason he will get re elected is not due to anything he has done but moreso that the Republican party is in shambles and has not real direction right now.
          Michelle is a role model but I find her to solely direct her efforts towards African American children. She is the only first lady who consciously does this, Clinton who I liked ALOT, not her politics but I think she is amazing, was well balanced and Laura Bush was as well. There is poverty and need in all communities and I just wish Michelle would recognize that.

          Reply
          • anonymous

            Tara- Funny when I stated “Just seems everyone is all over what President and First Lady do no matter what…” I was actually referring to postings on these type of message boards NOT mainstream news media… but I do understand your point excluding CNN, msnbc and fox.. (especially fox since they are so heavily Republican) Obama does not get as much SH*T as they would give George Bush but damn George did do some funny things and at least Obama actually understands his speeches and not just memorizing them. LOL
            I thought Michelle was doing wonders with childhood obesity in all communities. I will have to be more aware of her efforts towards all communities. I was just happy she was so active and trying to make a difference.
            enough politic talk. :)

          • Tara

            No I think any attention payed towards the youth is important. It is quite apparent though that they seem to forget that just because you may not live in the metro areas and you may have a house that is not boarded up does not mean you aren’t living in poverty. So many kids in the rural south and Appalachia suffer and even where I am from up north suffer. However you never hear about it. Hilary Clinton tried to rectify it with her “it takes a village” campaign and Laura Bush emphasized the importance of education for a good foundation. They were always photographed with a rainbow of ethnicities. Michelle Obama limits herself to black youth. Just look at the Christmas pageant, the Easter Egg Hunt, when she reads and exercises at schools, they are all African American. In her private life she can do as she pleases but she now “holds public office” so cannot appear so one dimensional. Enough politics too;)

  3. Anonymous

    Lacking in grace and femininity? You may not like her outfits, but few can deny that she is a phenomenal woman.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    For someone who used to work at Vogue, you used their incorrectly. Must’ve worked in the mailroom.

    Reply
    • Anonymous ( the vogue one!)

      You are mistaken dear I only wrote the first comment. In fact I was deputy lifestyle editor from 2004-2008. Look me up.

      I even did a shoot with Mrs Obama and I can tell you she is quite a large lady with size 10 feet and weighs close to 170 lbs. Additionally her waist is so thick we had to specila order gowns.

      She was a b*tch and everyone at Vogue will agree to it.

      Reply
      • Anonymous (the Vogue one)

        *special*

        Reply
      • Anonymous

        Worked for Vogue. You have no credibility. High fashion magazines are notorious for being biased against anyone that isn’t a size 4. Also, I liked Laura Bush (not her hubby) but let’s face it she had no voice for the 8 years her husband was in office. She rarely ever spoke. She just sat in the background and noded her heard, which is fine for a woman of her generation. However, as a young woman, I admire Michelle Obama far more than Laura Bush. She is smart, articulate, educated, and has professional achievements that are not tied to her husband. She is a personification of the American dream. The real American dream. The product of working parents who wanted more for their children. She earned everything she has and for that she should be applauded. We, as a society, are moving away from being a value-driven society to one that is narcissistic and shallow. We have to draw a line in the sand and decide what values we cherish and then have to courage to applaud those that abide by those values. Otherwise, we are going to have a society of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian wanna bes who only care about the car that they dirive and the brands that they wear.

        Reply
        • Anonymous (the vogue one)

          Your logic makes no sense since I weigh over 180 pounds myself and also currently write an op ed for The Huffington Post.

          It is possible to dislike Michelle Obama on both her style and mannerism. I am as left as they come, voted for Clinton, Nadar, Gore and Obama, but I respectfully disagree with you about the two first ladies. Laura Bush was articulate, kind, faithful, tough as nails and steadfast. Michelle is running like a rickshaw, she is trying so hard to keep up with her husband she has no identity of her own.

          Please read the article by Helen Thomas in the Daily Beast. It is enlightening

          Reply
      • Anonymous

        One point you made resonated with me and that pertains to Mrs. Obama’s size. I’ve read a lot about how fit and ripped she is supposed to be and quite frankly, I don’t see it. She is blessed with height and great skin, but I do concur that she is no string bean.

        I like the fact that you spoke in terms of pounds as opposed to size this or size that because in this day and age, size whatever means jack squat. Size 2 is relative and means nothing – a designer can call anything a size 2, 0, or what have you and from what I can glean, the sizes are getting bigger all the time. If someone weighs 170, they weigh 170, plain and simple. Sorry for the rant, but it’s a pet peeve of mine when people go on and on about being a size “x” as opposed to speaking in terms of weight.

        Reply
      • Anonymous

        How can we look you up without knowing what your name is? That doesn’t even make any sense. And in any case, even with a name, this site does not make your prove your identity. If I claim I’m Kate Middleton, would you believe me? Why should anyone believe you were ever the editor of anything? Just because you say so?

        And I’m not sure I understand why not being a sample size should matter one whit when it comes to our first lady. I didn’t realize looking like a model was a requirement of being married to the president.

        Reply
      • Pelumbro

        Wow. I have size 11 feet (was size 10 but had 2 kids, they grew) am 5’8 and 160 pounds now.. am i an awful person too now? Why does someones measurements make them awful? Not all of us can be sylphlike supermodels.

        Reply
  5. Anonymous

    what a monster!

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Who cares? Get a life. There are bigger problems in the world, this is pure fodder.

    Reply
  7. Cabos

    WTF with all these comments! Is it a crime to use botox now? i dont think she has messed up her face as much as other famous women we know. Just look at pics when she was younger. Even with botox I think she’s ok. As for Michelle Obama, i don’t get why this post turned into a hate-fiesta now. Chill out.

    Reply
  8. Audrey

    Both ladies are attractive in their own way but most of all both ladies look their ages – 40′s. I hate that so many people think that one must look very young such as their 20′s to be considered attractive. Why can aging not be more acceptable? Aging certainly beats the alternative. One of these ladies is definitely more delicate while the other is more physical looking, but isn’t diversity what makes us interesting.

    Politically, I won’t even get into it. I would probably just get angry.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>