Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Sizing Up Old Hollywood--Heights, Weights, and Measurements of Classic Cinema Stars


Whenever I do presentations on the History of Fashion in Film, some of the most fascinating facts to audiences are the sizes of their favorite classic cinema stars.  As a result, I put together a chart with many of the actresses we know and love.  You'll see that this particular list is organized from shortest to tallest, and it also includes their approximate weight and measurements.  These measurements are generally the ones recorded at the peak of their popularity.  Sometimes they come from the costume designers themselves, such as Adrian.  Some come from the studios' press agents for the movie magazines (often idealized for the public, though close to accurate).  Some are simply the best guesses of film historians.  And some information I simply haven't found yet. 

In any case, this list can bring an even greater appreciation for these goddesses.  Many seem like giants onscreen; Joan Crawford is one who regularly elicits gasps from audiences when they hear how petite she really was.  The illusion was due to the talented production teams--from set designers to clever directors and cinematographers.  They of course also included my beloved costume designers, who fixed many a figure flaw in order to turn these actresses into icons. 

HeightNameWeightBustWaistHips
4' 11"Judy Garland98 - 155332234
4' 11"Veronica Lake98342133
4' 11" - 5' 2"Gloria Swanson
5'Janet Gaynor9831.52333
5'Mary Pickford332536
5'Jane Powell108332333
5' - 5' 4"Joan Crawford1123724.537
5' 1"Mae West121382438
5' 1" - 5' 3"Norma Shearer1183425.537
5' 1.5"Jean Harlow10934B2536
5' 2"Miriam Hopkins
5' 2"Debbie Reynolds109362337
5' 2"Shirley Temple
5' 2"Natalie Wood12032B2233
5' 2" - 5' 4"Olivia de Havilland108372336
5' 2" - 5 '5"Louise Brooks
5' 2" - 5' 5.5"Carole Lombard120342434
5' 2" - 5' 4"Elizabeth Taylor12032D2136
5' 3"Jean Arthur
5' 3"Clara Bow112332436.5
5' 3"Leslie Caron
5' 3"Bette Davis34C2134
5' 3"Vivien Leigh32A2333
5' 3" - 5' 4"Tippi Hedren11034C2432
5' 3.5"Lana Turner110342434
5' 4"Ann-Margret119352335
5' 4" Constance Bennett100332635.5
5' 4"Ann Blyth
5' 4"Bebe Daniels120362737
5' 4"Marion Davies118352735.5
5' 4"Betty Grable126.5-134362435
5' 4"Barbara Stanwyck10833.52333.5
5' 4.5"Claudette Colbert11032B18 - 2534
5' 4.5"Marlene Dietrich130362633
5' 4.5"Dolores del Rio120332536
5' 4.5"Ginger Rogers342435
5' 5"Joan Bennett108332534
5' 5" - 5' 5.5"Marilyn Monroe115-150372336
5' 5" - 5' 7"Jane Russell12238D2436
5' 6"Cyd Charisse34.5B2237
5' 6"Catherine Deneuve13534D2435
5' 6"Ava Gardner120362337
5' 6"Rita Hayworth11736C2436
5' 6"Hedy Lamarr11835.52534.5
5' 6"Myrna Loy35.526.533.5
5' 6"Kim Novak12136C2537
5' 6"Raquel Welch1183722.535.5
5' 6" - 5' 7"Loretta Young
5' 6.5"Greta Garbo125362838
5' 6.5"Rosalind Russell12034.525.536
5' 7"Brigitte Bardot12536B2035
5' 7"Doris Day36B2536
5' 7"Faye Dunaway342534
5' 7"Anita Ekberg402436
5' 7"Audrey Hepburn10334A2034
5' 7"Grace Kelly11834A2435
5' 7" - 5' 8.5"Esther Williams382734
5' 7" - 5' 9"Kay Francis1183325.535
5' 7.5"Katharine Hepburn12534B2233
5' 8"Lauren Bacall13034C2634
5' 8"Sophia Loren14038C2438
5' 8" Ali MacGraw
5' 9"Ingrid Bergman135342434
5' 9"Alexis Smith128342436


Updated 3/24/14

This information is now also permanently posted on the Sizing and Silhouettes page here on GlamAmor and will be regularly updated for your reference.  You can also learn about vintage sizing there and how it differs from fashion today.

PHOTOS:  the varying heights of Norma, Joan, and Roz in The Women (above) and
1931 article from Photoplay on those voted "The Best Figure in Hollywood" (Delores del Rio won)

46 comments:

Irene said...

Very interesting! I'd argue however that the information regarding the bra sizes of any of these actresses over a size 34 band (such as 36B) is very likely to be wrong. It's impossible that a woman like Elizabeth Taylor, having a relatively petite frame with 36" hips, could have a size 36C bra size, at least in modern sizing. 36" bust sure, but I'd guess 32D+ bra size is more like it!

Howard said...

Surprising how small almost all of them were, even allowing for the general population being a little shorter than we are today. I especially imagined Greta Garbo to have been quite tall.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks Irene! You know what? I'm think I'm going to go along with your thoughts on Elizabeth Taylor. You may be right there.

Other actresses may have a 36" chest, though, especially if they're not petite/short. My family is German and on the taller side, and the girls all have bigger ribcages/chests with smaller waists. Just genetics. Also, it's entirely possible that some of those numbers--particularly waist size--were skewed with some kind of corsetry. Or PR person. ;)

I really appreciate your feedback and will be adjusting Elizabeth Taylor's info the next time I refresh the chart. :)

Kimberly Truhler said...

It's true, Howard. They are much smaller than they seem onscreen. At the TCM Classic Film Festival, my friend Kay (Movie Star Makeover) and I were constantly amazed at how tiny the stars were...Tippi Hedren, France Nuyen, Mitzi Gaynor, etc. etc. So petite!

Silver Screenings said...

I was stunned to see how short Garbo was! Monroe was taller than I expected. And Bergman - she was a giant!

Fascinating post. Thanks so much for sharing this info.

Christian Esquevin said...

Great information Kimberly. I think there should be no doubt that movie actors tend to be shorter, but no pun intended,have bigger heads with more prominent features.I think Garbo was sensitive about her height and stooped to appear shorter, and probably had her height fudged too. I always like to try to figure out when "the box" was used in scenes when the male lead stood next to the female lead.

Kimberly Truhler said...

I know, Silver Screenings! There are a lot of surprises in there. Interesting that you pointed out Bergman--I believe that her height added to the tension between her and Bogart on CASABLANCA. One of my future updates on the chart will include some of the men's heights against their popular co-stars, such as Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake. :)

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks Christian! I think of "the box," too...even in still images. I can't even imagine what that does to the male ego when they're the ones on "the box" next to their female co-star. Yikes. And not surprised to hear about Garbo stooping a bit to compensate for her height. Even I have to remind myself to stand up straight since I'm so much taller than the average woman (5'4") and man (5'8"). That said, I still love being tall! :)

The Lady Eve said...

Interesting statistics! Obviously, Sophia Loren was (and may still be) the classic hourglass. I am suspicious, though, that in some cases the data came from studio PR.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks Patricia! Sophia is stunningly beautiful and a perfect representative of that hourglass shape. And you're right to be suspicious--some numbers we know came straight from studio PR (e.g. numbers given in fan magazines). But at the very least we can get a sense of their size and how they compared with the rest of Hollywood. On that note, I plan on adding a few men the next time I update the chart so we can see the ladies next to their co-stars. Always interesting. ;)

Veronica said...

1) Amazed at all the folks who think that 5'6 1/2" is short- (Garbo) That's well above average for an actress even today. (Actresses, not models!) The only thing I see that seems wildly impossible is Carole Lombard's weight in relation to her measurements. Even with her smaller bust, to have a 28"waist and 38" hip and claim 112 pounds is nearly impossible. (Speaking as a 5'6" 37-25-38 who weighs over 140.) ;)

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks for the input, Veronica! I love how much everyone is studying this information. I definitely will keep your comments in consideration when I do the next update on the chart...I agree that 112 seems a bit unrealistic if those are indeed her measurements.

Anonymous said...

Interesting but dubious. The stats show Jane Russell as having smaller hips than Marilyn Monroe but if you look at them together in the
movie Gentlemen Prefer Blondes that obviously is not true.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks for your feedback, Anonymous. Not sure if you saw my disclaimers galore about the list, which include:

1) These numbers were taken at various points of these stars' careers--some at very start, some at their height, and some later on. It is highly unlikely that the numbers for Marilyn and Jane, for example, were recorded at the same point during their GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES.
2) These numbers do not take the weight fluctuation of the stars into consideration, and some--such as Marilyn--had much more fluctuation than others.
3) These numbers were sometimes provided by studios' PR folks for magazine copy, so they were definitely idealized (just like today's PR folks do and all the photoshopping that goes on).

This list is compiled more for entertainment, though I am often taking numbers from the studios themselves as well as some costume designers for the stars. Just interesting to see them all together, especially when it comes to the variety of heights!

VP81955 said...

Carole Lombard's height has been a subject for debate for some time. She's been listed at everything from 5'2" to 5'6"; in his Lombard bio "Screwball," Larry Swindell states she was 5'4 1/2", while Jean Garceau, longtime personal secretary for both Lombard and Clark Gable, said Carole was a mere 5'2". And the site carolelombard.org (independent from my carole-and-co.livejournal.com site) says she was listed at 5'5 1/2" on her driver's license; other stats there include a weight of 112, glove size 6 1/4, stocking size 9 and lingerie size 32.

Loretta Young was taller than generally believed -- her relatives have told me she was between 5'6" and 5'7", but didn't reach her full height until age 21 (in 1934, meaning she literally grew up on screen!). And the youngest sister of the Young clan, Georgiana, topped out at about six feet, making her a giantess by '40s standards. As a result, she focused more on modeling than acting before marrying Ricardo Montalban. (There's an amusing photo from the early '60s showing Georgiana doing the twist with designer Jean Louis, who would become Loretta's last husband. He's semi-crouching while twisting, accentuating the height difference between them, but even had he stood up straight she still would've towered over him.)

Rana Ramone said...

I'm a little fuzzled about their weight. I expect Marilyn to be around 150 pounds because she did have large assets, a large behind and big hips. I think some of those measurements are smaller than they actually were. I'd add a few inches onto all of Sophia Loren's, she doesn't look skinny, she looks very feminine and I'd say her hips are at least 40" which would be a UK size 14.

Rana Ramone said...

Also look at the women in comparison to their male stars. I think most of those measurements are bogus and are to skinny, the proportions are probably the same but i don't buy into Judy Garland having such small hips. Look at her standing next to the very slimy Ray Bolger whilst he's in his scarecrow padding. I think she's taller too.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks all for the ongoing feedback. To those who argue with the numbers, be sure to read my intro which is one giant disclaimer. lol Again, the numbers come from different points in their careers, come from different sources (some from costume designers--believable, some from studio PR--not so believable), and so on. This chart is primarily for entertainment since so many dispute the numbers that are out there, and everyone thinks that their numbers are right. :)

Kimberlee said...

Kimberly: I truly enjoyed this list and it brought to mind how much the studios and their PR departments had control; even over the stars measurements! Understandable enough when fan magazines and Saturday matinees were the only source of information. Plus, we then believed everything that was said to us by the studios and the stars themselves.
We are now so conscious of our sizes, weight and health in general, that I wish I had a PR person, deciding that 106 pounds at 5'7" is "normal". Thank you so much for giving us this great site.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks so much Kimberlee! I love that you really understood the intention of this list and enjoyed it. Yes, those studios really liked to control things, didn't they? Especially the stats of the stars. But it's always fascinating to me to get some sense of their size, especially height when so many of these women seemed larger than life onscreen.

You know, I think I always have something of an ulterior motivation to make people--particularly women--understand that we shouldn't be so attached to numbers or images that are pushed out by the media, seen in magazines, and so on. We are so hard on ourselves and far too often compare ourselves to fantasies that are pushed by PR folks, especially now in the age of Photoshop. We are all unique, all special, and should celebrate that.

SecondP said...

The measurements do seem small, but when I went to the Victoria & Albert museum's Hollywood exhibition I was completely STUNNED by how tiny the costumes were. The Marilyn Monroe dresses were absolutely tiny, maybe a UK size 8 for the white Seven Year Itch iconic one, and the ones she looked very big in in Some Like It Hot were certainly no bigger than a UK size 12, and she looked so much bigger in that movie than in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, on screen. The Joan Crawford Mildred Pierce pinafore was tiny. Vivien Leigh's Gone With The Wind dresses, particularly the red one, might have fitted my skinny five year old around the waist, but no adult I've ever met. Even with a corset, I cannot believe she was so slim. I also saw a dress of Elizabeth Taylor's from Little Women in Paris, the one covered in autumn leaves, and that was child sized, both short and skinny.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks Second P! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments. Having an eye witness to how small these women--and there costumes--were helps with those who insist there's no way that these measurements can be right. Not that I'm saying they're iron-clad, but much of the resistance seems to come simply because they're so SMALL. It's just the way it was! :)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing Kimberly. I live in Denmark we use kg and cm for measuerments. which measurements did you use?

Kimberly Truhler said...

Hi Anonymous, all numbers are in feet, inches, and pounds. Thanks for asking.

Anonymous said...

Hello, I've heard that Betty Grable's weight was between 112lbs-114lbs. Perhaps it was from the PR studios? She does look slender though. Was the weight system different or the same from today? Is 115lbs then like 1125lbs now for example?

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed you left out Greer Garson.

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks for your interest, Anonymous #2. Betty Grable was actually a lot tinier than she looked on film. I've seen some of her costumes up close and they are so small! And that weight that you mention may have been toward the beginning of her career as well. Though sizes have dramatically changed over the years (and are essentially meaningless because of it), weight is still measured just the same as always. A pound is still a pound. ;) Women were simply much smaller back then, as any vintage dealer will tell you.

Kimberly Truhler said...

And yes, Anonymous #3--Greer Garson! I'll definitely include her in any future updates. Thanks!

the Discerning Dilettante said...

Thanks for compiling and sharing--this is fascinating! Veronica's comment above illustrated to me just how much all numbers—sizes, measurements, or pounds are relative to frame, body mass, weight distribution, etc. and are thus pretty meaningless. As a 5'6" 34-25-37 weighing 113, Veronica and I may have similar measurements but different weights. One of us probably looks more like Marilyn Monroe, and the other Grace Kelly! I recently saw the Grace Kelly exhibition in PA, and was shocked that her wardrobe looked perfectly sized for me. I think no matter their actual size, these stunning women always appear larger than life on screen. :)

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks so much, Discerning Dilletante! I appreciate that you really get the purpose and spirit of this list. And you're absolutely right--one can have similar measurements and different weights. So much is discussed about our different diets today (generally, a negative, when it's brought up), but we are also very different in how active we are. There are many more women athletes today, and muscle weighs more than fat. That means a gal today may have the same measurements as one of these stars, but weigh more.

And, as you agreed with me, these numbers--especially dress sizes--are essentially meaningless. I put this chart together more to bring these people more to life as we only see them in two dimensions on the silver screen. I also wanted to call more attention to the genius of the costume designers, who make these people seem taller, slimmer, whatever.

Fascinating to me that measurements are generally available for the women, but not for the men. With men, only heights are available.

Thanks again for your interest and comments!

VivaEnnui said...

Maybe if you calculate hip to waist ratio you can determine if some of these measurements are more or less accurate. Ex. Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren had .70 hip to waist ratio. If you're interested...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1306012/Beauty-summed-To-tell-womans-really-attractive-figures.html

VP81955 said...

There's a concept known as "paleo-future," examining how the past envisioned the future would be. Some results are accurate, others wildly inaccurate, still others verging on the absurd.

In December 1949, with the half-century on the horizon, the Associated Press ran a story which predicted that in 2000, the average height of the American woman would be close to, or perhaps over, six feet tall. Last I checked, U.S. womanhood had not developed into a society of giants.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-the-future-all-women-will-be-amazons-22915242/?no-ist

Margaret Perry said...

First I was like, "Hey, why is Katharine Hepburn all the way at the bottom?' They I was like, "Oh, they're in height order... and she was hella tall..." I feel smart. I also love that she and I have literally the same measurements, minus one inch in height. That might be tmi, but I am very proud!

Kimberly Truhler said...

Happy to hear you found your favorite actress, Margaret AND that you and she have such similar measurements. I can imagine how happy you are about that. It's a fun chart, isn't it?

kat be said...

Very interesting! I'm always looking up heights & stats when watching TCM & the silver screen & even modern screen does make them all appear larger than life! Followed your link & loved seeing how little most of the men were ☺. You forgot to put one of the biggest men on there, possibly the tallest, to the point they occasionally lied about his height stating he was shorter! Rock Hudson was 6'6"! That was practically a giant for those days. Again, thank you for having all this infotmation in one spot. It is surprising how much larger we've all become as a whole in just 70 or so years with easier access to nutrition & vitamins. Like going on a historic tour & looking at their tiny little beds & thinking 'how did they sleep in that?'

Kimberly said...

Dress sizes where numbered differently in the classic era. They converted all of the dress sizes in the late 60 early 70's to the standars we now have.

Marilyn said...

Stopped by to say they really were 112 and those measurements in the 1940's. My Aunt won a beauty contest in 1945 and weighed exactly that..great figures too. I was in college in the 70's and a size 7 5'4 105 35/22/35 no girdle nothing. We had much smaller waist. I joke it's the hormones in the milk now. But then they moved the Size 7 to a 4 to accommodate the weight problem. I have my old clothes and I go into them to figure out the old sizes. Go to a vintage store you can see it. When I was a child those women were still around the H.S. beauties of the 40's and 50's and they really were gorgeous they had glamour...

Marilyn said...

Forgot to say they moved the sizes again in the 80's and 90's both decades. Always down to a smaller size so people could weigh more..that's what I mean by a 7 is now a 4...

Marilyn said...

Forgot to say they moved the sizes again in the 80's and 90's both decades. Always down to a smaller size so people could weigh more..that's what I mean by a 7 is now a 4...

Kimberly Truhler said...

Thanks for your comments, Marilyn! You're right about the changes in sizes--if you go to my Vintage Sizes & Silhouettes permanent page, you'll see this chart and a huge discussion on the evolution of sizing in women's clothing. The bottom line is that essentially it's meaningless because it has changed so much. There's also a chart on the men's sizes there, though only heights are available for the men (versus all the measurements for the women).

Gilda Marlowe said...

I stood next to Raquel Welch once --this was at an airport-- I am 5'5 and Raquel, even with high heels (I had on flats) was at shorter than I. I put her at no more than 5'2.
Thank you

buff manly said...

I saw Elizabeth Taylor when she was still married to Eddie Fisher. I would guess her to be 5'3". She was thin at the time and had a low cut sun dress on and she really filled out the top and very small waist. Her face was beautiful beyond belief. Never saw a pic that captured her beauty.

Saw Debbie Reynolds at a party and was amazed at how petite she was. Maybe 5'2.

Saw Raquel Welch at the same party. She had on high heel boots and seemed like she was 5'7, so maybe she would be about 5'4.

I would say Loretta Young would have been about 5'6. Wonderful posture.

Melanie said...

Not that it could have made a drastic difference, but it did make some difference in their appearance (not their actual measurements of course, but the perception of them) that they wore some heavy-duty foundation garments back then-it almost seems that the further back you go (with exceptions of course, like the Twenties and early Thirties), the more heavy-duty the foundation garments. Remember that wonderful scene from "The Women" where Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer (my favorite Golden Era actress) and Rosalind Russell are at the fashion show at the dress designer's, and one of the models after the show is strutting around in a foundation garment under a sheer peignoir, repeating "Our new one-piece lace foundation garment-zips up the back and no bones", and apparently that was considered a lighter foundation garment, lol. This was 1939. Also, after WWII when Dior's "New Look" came out, heavy duty foundation garments came back into style to achieve that tiny-waisted, pointy-breasted look-bullet bras, girdles, even updated corsets and crinolines under skirts. Whereas in the early (pre-Code Thirties), Norma Shearer, taking a bath while on honeymoon in the film "Private Lives", asks new hubby to hand her a "bras", slang of the day for "brassiere", which "bras" is not much more than satin ribbons attached to a bit of chiffon (no support whatsoever, not even jiggle control, more of a feminine bon-bon type garment),and little tap pants (a funny bit of business is that she asks hubby for the peach "bras", and he mistakenly hands her the pink, so when she asks for the pink underpants, he mistakenly gives her the peach, lol, a small bit of business which plays up his unfamiliarity into the mysteries of femininity). Jean Harlow was famous (or infamous) for wearing nothing under her bias-cut satin frocks in her movies. Shearer also wore the Adrian bias-cut satin gowns so often in her early films that they were known as "Norma's nightgowns". She usually wore underwear, except, it's rumored, when she played opposite Clark Gable in "A Free Soul". Gable commented to friends on her apparent lack of underwear.

Norma was often on the Best-Dressed lists, even though in her real life she wore a lot of American sports-type clothes, and her chic was the Parisian kind, not the glamored-up Hollywood kind.

Shearer, BTW, was rumored to be app 5'3", and was short-legged and long-waisted, as were many famous actresses-Stanwyck was another, Edith Head spoke of designing her dresses and suits to have a waistline which was higher in front and lower in back to lengthen her line. If you look, you may also notice sometime that Stanwyck, a former Follies Girl, had the famous Follies walk, where she kind of "dragged" her feet as if she were always trailing a mink stole behind her. Rita Hayworth also had that walk (though she was never a Follies Girl, she was a trained dancer, but now I wonder if it had something to do with the platform shoes in vogue in both their heydays). Natalie Wood did it to perfection in "Gypsy" after she becomes a famous strip tease artiste (the swayed back, dragged-feet walk, and she literally does drag a stole behind her in one act :) )

It's also true, as another commenter noted, that it's not untypical for actresses to have tiny bodies and comparatively larger heads. This feature seems to hold true up to this day.

Melanie said...

Regarding the larger heads-I recall as far back as the silent era, Mary Pickford in her autobiography "Sunshine And Shadow", noting this about herself. Constance Bennett also noted it (and I noted it when watching her, she was one truly petite woman-not just in height, but in build, small-boned, etc-just tiny, except, comparatively speaking, her head).

Jeannette McDonald was petite in height-I've seen 5'3" and 5'4" (5'3" is considered the "official" cut-off for petite height). The only thing I've found in a quick google search regarding her weight is that during an illness, her weight apparently dropped to a "dangerous" 110 lbs, so I don't know what that means her normal weight might have been. I recall in her 1932 film "Love Me Tonight" (co-starring the ever-charming Maurice Chevalier), in one scene where she is giving her vital statistics to a doctor, she claims (in song) that her waist is 28". That wouldn't have been considered large in 1932, at the tail end of the vogue for boyish, slim-hipped, small-breasted, sportive figures. I could wish that shape was still the vogue, as I have it from the waist down, but large-breasted and short-waisted, long-legged ("chic" and "elegant" are two of the many positive attributes I'll never possess, lol ! Don't have the necessary long line required for chic or elegance!) A certain kittenish sexiness was one of the desired styles in that era, along with the well-known Art Deco streamlined look.

Anyway, hope I'm not boring anyone to tears with this trivia, it interests me no end, as the fashions and desired figures, superficial things like that, can say deeper things about the era, as sociologists know. But I'm just here for the fashion, too :)

aashka said...

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this so far.
Katharine Hepburn was always regarded as being flat-chested (for want of a better description). You can see it on screen too..she had an amazing body which had its angularity and posture as the highlights, but not an enviable bust.
If you see the list, Bergman-34 Hepburn 34B?
What I mean is that just by looking at them on screen you can say that the difference is more than that right?

Eric said...

So many things written about Marilyn's weight. When she died, she weighed 118, per the autopsy. It's clear from photos of her in bikinis or mostly nude that she was very skinny in the last year or so of her life. Clearly, she weighed more than 118 in much of her adulthood. I don't know if she reached 150 in a film.

Generally, she looked fleshy, as in The Seven Year Itch, yet people say her famous costume would barely fit on a modern size 2 mannequin. She was pregnant when she made Some Like It Hot, which explains her amplitude in that film. I'm guessing she was usually between 120 and 140 in her films.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...