Where's The Baby?
Has anyone noticed that everyone has seemed to stop caring about Nicole Kidman and her baby? You never see any reports about the new girl and apparently there still are not any photos of the baby anywhere. I guess the baby has never left her house, not even to see the sun in the backyard. At this rate, the baby will even be more pale than mom. I would think that if the baby had ever crossed into the free world that the paps who must surely be staking out Nicole and Keith's house would have taken a photo.
Now there is news that Isabella and Connor visited Nashville to take a look at the baby. Hopefully they actually checked to see whether it was in fact, a baby, and not some Peeing Polly doll or something similar. I'm just shocked that no one managed to get a photo of Tom and Nicole's kids visiting Nashville or the house or anything.
Am I missing something? Did I have a blackout and miss a bunch of photos of the baby or Isabella and Connor's visit? Did you hear that Nicole wanted the kids to be at the hospital when she gave birth but Tom wanted no part of that. I'm guessing he didn't want the kids to learn about childbirth or something because it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Has anyone else seen the baby? Has anyone said it is beautiful or alive, or Chinese or something? Anything? I don't really care what the baby looks like, I just want to know there is in fact a baby. A real live human baby that from all accounts looks as if it is a newborn and could possibly have come from Nicole. A birth certificate would be nice also. Don't they have public records in Tennessee?
28 comments:
Well, ENT, I guess this post answered your question. The number of comments is a pretty good measure of the level of interest in The Freeze and her Frozen One. It's my understanding that no weekly would pony up her $3 mil. asking price, so she and/or her publicist announced they would NOT be selling any photos of her baby. Talk about taking the high road.
As with Halle, no money, no baby.
Until some mag comes up with some hard cash we won't see these kids till they are off to rehab at the age of 9.
I'm going to guess that I'll be waaaaay out on a limb here and I'll sit on that limb all by myself but I don't see a problem with Nicole Kidman.
She was married to a cult warped freak, fullfilled her contract to said freak and has kept her mouth shut becasue she has to. Even in keeping quiet she still has been denied access to her children due to her non-belief in Scientolgy thus making her a supressive.
I believe she was preganant as many tall women don't show like others.
We have no idea what she had to agree to to see her kids - no baby, no paps etc. Just because she didn't call the photogs before she stepped outside doesn't make her suspicious, it just makes her normal.
I just don't see a reason to ride her about anything.
I'm with littleoleme. I don't see anything interesting going on here. Nicole Kidman seems to be comporting herself very well.
it IS weird given how many pictures there are of katie and suri, and not one of nic and sundae. not even one of them with blankets over their heads. maybe they never leave the house?
but really, i don't think anyone cares. her husband needs to fall off the wagon and screw another bar floozy for interest to rise again, i suppose.
I think the reason we haven't seen pics of the baby is because she hasn't been calling the paps... only when it's convenient for her. Katie and Tom court the paps... that's why we always see pics of Suri. She's probably just chilling at home with the baby.
here's a pic of nicole's baby: http://tinyurl.com/6a4d32
KIDDING!
Good point, Rebecca.
While I'm mildly curious to see the baby, I'm not whacked out about it.
I just happened to see this story on little Sunday Rose's first outing (complete w/ footage!), of course there's no close-up, but Nicole is holding what looks like a human infant. :)
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24139343-5001021,00.html
I doubt it even exists. Either she was never preggers or miscarried and did not want to come out with it. Meanwhile her sis is hiding out and once she pops out a baby, we'll suddenly see it all over the place. Just like Suri is clearly too old for what they claim her age is, Nicole's kid will clearly be too young relative to the claimed birthdate. You can see in some of her photos that she looks very unhappy and almost guilty/ashamed whereas a new mom would be beaming.
Shove over and make room on that limb, littleoleme.
As much as I love little Violet Affleck -- because her dimples and pigtails are pure magic -- I would rather see pictures of her that I know were taken from afar, rather that ones that were obviously shot from a distance of mere feet. It really weirds me out that the offspring of famous people have been thrust into the whole celebrity photo feeding frenzy, and while I have zero sympathy for KatE "Contract" Holmes, the shots taken a few months ago of Suri weeping and absolutely miserable while a billion flashbulbs exploded truly hurt my heart. How you can disturb and petrify a child like that is beyond me. It's absolutely sickening, and this country should adopt laws to protect these kids from these vicious and predatory photogs.
I think Nicole is boring as hell, to be honest. Her acting is boring, her movies are boring, her lifestyle is boring, her hair and makeup and clothes are boring, boring, boring. The only cool thing about her is her Aussie accent. I could listen to a Sheila talk alllll day long.
But I DO respect her for learning something from her heinous famewhore of an ex-husband and choosing to remain private, and choosing to keep her child out of the paparazzi's view. Because it's honestly NONE of our damned business what Sunday Rose looks like, unless Sunday Rose begins doing pirouettes in front of the camera all by herself. Which COULD happen. Look at freaking Rumer Willis: FAMEWHORE.
And I DO believe that the child exists. I mean, come ON.
I'm on the fence. I totally believe that if someone offered the right amount of cash, we would have had baby pics in a hot minute; but no one would offer her asking price.
However, as for the kid not being out and about, from what I understand, that's not all that abnormal for newborns. I think people do keep them home a lot at first as they are very suceptible to falling ill. They don't have such good immune systems. I can't fault her for lugging that kid around everywhere. Now, were it me, I'd probably be home with the baby...especially because it's not like she's on a fixed maternity leave. But I wouldn't fault her for not taking the baby out and about. That's kind of...well...normal, which pains me to say because I generally do find her to be bizzaro with a touch of creepy.
I'm 6', I didn't show until 2 weeks before I was due with my first child. Considering Nicole looks like she's on starvation rations normally, how little did she want to gain with the kid?
I personally prefer celebs to keep their kids out of the public eye. I don't like Angelia WHOREle or her manwhore and their pap loving ways. They scream they want privacy but then ante the price until it's beyond ludicrous. They lick pap ass to get the shots as long as they get paid for them. They claim to give the $ to a foundation but have never released clear financial dealings. Let Nicole keep the kid under wraps, the kid isn't famous and hasn't done any kind of act to make the news.
it's a little odd that the baby hasn't been out and about, simply because you want to get out somewhere and the baby often goes with. But, you can't fault her for protecting her newborn, considering what the paps are willing to do. I don't even see it as susipcious.
oh, and I don't care. If I never see a photo of Nicole's kid, I'll be just fine.
I just walked by a display of People with the 19-page spread on the super beings that are Brad and Crazy's twins and didn't even slow down for a peek.
But poor Brad's starting to look a little rough. Maybe Angelina's slowly draining the blood from his body or something.
I was thinking about this the other day, and it reminded me of when Katey Sagal was pregnant, & then they wrote it in on "Married With Children". Horribly she lost the baby at 5 months, and her pregnancy was never again mentioned on the show, they had her visiting family until she came back, & the next season the whole baby thing never happened.
I could picture Nicole in a few months denying she ever claimed to be pregnat/had a baby. She seems to have wanted to jump on the baby wagon to make herself relevant.
I was going to say something, but Ernestine articulated precisely what I was thinking. So, what Ernestine said.
Also, newborns are weird looking. And I say this as someone who's pregnant with my second child. (Of course I might just be in a bad mood because I'm only 8 weeks and I'm freaking showing already. I WISH I was six feet tall and had a teeny bump, I look like a house and I've got 7 more months.)
Forget Sunday Rose, but am I the only one who thinks Connor looks an awful lot like his "adopted" Dad, Tom?
Hmmm... I distinctly remember when Nicole and Tom adopted Isabella, it was practically years before anyone saw a picture of her. In fact, there was one pic that was leaked from a shower that was held for Nicole and the infant Isabella in Australia, and the then-Cruises went ballastic over the secretive shot being sold by someone who had attended the shower. The same thing happened with Connor - he was about 8-10 months old before anyone saw a picture and found out he was biracial.
Heck, even Suri wasn't presented to the world until she was what - 7? 8? months old? Nicole's baby is barely 5 or 6 weeks old... my daughter rarely left the house before she was 2 months old. (who wants to expose a newborn to all the crap and germs out there? Not me, and I don't have money-hungry paps waiting in my lawn bushes.)
I don't see any conspiracy here.. just a couple of very protective parents who both live in the public eye, and who want to protect a helpless infant from that life as long as possible. Good for them. And good for them for putting what's best for the CHILD ahead of the gossiping public's insatiable nosiness.
frou frou you made me laugh so hard -- sundae!! Oh that's great.
I live in Nashville and the area where Nicole and Keith live is out in the country. My dad saw them a few times at Starbucks right before she delivered and said she was polite and none of the other customers bothered her. We really don't have lots of paps hanging out in town, so unless they took the baby to a public place - like Starbucks or a restaurant - and really showed her off, she's not likely to be photographed.
This just popped up from the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24139343-5001021,00.html
Um, ENT, I think the answer is so obvious. Pale mom, transparent baby!!!
How ridiculous. She doesn't want to subject her young infant to the glare of the media, and there is something wrong with that? She has always been a private person. I didn't take my babies out of the house much when they were tiny, and there were no paps waiting for me.
And I did not receive a birth certificate until my child was a few weeks old. It takes a while to process, they aren't done overnight. Much ado about nothing here, give the poor girl a break!
I'm more concerned that there's another miss x here...you stole my name! j/k =)
i don't know about tennessee, but texas does not require (to this day) birth certificates in all cases. mr. bunny's hobby is geneology (sp) and texas is notorious for bad records. and, IIRC, it does take awhile for records to become available, anyway.
oh, that was in response to ent's comment.
my mother is 72 and doesn't have a birth certificate. and it took months and her older sister who witnessed her birth to get a passport. it was really bizarre.
They're in Australia, there was a report the other night saying that they went all out to avoid the photogs, going to bodyguards, fake cars from the plane going in all ways, hiring an oil tanker to block the road apparently.
Sounds a little far fetched, but they had her arriving home and all the back windows and behind the driver were blacked out and all that.
Sounds like they're going all out to hide the kid - who knows why, a few photos and people would probably disappear.
Best thing would be to post them online that way no photographers out there trying to nail an exclusive and it's done.
Connor Cruise has Tom's eyes and Isabella has Nicole's mouth. Forget the rumors of her latest "surrogacy," why hasn't anyone ever speculated on those two?
Post a Comment