Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:37 AM ET, 10/20/2008

Comment Box: In Which We Again Consider the Question 'Is The Brangelina Brood Too Big?'

By Liz Kelly

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, sans kids, attend the Oct. 4 premiere of Jolie's new movie, 'The Changeling,' in New York. (Reuters)
Comment Box

Welcome back to the on-going, years-spanning debate about Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and a growing cast of children. As expected, last week's hint from Jolie that she and Pitt may be considering another adoption -- this would bring their brood up to seven -- set readers off on another round of back-and-forth over whether or not the couple is saving the world one kid at a time or recklessly stockpiling kids. The reaction, not surprisingly, was mostly negative.

Said one Celebritology Live chatter, "I barely have enough time to spend quality time with my three cats and Brangelina wants seven plus kids! Sorry, they're nuts."

Bawlmer agreed, adding an opinion to Thursday's Morning Mix:

"Angie, I like you, but your crazy is starting to show. This is starting to sound less like "I'd love a big family" and more like "I'm a few species away from being a crazy cat lady."

Meanwhile, ep questioned the timing of adding another kid to the family:

"If the mom is suffering from post-partum depression, both parents are tired from being up all night with newborn twins and mom loses her baby weight by never eating, adding another child to the mix is not the brightest thing."

But, to answer this question, from last week's Celebritology Live discussion:

What do you think of Angelina and Brad adopting again?

I can't get overly exercised about it. Unless and until we have some concrete proof that Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, Knox and Vivienne are leading anything other than the most charmed of existences, I say stock up on the Huggies, Brangie. And I stand by my thoughts from March 2007 when the couple adopted Pax from Vietnam:

I have a hard time mustering much outrage for a woman who has both the means and the desire to open her heart and home to a child. Despite concerns that Jolie's actions may ultimately be throwing a wrench into the works of an already frustrating and complicated process, she's at least reminding a wide swath of mainstream America that international adoption is an option and that there is more than one way to build a family.

Though, now that we're again rehashing Brangelina's fitness for parenthood (despite Angie's status as our Most Admired Celeb), I think reader ep -- who may henceforth be our go-to commenter on all things Brangie -- best summed up the fallout:

"We've done it to death. There are only so many times we can say 'she's crazy.' 'No, she's not.' 'She's a collector.' 'No she is a great humanitarian who can give those kids a good home.' 'Those kids have no stability with all the moving.' 'Moving often does not harm children.'"


I finally figured out what bothers me about Suri Cruise and why I think she is a little strange looking albeit cute. 1. Her parents always dress her in a short sleeve dress with dress shoes, give me a break. What two-year-old, should she be wearing play clothes and sneakers at least in the park, even Ben Affleck's daughter wears play clothes. 2. And does she ever socialize with other kids, I mean you never see her on a playdate with other kids, there have got to be some Scientology toddlers out there for her to play with and be photographed with. 3. But at least they finally stopped letting her take pictures with that BABY bottle. Any thoughts? Thanks. -- Judiciary Square

I can't speak to the dress issue except to say that it's just possible that Suri wants to wear them. My niece, who is now eight, refused to wear anything that had pockets when she was Suri's age, so that also made for a lot of dress wearing. (For any interested parties, she has since overcome her pocket aversion due to the fact that they allow for storage of copious amounts of rocks. Don't ask.) Of course, I suppose an alternate explanation could be that Tom Cruise is forcing Suri to wear tin-foil lined dresses specially made by Scientology seamstresses to L. Ron Hubbard's precise specifications for keeping out evil influences.

As to the socialization thing, well, we do need to keep in mind that no matter how whack-doodle the parents, growing up in a celebrity household is just going to be different. And different doesn't always mean bad. So while Suri may not be making daily trips to the playground to tussle with other terrible twos, she did reportedly (second item) spend much time cavorting backstage with Patrick Wilson's kids while mom and Wilson were rehearsing for their Broadway play, "All My Sons."

In short, I wouldn't be alerting child protective services just yet.

Comment of the Week
"Maybe they can do something about David Duchovny." -- One Celebritology Live chatter responds to news that Thursday was National Feral Cat Day.

REGISTRATION ARRIVES! By the end of the day (or so I'm told) only registered users will be able to leave comments here (and on all blogs). We're hoping this will cut down on spammers, denial of service attacks and general mayhem perpetrated by virtual jackbooted thugs. So, make sure you're registered. And remember, your user name will appear with your comments once the switch is flipped.

By Liz Kelly  | October 20, 2008; 10:37 AM ET
Categories:  Brangelina, Comment Box  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Mix: Madonna Divorce Already Getting Ugly
Next: Morning Mix: Sarah Silverman Booed at London Show


I was wrong. I changed my username to one that didn't include my last name a while back. But that feature has been disable. Sorry!

Posted by: other liz lied to you | October 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Normally I would support adoptive parents, but I'm not sure in this case. I have several friends who adopted. The are wonderful people and the children are better for having them in their lives. But are Brad and Angie doing this for a noble cause or free publicity. If their marriage falls apart, what happens to the kids? I understand that they have the means to provide a great life (materially, at least), but are the kids getting quality parent time? I don't know.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Gah. I'm definitely suffering from ennui when it comes to the Jolie-Pitt clan.

Although I will say that if they do add to their numbers, I'd like to see them adopt an american child. Our adoption system needs a little love, too.

Posted by: Sully | October 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I guess if they can feed, clothe and love them all, there's no harm in it. The children need homes and certainly they have the resources to get through the adoption process.

Posted by: TdoubleB | October 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Sully, I second your opinion about a US adoption. Why not an older child? Everyone wants babies but there are scores of older kids(and by old I mean over age 2) that have more difficulty finding a good home. Hey, you need a babysitter, don'cha?

Posted by: hodie | October 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm the second oldest of eight kids. My parents didn't have near the 'resources' that the Jolie/Pitts have and we all turned out relatively well adjusted and happy. And we moved a lot...Dad in the Army.
The biggest disadvantage those children have is living in the fishbowl of celebrity. Not much to be done about that, though.

Posted by: methinks | October 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I noticed Suri's limited wardrobe sometime ago. I assumed it had some connection to the church, kinda like the Amish.

Posted by: TdoubleB | October 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Jolie-Pitt clan too big or two small? Depends on your perspective. With just the three "born-to-them" kids alone, they're too big to be a Chinese family.

If they were living in an FLDS compound, they would be too small.

They've only one more kid than Sarah Palin and the same number of kids that were in the Baldwin family. Oh joy to that!

Posted by: MoCoSnarky | October 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Wow, two comments quoted. And in not one of them did I say anything really nasty about Angie. I saw a trailer for the Changeling when I went to see the Duchess this weekend (highly recommend, except for the lesbian scene, it was gratiuitous). My friends wants to go see Angie's new movie. I said I won't see anything she is in. Can't stand her publicity whoring.

As for adding to the herd (they have a herd, other large families are a brood, they herd their kids around the world), it's a bad idea. Yes, there are large adoptive families. But, these two aren't even married, do not have a history of long term relationships, can't even pick a country, and Angie is working out her issues with her father by trying to be the "perfect mom" while having an acting career. All of this unfair to the children, who have no control over this insane situation.

Posted by: ep | October 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Just to point out, I believe Pax was 3 or 4 when adopted.

Posted by: MGC | October 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

*shrug* I grew up around the corner from a family with 12 kids (yes, Roman Catholics). Outside of the squabbles you'd expect from a family that large, they got along just fine, and on a fraction of the income of Brangelina. Everybody pitched in and helped each other out, and they all grew up to be well-adjust adults.

As for the Pitt-Jolie brood getting enough parent time? From what I've read or gleaned, they seem to get it. There are always pictures of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie taking their kids to school, to museums, to the beach, or just walking around town. You may occasionally see pictures of a nanny with those kids, but usually, they're helping out one of the parents.

If anything, they probably have more net time with their parents than some kids who have two "regular" working parents. It may be more of a traveling lifestyle than may be good for toddlers, but these kids are getting tons of socialization and the thick skin they're going to need (because of their parentage) to survive the world around them.

Besides, they have solid examples of how to be charitable as part of their upbringing - Paris Hilton and the rest of the celebutantes could only have hoped for that. With a mother like Angelina Jolie, you wanna bet these kids aren't going to be able to pull anything over on her? They may inherit some of her inherent oddness (see the whole knife-buying thing last week), but I'm not thinking they're going to be total basket-cases as adults.

If Pitt & Jolie can afford it and have the time to care for all their kids (and c'mon, admit it, none of those kids look neglected or unhappy), then who are we to criticize them?

If you're that concerned with the welfare of children other than your own, get involved with Big Brothers/Sisters or JA in your own community.

Posted by: Chasmosaur | October 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Seven kids is nothing. It wasn't so long ago that 12, 13, 14 kids wasn't unusual, even if your surname wasn't Dugger.

If it's possible to raise 13 kids during the (soon to be renamed "First...") Great Depression on a lumber mill worker's pay (bonjour, pépère!), surely Brangelina have the financial wherewithal to support seven, or 10, or a platoon.

And if they're up to the other challenges - emotional, physical, etc., hey, more power to them.

Just as long as they don't start harvesting them for their organs, meat, or as extras in a rom-com musical version of a remake of 'Au Revoir, Les Enfants."

Posted by: byoolin | October 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Well. . . . oh never mind. What ep said.

Posted by: td has run out of adoptive-parent indignation for the moment | October 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

On Brangelina,I have read that each child gets alone time with mom and dad and as long as they can afford to care for their kids and spend time as a family. I think the kids will be ok.

Here's hoping Katie doesn't decide to design Suri's outfits.

Posted by: petal | October 20, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

::shrug:: I'm just a little concerned with the rate at which they seem to be acquiring kids- but as others have pointed out, they certainly have the monetary resources to handle it. As long as everyone's getting enough love.

I am much, much less concerned with Suri Cruise wearing the same clothes, as I can remember a period when I though pink plastic glasses and plaid jumpers were the height of fashion. Besides, she's not wearing anything that says "Juicy" across the rump, thank God.

Posted by: Bawlmer aka area | October 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

While I agree with petal, I have concerns about what would happen to the kiddies if the Jolie-Pitts should ever call it quits.

Posted by: Curmudgeon (aka LizardCurmudgeon) | October 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I really haven't seen anything wrong with Suri's clothes. Some little girls like to be "girly". If she is actually wearing the same outfit twice, that is a good thing. Makes the Cruises seem human. (I said "seem", people.) Katie takes it a bit too far herself, though,in the homespun couture. She's not fooling us.

Posted by: hodie | October 20, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Downside of registration: No one will know who anyone is.

Wait--after the second post it will be obvious.

Roy Rogers adopted a whole bunch of kids too, and everything worked out OK. Of course he didn't have to be Secretary of State. Hey, if Shirley Temple can be an ambassador, Angie can be Secy of State.

Posted by: Red Dragon | October 20, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Josephine Baker, international star and a major force in the Civil Rights Movement adopted 12 multi-ethnic children--without a "man-around-the-house". And she looked great in a banana skirt!

Posted by: DC | October 20, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Is Angelina really opening her heart to another child, is my question -- or does she have serious mental/psychological issues and is trying to fix them by surrounding herself with children, country-hopping and making movies so she never has any downtime to listen to herself? Is she attempting to fill a void with a ceaseless parade of children? What happens when the kids grow up -- will she go back to cutting, drugs, serial monogamy?

When you just keep obsessively adding kids to the brood, it doesn't look like love -- it's looks like something really dysfunctional.

As well, Jolie's experience with international adoption is not normal -- I have friends who are trying to adopt from overseas and the wait list is minimum 3 years. All of them are irritated at how celebs get to jump the line every time.

Posted by: Californian | October 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

oh I don't care- God bless 'em if they can keep up w/their little army. I've wondered too if she was becoming a collector but then I have a brother and sister-in-law with 5 kids (they say they are not done either). They certainly do not have the dough and other resources that the Jolie/Pitt clan have but they manage their brood some kind of way. Mr. Plamar and I, however, know our limits and two will do for us.

Posted by: plamar1031 | October 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I have one kid and that is plenty enough for me, period. But if Brad and Angie want dozens, I say more power to them. What happens to the kids if Brad and Angie break up will depend on how they were adopted. If they were adopted by both Brad and Angie, then custody will be determined by the court just like it would for biological children of married folks. The kids look healthy, happy and they aren't wearing masks. I say Brad and Angie should adopt Madonna's kids.

Posted by: sunnydaze, soon to be known as VaLGaL | October 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

to Californian: I have friends, of modest means, who are about to adopt their second child from China. I've been amazed at how quickly the ball rolled with their overseas adoptions. Maybe the speed has to do with the agency they use?

Posted by: methinks | October 20, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Every Wednesday Channel 4 does a Wednesday's Child segment & every time I see it I think "Where's Angelina when they need her?"

If she's got the money, time, & heart, why not adopt a special needs child then? Not that those kids are all special needs, but a lot of them are & a lot of them are older & close to being put out of the system.

Seriously, I think her bringing the international adoption situation to light isn't needed. It's almost a given around here (DC/MD/VA)that if someone has adopted a kid they went to Russia or China or anyplace but the US.

I know a TON of people that have adopted internationally, but I know ZERO people that have adopted locally.

Posted by: Bored @ work | October 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Did I just land in the OP blog?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

How many social workers do Angie and Brad have, both locally and in the country of birth for each child? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when these two approach their homestudy agency about starting the process again.

I imagine the social workers might recommend a slowdown in acquisitions pending further adjustment of the existing children in the household.

Posted by: not a social worker | October 20, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I went to school with someone who was the oldest of 15 and the Duggars have 17 (with one on the way!). I grew up in a family of 6 as did my significant other. How many kids did Mia Farrow adopt? How about Kate Capshaw and Steven Speilberg?

Large families can happen and even be fairly well adjusted. Probably the worst thing the Jolie-Pitt kids have against them is the glaring spotlight of celebrity.

Posted by: anon until registration kicks in | October 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Bored, oh no, no special needs kids for these 2. The children must look cute and be perfect. But, nothing that mars the smoothness of the rainbow they are building.

Posted by: ep | October 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

We have people dumping their kids off at the local hospital in Nebraska, and you guys are criticizing Angelina Jolie for adopting?! F U and all of your ancestors.

Posted by: Wang | October 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The odd thing about the "building of this family" is the speed in which it is being done - with the concern that once they all stop being under age 7 (I think most of them are under age 5!) the parenting issues will be much tougher, and money will have nothing to do with it.

Having 5 under age 5 is cute and fun (I had 5 under age 7 and it was a blast!) Having even 2 teenagers is much, much harder.

Angelina seems to be searching, searching for something...frantic moving, quickly grabbing children...what's the rush??

Big families are great, but they typically aren't created in under 3 years (which seems to be the time period here in which Angie went from mother of 1 to mother of 6).

Posted by: Amelia | October 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Kate Capshaw and Steven Speilberg - 7 between the 2 of them
Mia has 14 by IMDB's info.

There are lots of big families out there and lots of families who move around. We just never hear about them. Their kids can't turn out any worse than some of these other celeb kids that are now grown. They may even be better off because there parents at least make the aware that not everyone in the world has gobs of money.

Posted by: K | October 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, the Jolie-Pitt horde..... I can't say whether they are abused or neglected or whatnot. Without proof, I have no way of declaring that she should be stopped. But.... I can't shake the feeling that she's like some sort of child collector / hoarder and enjoys a warm fuzzy from "saving" kids and hires an army of helpers to actually raise them. It's not the number itself, it is the rapidity of adopting/birthing them. These kids come in bursts.

But there is zero evidence to support this. Just a feeling.

If friends were doing this, with animals, I would be having a nice heart-to-heart with them over why.

Posted by: DC Cubefarm | October 20, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I grew up, like a lot of you, in a big family--oldest of 9. And on a tiny fraction of the income that is the Brangelina fortune. I can say with great authority, that my siblings and I are all well-adjusted, intelligent, caring, and happy human beings. I loved having so many siblings, though I'm not about to volunteer my body for that. My twins are probably going to be it for me. Maybe one more.

My question is: why is it anyone but Brad and Angelina's business? Why should we feel the need to judge whether or not they are crazy? If they love kids, awesome. Go them. Their children seem happy and well cared for.

I'm just saying, simply loving children and wanting a dozen is unusual, but I would say when you have their resources--it's GOOD UNUSUAL. Hardly evidence of The Crazy. Just because others couldn't do it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them wanting to do it, and with them actually doing it. From my limited vantage point, they both seem very fulfilled, and if they find it in their kids, there's nothing wrong with that.

Would that all of us could find the same level of fulfillment, too.

Posted by: Naomi | October 20, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, methinks. I will mention that to them. :-)

Posted by: Californian | October 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

A Duggar's mention! Haha! I kinda like that family, even if there *is* something just a bit off about them.

You know, I think that Ang and Brad have the love for a large family plus, as a bonus, they have the fianancial means to have them it's all good.

I'm always anaon and my registration name is just as boring..

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Big deal. They balance out the Duggars. At least their little girls aren't wearing pioneer clothes!

Posted by: Fruitfly | October 20, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't feel I have enough information on the Jolie/Pitt family to make any psychiatric diagnoses. But I must have missed the issue of US Weekly that published her shrink's notes, so I'll defer to the expertise of Californian and others.

I'd love to adopt. Probably internationally, because in lots of parts of the world, being born a little girl is pretty much a guarantee that your life will be hellish and short. I work in humanitarian assistance, and I know what I'm talking about, here.

I can't afford it, though. $15-30,000 in agency and attorney fees before you even bring the child home. I wonder if Brad and Angie would consider establishing a foundation that gives grants to families to allow them to get over that first financial hurdle. I've got plenty of money to raise a child, and making your own kids is free... I bet a grantor organization to facilitate adoption would find lots and lots of families like mine, hence, lots of families for kids that need 'em.

Posted by: WDC | October 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow WDC that is an absolutely BRILLIANT idea. I love it. I feel the same way about adopting and trying to get past that initial hurdle... I guess they'd have to trust the screening process of the adoption agency though, I know I would be an awesome parent, but they don't know me to know if they should give me the wherewithal to adopt...

Posted by: LTL | October 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obviously I don't know anything about this specific family, and they will never see what we write here anyway. But no matter how much help you're able to afford, Mom and Dad is what kids want, and if the kids are so many, each one has very little of the parents.

So I think Brangelina should stop adding to their family, and instead contribute to mothers all over the world, so they are able to keep their babies and give them an education and a good life.

Posted by: ason | October 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

That "brilliant idea" is already a reality at Shoannah's Hope, a charity that offers adoption grants for people who want to adopt but are having difficulty raising the money to begin/go through the process. I'm sure there are other charities as well that do the same thing. They might not pay for the entire package, but it's a start.

Posted by: methinks | October 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

F U and all of your ancestors.

Posted by: Wang | October 20, 2008 1:28 PM


Posted by: Sully loves discovering a new comeback. | October 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather see the J-Ps adopting additional kids over giving birth to more. If they're concerned about the plight of the world's orphans, then limiting the number they personally bring into the world would set a good example.

Of course, I tend to think that the issue of global overpopulation needs more attention, anyway. Bring on the haters.

Posted by: epony | October 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

If Brangelina were not in the center of the Celebritology Universe, would we be discussing the composition of their family?

Posted by: Sasquatch asks a dumb question | October 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Suri is not so much that she wears dresses but that she wears LONG dresses. Shd reminds me of a Mennonite.

Posted by: drpittman2 | October 20, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Shaohannah's Hope is an evangelical Christian organization. I haven't applied with them, but my experience with other orgs with similar branding suggests that the religious beliefs of potential adoptive parents will figure heavily in the awards decision. (Meaning, no adoption grant for heathens like me.)

I'd be very interested in hearing if anyone knows of another grant-making organization that doesn't have a religious requirement.

Posted by: WDC | October 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

While I applaud those of you, e.g., who come from military families who moved hither and yon, it's different for adopted children.

My son had already experienced many life changes for a child his age relative to what most (all?) birth children experience. When my wife and I considered adopting again, foremost in our mind was any impact on him.

Despite our best efforts to reassure him, having a sibling rocked his world. His life changed radically. Again. And our second child also had to adjust.

And were weren't traveling the world with erratic home, work and social schedules. Where is the stability for these children of change?

Being able to provide love, financial security, and a household staff is great, but Brad and Angelina don't seem to be giving enough thought to how adopting again will affect -- emotionally -- kids they already have. If they did, they'd wait a little while in between adopting yet another child.

Posted by: td, adoptive parent, regains his voice | October 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

there is a mental illness and depression factor for women who can only just have babies...just the part where they give birth and are pregnant. the rest is of little interest to them. when you have just had twins and suffering from post partum depression you would not immediately say you needed to adopt another small child. none of them are school age yet...then what? every time I see a picture of them they are all even the oldest sucking their thumbs. I think she's nuts. just because they are famous they should not be allowed to do this. anyone who knows children knows the more children you have the less attention each gets. she might as well just hire nannies for third world children and leave them in whatever orphanage she found them in. she strikes me as unstable in general and this desire for mommyhood in the extreme is just more proof of it. I dread the day when we start having to hear about her kids’ problem lives because it will happen.

Posted by: eve | October 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Sully, I thought the same thing. I predict it will get a lot of usage as I'm driving home this afternoon.

Posted by: petal | October 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If Brangelina were not in the center of the Celebritology Universe, would we be discussing the composition of their family?

Posted by: Sasquatch asks a dumb question | October 20, 2008 2:43 PM

Us as a group, and thus on a large scale? I seriously doubt it. If they lived down the street from me? Oh my yes.
Being a celebrity these days is like living in an apartment building with a few billion nosy neighbors trying to peer through your curtains and steal your trash cans. It's enough to make you pull a Brando.

Posted by: Bawlmer aka area | October 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

On the plus side, you get to eat fabulous food and have sex with some stunning people.

Posted by: Bawlmer aka area continues to ponder. | October 20, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Sully and petal, don't forget the similar ever-popular Indian curse against the White Man: FU and the horse you rode in on!

Posted by: Nosy Parker | October 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

We'll know that the Brangelina Brood is too large when Brad starts making time with one of the brood in the manner of Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn.

Posted by: Sasquatch | October 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Angela and Brad are doing a wonderful job, it appears, with the children. They seem to offer the love, the time and they have the means to take care of the kids. If they can adopt more, I say do it. I'm sure there isn't a single child awaiting adoption thinking, "they have to many kids already, I don't want to be adopted by them". I support any couple that can love kids and provide for them a happy life. I think that many of the negative comments written here are by people who tend to think negatively no matter what. How many of you have happy days all the time, no matter what? How many of you know families that have fallen apart but the kids and parents still manage to have happy lives. Problems are a part of life.

By the way, a child is a child is a child no matter what country they are born in and it doesn't matter where the child is from.

Posted by: Nervy | October 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

LOL Wang, Sully and Petal. Love the new insult and particularly heart petal's application.

Good discussion today albeit a little too serious for Celebritology. If it weren't for Angie's previous knife comments, I would agree with the many who are saying being adopted by the Jolie-Pitts would not be such a bad thing. But I do think Angelina would be a better adoptive Mom than Madonna.

Posted by: hodie | October 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Angelina would be a better adoptive Mom than Madonna

I'd rather be adopted by Mr. & Mrs. td

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

On the plus side, you get to eat fabulous food and have sex with some stunning people.

Posted by: Bawlmer aka area continues to ponder. | October 20, 2008 3:09 PM


For example, if you're Halle Berry, you get to have sex with....Halle Berry!

Posted by: Sasquatch | October 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I have two dogs, and I feel as if they don't get as much high-quality time with me--I don't know how it is possible to attend to that many kids!

Posted by: Pop Culture Curmudgeon | October 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I have two dogs...

Posted by: Pop Culture Curmudgeon | October 20, 2008 3:32 PM

Why do you ask?

Posted by: Sasquatch revives another old Indian expression | October 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

" it is possible to attend to that many kids! "

And have such demanding careers. Though from checking out IMDB, Ang had only 3 movies this year, but Brad had 6 in various stages of completion, post, pre and in production. With all these projects how do they have time to even make babies, let alone raise them?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey, do we have any legit sourcing for the post-partum thing? 'Cause if we're relying on the tabs, Angie also has anorexia, leukemia, and is pregnant with BatBoy.

I'm second of nine children (I know that sounds like a Star Trek problem, but I am! Really!) and I can't get worked up about the Angie-Brad pair adopting another kid or three. More power to 'em. Their family will never be normal (see Cruise, Suri) and a little more abnormal won't hurt and may help all of them to grow up better adjusted.

Just think of being Shiloh Jolie-Pitt as an only child: the single (female) offspring of the two most beautiful people in the world. That's basically a recipe for lifelong therapy. But add half a dozen siblings of different genes and ethnicities, all the sudden you've got a crew of close friends and the knowledge that the world is a big place. You see your parents care about something other than being beautiful and famous. You get over your princess issues young. If Shiloh turns into Paris Hilton in twenty years, I'll admit I was wrong . . . but from my viewpoint, I see more that's healthy in this than I do problems.

Posted by: krasni | October 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Lets see? The kids could grow up in Africa, Cambodia, etc., with no money, little food, and aids running rampant; or live a life of luxury with Brangelina?
Even if they divorce the adopted kids will be living a life 100 times better then if they were not adopted.
I would think that all decent rational people would think the adopting is a good thing. I guess we now know ep is not decent or rational.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

My mother is one of 13 children, I am one of 5, I have aunts and uncles with 4 to 8 kids. My next door neighbors right now, have 7 children.
In all cases the kids were all happy, loved, and turned out to be happy well adjusted adults.
My neighbors kids are all polite, straight A students.
Brad and Angelina are very wealthy people who have made the lives of their adopted children much better then they would have been.
I hope they continue to adopt and would be very glad to volunteer if they want to adopt me.

Posted by: anon | October 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd be very interested in hearing if anyone knows of another grant-making organization that doesn't have a religious requirement.

Posted by: WDC | October 20, 2008 2:48 PM

I believe the Dave Thomas Foundation still does this. Dave Thomas was the founder of Wendy's and as adopted as a child.

Go to many agencies to find one you are comfortable with in every way. You can find one that meets your needs financially and emotionally.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

If the Brangelina Brrod brings the Partirdge Family Bus out of retirement, then we'll know it's too big.

Posted by: Sasquatch looks at the David Cassidy jump suit in his closet | October 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Good point Krasni! I agree if Angie doesn't teach them about knife fights.

Posted by: hodie | October 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Suri looks adorable in her dresses. When I was in kindergarten and first grade, all I would wear would be these sweet little dresses my mother would sew for me. It's probably just a phase that she'll eventually out grow. (I did after 5 years of Catholic school uniform skirts.) At least Suri looks appropriate attired - more than I can say for many children her age.

Posted by: Stuck in Nowhere, PA | October 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

WDC and LTL, if there is enough publicity in it and they can get more media attention, I'm sure Brangelina would be game for your idea.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I agree about the whole Suri thing. I have a friend whose daughter went through a purple phase, including wearing a pair of purple cowboy boots in the middle of summer. One day she decided she was over it, no reason, just no more purple. As long as she's not dressing from the Beyonce mini-hoochie collection, let the girl wear what she wants.

Posted by: millie | October 20, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

For example, if you're Halle Berry, you get to have sex with....Halle Berry!

Posted by: Sasquatch | October 20, 2008 3:22 PM

And if you could have sex with Halle Berry, why would you settle for less?

Posted by: yellojkt wishing he were Halle Berry right now | October 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I was taught the phrase as being "Chuck you farley and your whole fam damily."

And then I met Chuck Farley.

Posted by: yellojkt | October 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Brangelina certainly have the material resources to support any number of children they care to have/adopt.

On the other hand, you do have to wonder if the kids are getting their emotional needs met. They all appear OK, but stuff like that isn't always outwardly apparent--sometimes not for years, even. But who's to say their situation is any different from any other celebrity (or non-celeb) family?

I do think the constant moving can be highly stressful for kids. I came from a family with both biological and adopted siblings that moved very often (anywhere from several times a year to every two years) and I found it very stressful. Some kids might thrive on the change, but most of us didn't. Kids generally like a certain degree of stability, structure, and routine.

OP segment over. . .


BTW, I don't like all the weird postings of late, but I'm not sure registration is the way to go. I think I'll be a lurker henceforth. (I'm sure you'll miss all my pearls of wisdom and scintillating wit.)

Posted by: alex | October 20, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Sasquatch looks at the David Cassidy jump suit in his closet."

O.M.G. This is the scariest thing I've read in ages. I can just imagine the day after Halloween headlines of Sasquatch-in-a-jumpsuit sightings in the Metro area.

Posted by: alex thinks she needs more Snickers bars for the big trick-or-treaters | October 20, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Please, give JoliePitt couple a break!

Posted by: needmore | October 21, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Some of you people are downright ridiculous. I come from a large family myself and I don't see a damned thing wrong with what they're doing. My mother had 5 chidlrend in a 7 year time span, 7 in 12 years. And we were DEFINITELY not filthy rich the way the Jolie-Pitts are. If people have enough love in their hearts to for all these children, then leave the alone. Neither me or my siblings turned out to be serial killers, so clearly having a lot of kids does not always lead to neglect. Both of my parents worked full-time and back in those days they didn't get automatic vacation and sick time, so they pretty much worked every day but national holidays and weekends.

Do you know how many celebrities have large families? If they can afford it, then leave them be. Between the two of them, Pitt and Jolie probably work 120 days out of 365 in a year and they get the weekends off because they both have enough clout as A-listers to demand that in their contracts. That leaves them with 245 days a year with nothing to do but be with their children. For those of you with children - how many days a year do you have completely free from work to spend with your kids? Yeah, that's what I thought - nowhere near 245! So STFU and leave 'em alone!

Posted by: OneOfManyMyself | October 21, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Angelina stated in an interview that she has no rules for the kids, lets them eat whatever they want including junk food, and lets them go to bed whenever they want. That's called neglect. It's hard to be a GOOD parent - you are supposed to actually care enough about the kids to make them into good people, teach them right from wrong, and teach them moral values, make them get enough sleep, and get proper nutrition.

Posted by: Trish | October 22, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company