Nicole Kidman & Husband Turn Down Million Dollar Deals For Pictures Of Sunday Rose
July 15th, 2008
Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban have rejected deals worth millions of dollars for first pictures of their newborn daughter Sunday.
The couple have yet to decide whether to release a photograph officially but, if they do, it will be free, a source close to them said.
“They don’t think it’s appropriate to make deals. They are still deciding how they feel about – if and when they will release a photo at all. But they realise there is enormous interest from the public and they are grateful and appreciative of that,” the source said.
“… Nicole and Keith have been enjoying their first few days at home with the baby – Nicole is thinking about things like breastfeeding right now.”
Nicole, 41, left the maternity ward of a Nashville hospital on the same day she gave birth to Sunday Rose Kidman Urban. She is understood to have given birth naturally.
Four days later, she looked happy and well rested, laughing and chatting with her friends while dining on a chicken salad at Bread & Company, People magazine said.
“She looked amazing, relaxed and glowing and surprisingly fresh-faced for a new mom,” a witness told the magazine. “Motherhood really suits her well.”
Good for them!
Entry Filed under: Nicole Kidman
33 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Better yet, come join the fun at our NEW hangout hellorazzi.com where we celebrate motherhood, beauty and friendship. At hellorazzi.com you can meet friends, share the latest gossip, exchange beauty secrets, create your own blog, gab in the forums; and enjoy the warmth of spirited girl talk. Come on in! It's free.Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
1. Cheetah | July 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Finally!! a responsible decision in Hollywood!!
Although i don’t mind selling the picture for charity.
2. laila | July 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Yes why can’t Brad and Angie see that their money grabbing tactics are totally obnoxious somewhat like JLO aren’t they??
3. laila | July 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Halle Berry didn’t sell her children either this is why I respect these celebrities a lot more than the Brangelina bunch they aren’t as charitable as they seem when they keep 1/2 the money for themselves and donate half
4. Susie | July 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I’m very happy for Nicole, she has had enough pain with Tommy girl. Plus the little fruit stole her children.
5. name not important | July 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Oh my how did we see this coming. wow Nicole kidman decided not to sell photo’s Ready now everyone remember celebrities who sold photos and now lets talk about how rich they are and how bad they are and how much we hate them and while we are at it lets talk about how our lives suck and the reason why we have nothing better to do than talk about how bad other people are to make ourselves seem better.
Please when will you all shutup about the stupid pics celeb babies. Are you people still in highschool or what.
6. letitbe | July 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I agree w/ you Susie. She seems very humble and always seemed so sad, but now she looks SO happy. Good for her!
7. Susie | July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
name not important- I think you have some serious problems. Have you ever considered getting together with friends, go to dinner, have a drink, have fun. Have you considered therapy? Good luck with all of that hostility.
8. Emma | July 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
laila: you are sadly misinformed. They don’t keep half of the money themselves. Printing false information about people does not make them look bad, it makes you look bad, not to mention jealous and bitter.
9. Rijay | July 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The way I see it is that the paparazzi will get their photos one way eventually, so the business minded says give them what they’ll get, only charge them for it. And you can donate that money to charity in your child’s name.
There’s nothing unethical about it at all.
10. Ali | July 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
i always loved nicole!
11. KayG | July 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I think selling the photos for charity is a good thing. Everybody gets to see the baby and the money goes to a good cause. It’s a win/win situation.
12. Analise | July 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Sell the pics, don’t sell them. The paps will get the images in the end most of the time. No one is wrong here. Not Nicole and Keith OR Brad and Angelina. The only people who are truly whoring out “their” kid is Tom and KATE.
13. laila | July 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Jealous ROFLMAO
Emma do you know how ridiculous your comment is?? stop directing your comments to me.. I’m sure my life is much better than yours any day of the week… I have a job that pays me handsomely and I do what I love I live in a wealthy neighborhood and have many friends and a big family..I have 2 beautiful children and grandchildren you’re a flippin idiot…
14. suzianne | July 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
It is understandable to go for money and give to charity where it will do some good but also because the amount received will be against any monies earned and likely they will receive money back on their income tax. To avoid huge income tax, many stars will work for free but claim the amount against their income. A win win solution.
15. laila | July 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
exactly thank you for your intelligence thats exactly why celebs and wealthy people donate it’s a tax write off either donate it or give it to uncle sam what would you do????
16. Granny | July 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I don’t care if the donation is a tax write off or not. A donation to a worthy charity is a good thing. A $11 million donation to charity(ies) is a really good thing.
And I write off all my donations as pitiful as they may be.
17. Corie | July 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Not true. Word is she was asking too much money for her pictures and walked away from the deals rather than take a lower lump sum. Nobody cares about her baby pictures, if she even did have the baby in the first place. Too much speculation that she was faking it the whole time and the baby is a product of a surrogate. Even Aussies claim it was her sister who carried the baby.
18. Nicki | July 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Corie–Not true. Word is she was asking too much money for her pictures and walked away from the deals rather than take a lower lump sum.
That’s kind of funny. Might be true who knows. (I hadn’t heard that, but who knows.)
All I do know is for years her older kids were never seen, hardly. She tried very hard to sheild them from the paps. When a pic did surface it was always the back of the kids heads while being carried, unlike the way Tom carries Suri now. She was always trying to keep them out of the paps view. Good for her.
Most people sell the first baby pics to get the stalker paps to back off. Done in the home with one photographer is better than 25 of them yelling at you and baby just to get the shot. But if she chooses not to, it doesn’t seem strange, she did that with her 2 older children.
And about “her sister was her surrogate” She is a tiny woman, tall yes, but super slim. So it only makes sense she looked tiny all through pregnancy. My Mom was 5′5″ and 98 pounds when she got pregnant with me. People couldn’t tell she was pregnant until she started her 7th month, and asked her how the first trimester was. LOL. I was a healthy 7lbs 14oz baby. But she said she wished she showed early like other women. I’m sure Nicole will be a wonderful Mother, she does have experience with 2 other children. She will do what she feels is best.
19. Starlooks Boutique | July 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I don’t care. It’s their life. Anyway, glad to hear they are doing great!
20. oriana | July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hello Ladies!!! I have missed a lot of you! Granny, I agree with you all the way on the donations! Hello to my darling Nicki, I do think Nicole will be a wonderful mother to this newborn baby, best wishes to her!!!!
I want to say a special Hello to DMITZ!!!!
21. Lauren | July 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I think it’s a personal choice whether to see the first baby pix. Brangelina donates the money to charity while J.Lo pocketed the money. Keith and Nicole have always been private so it’s understandable if they do the same with their daughter.
22. phnxgirl | July 15th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking money like Angelina and Brad if it is going to charity. I have no doubt that is what they will do with any proceeds. If magazines are that stupid to pay these large sums, then of course celebrities are going to hold out for large sums of cash.
23. Nicki | July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hello oriana!! Welcome back. We have missed you.
Hope you will pop on here and there. Good to see you back!
24. tam | July 16th, 2008 at 12:31 am
How do any of you even know whats the truth, how do you even know brangelina donate MILLIONS AND MILLIONS? because you read it all in magazines?
25. Emma | July 16th, 2008 at 4:38 am
laila: Your hateful posts prove that your life is not as happy and wonderful as you claim. Happy people don’t waste their time being as hateful as you have been. And I think it’s hilarious when people online claim to have wonderful lives when there is no way to prove it. I’m glad you have a great life, and by the way I’m a doctor and a lawyer and a supreme court justice and a CEO of a multi million dollar company. Anyone can claim anything on line, and you are sadly mistaken if you think anyone believes you are as happy as you claim to be. And you are only making yourself look foolish by claiming to know anything about my life. It’s almost as hilarious as those infantile people who get mad at someone online and say “I’m sure you’re ugly and fat” to someone they have never seen.
So carry on Laila and take time away from your “wonderful” life to spew hatefullness, that’ll sure show us all what a happy person you are with a great life.
26. Amanda | July 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Not really sure what to think of Nicole, she was out with her friends having lunch when her daughter was 4 days old. Maybe I am too clingy but I didnt want to leave my first born child for quite a while. It just doesnt seem right to me. I am really happy for them and the pics are an absolutely stupid thing to talk over. Everyone wants to see baby pics who cares if some idiots pay for it? Don’t like it dont buy the magazine or look at the pics then. Its that simple.
27. laila | July 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
whos spewing hatred now Emma?
28. Emma | July 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“And about “her sister was her surrogate” She is a tiny woman, tall yes, but super slim. So it only makes sense she looked tiny all through pregnancy.”
I do understand though why those rumors got started, I wouldn’t put anything past anyone in Hollywood after reading several biographies of old Hollywood celebrities and the lies they were able to pull off. Like Loretta young pretending to not be pregnant and then putting her child in an orphanage and pretending to adopt her. It makes me wonder what lies are going to come out in 20 years about today’s celebrities.
But in Nicole’s case, I have to agree with you Nicki. I think she just carried small. I think if they were going to try to fake a pregnancy they would have tried harder to make her look at pregnant as possible and not arouse suspicion by having her look so small.
29. name not important | July 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Susie first of all I am not the one who is constantly talking about their crappy lives all I have said is why you people care so much as to argue about EVERYTHING they choose to do maybe you should get out more and worry about your own life rather than that of celebs and my own for that matter.
30. bambamswife | July 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Tam, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Do these people even know these celebrities? It sounds like they are personal friends or something. They make me laugh_ not much intelligence there.
It does seem to me that in public, Nicole Kidman has a lot of class and probably wouldn’t even think about selling pictures of a child, even if it does go to charity. All celebrities and rich people have to give to charities for tax purposes. Most of them, however, keep these things their own personal business.
Don’t forget the bisexual weirdo bought a house in France for $60 million.
31. T | August 4th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I’m beginning to think some celeb’s sell thier baby’s pictures just to get attention *Jolie,Cruise,J-lo*…I commend Nicole and Keith for NOT selling thier daughters pix for any reason,I can admire that some celebrities have “morals”
32. anon | October 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Are we forgetting that they are coppying the Tomkats for not selling the baby pictures to tabloid?Both Nikole and Keith were going to have the baby picture taken by some magazine source but the press company will not pay for what they were asking for their baby picture,wolud you all please watch the news,and not just read and believe.The news about this subject was broadcasted all over,even the radio stations,,,,duh…..
33. anon | October 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Correction everybody, she did have the baby,she was pregnated by swimming in a fertility waterfalls,she said it herself.So anyone trying to get pregnant but no luck,go swim at Aussieland in fertility waterfalls,you’ll see, you don’t need a husband,after a swim,take a walk at the china fertility bridge to help the fertility.And wait people,it is free,no charge at all,just learn how to swim,no need to go to IVF clinic as well.