Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[DMRick]

It sure feels like the dogs were a stunt...

so sad (they gave the dogs back to the breeder - some of the magazine shows do show clips with the dogs - but thats old clips)

If they were, I blame TLC or Jon. Although again, I don't think they got them as a stunt..to draw attention to themselves. I think Jon really wanted them. I think Kate went along with it. I never thought she wanted them. I think once she went to get them, as puppies often do, they drew her in and she actually liked them. But not so sure she ever wanted to actually keep them.

 

[madge]

They haven't, but the pap has mostly been focusing on the parents. The kids happen to be in some of the pics, but it's not like they have stuck a mic in their faces asking what they think of their parents getting a divorce, or what did they think of the one tup being spanked. IMO, I think the children are pretty much left alone, other than just pictures of them. Like with other celebrity families. I do have to give the paps that..they tend to not try to get the kids to respond to them. They may say..hey Jon, show me what your shirt says, but they don't ask the kids, for instance to show what's on the front of their lunchboxes (bad example LOL).

I wonder if the paps shout stuff to Jon & Kate when the children are with them, like they do when they're alone.

They certainly didn't have a problem snapping all those pics of the kids when Jon invited the paps along on the twins birthday, though I think it comes and goes where the children are concerned. They're not old enough to be out (and followed) on their own, but I also think that the paps wouldn't turn down a chance for a shot if it presented itself.

 

[DMRick]

I hope they don't, but now that I think of it, I wonder if they do.

I wonder if the paps shout stuff to Jon & Kate when the children are with them, like they do when they're alone.

They certainly didn't have a problem snapping all those pics of the kids when Jon invited the paps along on the twins birthday, though I think it comes and goes where the children are concerned. They're not old enough to be out (and followed) on their own, but I also think that the paps wouldn't turn down a chance for a shot if it presented itself.

 

[kidshop]

They haven't, but the pap has mostly been focusing on the parents. The kids happen to be in some of the pics, but it's not like they have stuck a mic in their faces asking what they think of their parents getting a divorce, or what did they think of the one tup being spanked. IMO, I think the children are pretty much left alone, other than just pictures of them. Like with other celebrity families. I do have to give the paps that..they tend to not try to get the kids to respond to them. They may say..hey Jon, show me what your shirt says, but they don't ask the kids, for instance to show what's on the front of their lunchboxes (bad example LOL).

They photograph/film the school bus drop offs and pick ups even when Jon or Kate is not there.

Stunt: going on GMA to cry that Jon stole all your money and you can't pay your bills or feed your kids.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If they were, I blame TLC or Jon. Although again, I don't think they got them as a stunt..to draw attention to themselves. I think Jon really wanted them. I think Kate went along with it. I never thought she wanted them. I think once she went to get them, as puppies often do, they drew her in and she actually liked them. But not so sure she ever wanted to actually keep them.

I don't have enough to call it a "stunt"...

But it seemed very very very very very very very unusual to see Kate on board with animals that would require additional care and clean up. Even if you paid someone to do it for you--it's just something else to make a mess.

Seemed very disjunct to me.

I like puppies and dogs--but better when other people own them.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Have Jon or Kate every pleaded for the children's privacy? In all the interviews done by them or their "sources", I can't remember an instance where they've asked to leave the children out of this? They've said the children can signal if they don't want to be filmed and made comments about paparazzi being a word Kate wishes her kids didn't know ... but I don't think I've ever heard them say anything to the effect of "focus on us, leave the kids out of it" kind of thing. And if they have, I've definitely missed it.

Admittedly I have not seen and read ALL interviews---

but I have never seen Jon or Kate express anything about the children's privacy. Their own a little bit in a coy kind of a way, but never the children.

Even Jon banning TLC and forbidding filming of the show--the omission of the importance of the children's privacy was quite glaring to me. I felt he kind of beat around the bush about it and why I never thought he was sincere that it was truly in the interest of the children. For if it was--it would have been an issue much sooner.

But nope--the p-word never mentioned when it comes to the children and this mess that I can recollect.

 

[DMRick]

They photograph/film the school bus drop offs and pick ups even when Jon or Kate is not there.

Stunt: going on GMA to cry that Jon stole all your money and you can't pay your bills or feed your kids.

I didn't realize the kids went to or from the school bus without a parent, so I missed those photo's. Who took them to/from the school bus on those days that they posted pics of just the kids with no parents around? Was the nanny in the photo instead?

I'm sure that was done (the money) to draw attention. Was it to draw attention to her, or to get the money back? The attention didn't turn out to be so good..except it appears the money is coming back.

 

[kidshop]

I didn't realize the kids went to or from the school bus without a parent, so I missed those photo's. Who took them to/from the school bus on those days that they posted pics of just the kids with no parents around? Was the nanny in the photo instead?

I'm sure that was done (the money) to draw attention. Was it to draw attention to her, or to get the money back? The attention didn't turn out to be so good..except it appears the money is coming back.

Yes, the nanny takes the kids at times.

I'm pretty sure Kate felt crying poor would work in her favor, it had always worked before, 'cept it wasn't entirely true...

Interesting that in a pp, you stated you would blame Jon or TLC for the dogs. Kate was just forced to do that, huh? No blame at all for her for picking them out herself, naming them herself, giving them to the kids as Christmas gifts? Poor Kate, forced to get the dogs. Bad Jon and TLC for making her.

I blame TLC for that, mostly. The dogs were props and then were written out of the show when they were no longer useful. kinda like Jon

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, the nanny takes the kids at times.

I'm pretty sure Kate felt crying poor would work in her favor, it had always worked before, 'cept it wasn't entirely true...

Interesting that in a pp, you stated you would blame Jon or TLC for the dogs. Kate was just forced to do that, huh? No blame at all for her for picking them out herself, naming them herself, giving them to the kids as Christmas gifts? Poor Kate, forced to get the dogs. Bad Jon and TLC for making her.

I blame TLC for that, mostly. The dogs were props and then were written out of the show when they were no longer useful. kinda like Jon

I don't see Kate being a "victim" when it came to the pups.

Something was very orchestrated about the whole thing--I just don't know the backstory as none of us do.

Seemed very out of character--and I'm still curious as to what "sold" her on the furry critters.

Maybe she got a pay raise?

(last sentence is a joke. )

 

[DMRick]

Interesting that in a pp, you stated you would blame Jon or TLC for the dogs. Kate was just forced to do that, huh? No blame at all for her for picking them out herself, naming them herself, giving them to the kids as Christmas gifts? Poor Kate, forced to get the dogs. Bad Jon and TLC for making her.

I blame TLC for that, mostly. The dogs were props and then were written out of the show when they were no longer useful. kinda like Jon

I guess I missed the pictures of the kids with the nanny's taking them. Not cool of the paps.
Someone said they felt the dogs were a stunt. I said if they were a stunt I blamed Jon or TLC. But then I said I didn't think they were a stunt. I also said I think Kate went along with them. Why, did you think Kate really wanted dogs, especially if she had a clue that she would be responsible for them when Jon was not there 1/2 the time. Can you point out where I said she was forced, or where I said Jon or TLC made her

If they were, I blame TLC or Jon. Although again, I don't think they got them as a stunt..to draw attention to themselves. I think Jon really wanted them. I think Kate went along with it. I never thought she wanted them. I think once she went to get them, as puppies often do, they drew her in and she actually liked them. But not so sure she ever wanted to actually keep them.

 

[kidshop]

I guess I missed the pictures of the kids with the nanny's taking them. Not cool of the paps.
Someone said they felt the dogs were a stunt. I said if they were a stunt I blamed Jon or TLC. But then I said I didn't think they were a stunt. I also said I think Kate went along with them. Why, did you think Kate really wanted dogs, especially if she had a clue that she would be responsible for them when Jon was not there 1/2 the time. Can you point out where I said she was forced, or where I said Jon or TLC made her

Whether or not she 'wanted' the dogs, she agreed to them, she agreed to be filmed picking them out and insisted on naming them. End of story. She doesn't seem to be the kind of person afraid of saying no to people. She gets to be faulted too, equally with Jon and TLC.

What do you all think about the CA women's show monday? Is she going to go?

 

[DMRick]

Whether or not she 'wanted' the dogs, she agreed to them, she agreed to be filmed picking them out and insisted on naming them. End of story. She doesn't seem to be the kind of person afraid of saying no to people. She gets to be faulted too, equally with Jon and TLC.

We can't say it's the end of the story, since we aren't privy to the whole story. Yes, she should have said no, but that may have been one of those things she referred too, when she said she tried to do things that would make Jon happy. I have no idea why she got dogs. If she had asked my advice, I would have asked her if she was nuts. Most here were very very surprised. Which made me think she went along with it. I've done that in my life to make other's happy.

What do you all think about the CA women's show monday? Is she going to go?

I assume, if she's under contract she will, if she doesn't need to be in court. Is Monday her court date or the day she needs to show what she did with the money?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I assume, if she's under contract she will, if she doesn't need to be in court. Is Monday her court date or the day she needs to show what she did with the money?

She does not necessarily have to be physically present for court. Her attorney can represent her.

Unless the judge specifically orders her presence that is.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Whether or not she 'wanted' the dogs, she agreed to them, she agreed to be filmed picking them out and insisted on naming them. End of story. She doesn't seem to be the kind of person afraid of saying no to people. She gets to be faulted too, equally with Jon and TLC.

What do you all think about the CA women's show monday? Is she going to go?

I think the dogs was a trifecta agreement between Jon, Kate, and TLC.

Very out of character for her and it is my hypothesis (that really cannot be proven)--that she got something in exchange for it if that is something she would have ordinarily been against. Be it a spa day or whatever, I don't know. It would seem appropriate to a volatile relationship where in order for one party to agree with something another party wanted to do--a little back scratching might be involved.

I'm surprised I'm going all "conspiracy" theory here--but it seems just as plausible as anything else at this point.

 

[madge]

She does not necessarily have to be physically present for court. Her attorney can represent her.

Unless the judge specifically orders her presence that is.

I wonder how that will all play out... how important is it for her to be in court, regardless of whether or not she's required to do so?

her appearance in California is a 10-minute interview on a side stage about the Eight Little Faces book. that's really all I can seem to find on it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I wonder how that will all play out... how important is it for her to be in court, regardless of whether or not she's required to do so?

her appearance in California is a 10-minute interview on a side stage about the Eight Little Faces book. that's really all I can seem to find on it.

I don't know.


I don't really care what Kate's speaking engagement involves--I was simply pointing out that with good counsel, it isn't always necessary to be present.

It happens probably more often than you would think in civil cases. Of course you miss out on your opportunity to speak on the witness stand. But if it isn't a hearing that would involve that, it could just as easily be conducted without her presence. (I'm not even sure what the hearing is regarding.)


I don't keep up with Kate's appearance schedule (and find it odd that so many do, but whatever floats your boat I guess). So where and when she speaks and for how long is of no concern of mine. Just pointing out that there is not necessarily the schedule conflict that you believe there is.

 

[newtodis]

I wonder how that will all play out... how important is it for her to be in court, regardless of whether or not she's required to do so?

her appearance in California is a 10-minute interview on a side stage about the Eight Little Faces book. that's really all I can seem to find on it.

Is she required to be there "in person" (in CA)?? Maybe she can do a taped interview to play or a live "remote" from PA?? I have no idea what time she's scheduled to be in PA or how long it takes to fly from one coast to another - maybe court's in the morning and her appearance is in the afternoon? Maybe they've asked her not to appear and they'll just display the books??

I personally think they've been working on more than one show for tomorrow night with different answers to possible questions depending on what the outcome is with the court hearing. Just a thought I had...don't know that they'll put that much time in it or not or how late in the game they can change everything with the show - like what will appear...

 

[redrosesix]

I don't have the patience to Google this morning, but I've read about when they film at home, Jon and/or Kate are in the house, on their phones etc, not involved with the children until they're filming. Tabloids (so take it for what it's worth, LOL) report sources saying neither parent is involved right now --that the nannies are doing most of the work (one has Kate crying all the time, too...) I also read that when they did the Globetrotters appearance, handlers were with the children until it was time to do the appearance, then Jon & Kate showed up. Nearly all of these accounts have been in the last 6-8 months, when the marital issues came to the forefront. I have seen no indication that it was like that before this year.

To be fair to the paparazzi and the rest of the media, it really didn't seem like life at home was any different than life on the show -- it really didn't look like there was a story there (and it's the best kind of story -- one where they can prove that things really are not as they seem). So, until it all started to unravel, there was nobody covering the behind-the-scenes aspect of their lives.

Maybe things are different now -- maybe they're not.

I know you were addressing the PP .. but here's my thought on that question.

I consider the playing in the yard (in plain sight of the paparazzi) day after day a stunt ... a stunt used by both Jon and Kate. And I know we've been all over it before. It's their yard, they should be able to use it as they please, etc. And I agree that is a valid argument. But at the same time, Kate has complained so much about her disdain of the paparazzi, that perhaps sending the children to play in a more secluded area of the property would be something to consider for a few weeks. Then there's Jon's love of greeting the masses at the fence ... in addition to letting the paps on the other side of the fence.

I also think Kate & the daily bikini was a stunt.

Jon has done plenty of stunts of his own. I think we're all pretty familiar with them. LOL

ITA with all of this -- on the twins's birthday, there was video of Jon talking at the fence and another poster remarked that it showed just how close to the road the house was, and how clear a picture they had of the driveway -- they also posted that they didn't know why a hedge hadn't been planted there, and I have to agree with that.

They photograph/film the school bus drop offs and pick ups even when Jon or Kate is not there.

Stunt: going on GMA to cry that Jon stole all your money and you can't pay your bills or feed your kids.

Yes, ITA with all of this too. The paps do pepper the nannies with questions, but so far I haven't seen any footage of them speaking to the children -- maybe even the paparazzi get that this would be out of line.

Admittedly I have not seen and read ALL interviews---

but I have never seen Jon or Kate express anything about the children's privacy. Their own a little bit in a coy kind of a way, but never the children.

ITA, and it would be so easy for either of them to do. IMO, if one did it the other would be compelled to follow suit.

Whether or not she 'wanted' the dogs, she agreed to them, she agreed to be filmed picking them out and insisted on naming them. End of story. She doesn't seem to be the kind of person afraid of saying no to people. She gets to be faulted too, equally with Jon and TLC.

She made a point in Charlotte of stating that she has veto power over every show they do -- so there's no way she was forced to get the dogs in any way, even by TLC.

I think the dogs was a trifecta agreement between Jon, Kate, and TLC.

Very out of character for her and it is my hypothesis (that really cannot be proven)--that she got something in exchange for it if that is something she would have ordinarily been against. Be it a spa day or whatever, I don't know. It would seem appropriate to a volatile relationship where in order for one party to agree with something another party wanted to do--a little back scratching might be involved.

I'm surprised I'm going all "conspiracy" theory here--but it seems just as plausible as anything else at this point.

Yes, you're probably right about this. I can see her making a deal on this one -- maybe the day at the spa with Mady was the trade-off for the dogs. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't skiing in Utah.

 

[DMRick]

She made a point in Charlotte of stating that she has veto power over every show they do -- so there's no way she was forced to get the dogs in any way, even by TLC.

Just to reiterate what I said earlier. I never said or suggested she was forced. I do think she may have gone along with what Jon wanted for peace, or that she gave in to either him or TLC. I can never be convinced the dogs were her idea (especially that size dogs and two of them), or that she really wanted them.

 

[madge]

I can never be convinced the dogs were her idea (especially that size dogs and two of them), or that she really wanted them.

judging from Kate's reaction every time I've seen them mentioned, I agree.