John Krasinski and Emily Blunt welcomed their daughter, Hazel, back in February. And no one was really clamoring for baby photos either. It’s not that we don’t like Emily and John – it’s just that they seem boringly normal, a lot like their couple-friends Matt Damon and Luciana. Well, I guess John and Emily decided that now was the appropriate time to debut Hazel’s first public photo, because John posted this photo to his Twitter:
SO CUTE. And you know Hazel is going to be a tall girl too – Emily is normal sized, but John is a string bean. When he posted the pic, he added this: “Pics of kids should only come direct from parents. So I’m thrilled to introduce you guys to Hazel!!! #NoKidsPolicy”. Eh.
Y’all know I have mixed feelings about SOME celebrities riding the #NoKidsPolicy bandwagon, but in John and Emily’s case, I think it’s probably legit. John and Emily get pap’d a few times a month, usually going into or out of a gym, or maybe stopping for some coffee. They’re rarely on the pap stroll and in Emily’s case, she seems genuinely annoyed when a photographer notices her. On a scale of 1 (we don’t know what Evan Rachel Wood named her son) to 10 (we know what color eyeglass frames Violet Affleck has), my guess is that Emily and John will probably be a 3. We’ll see photos of Hazel at the airport, traveling with her parents, but that’s about it.
PS. Yeah, she lost the baby weight like two seconds after giving birth.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and John’s Twitter.
What a cutie, love the name.
+1 I always like people called Hazel for some reason, two of my closest friends are called Hazel, it’s just a really sweet name.
Cute baby!
Their #NoKidPolicy is hypocrite when you post yourself the pic on your twitter or instagram
I must agree.
No, it isn’t hypocritical at all. He’s making the point that parents, not paparazzi, should control when and where photographs are taking and who publishes them.
@Sugar But isn’t it convenient for them.
They get to publicize their life only when they want to. It’s a little bit to easy : they can’t have it both way.
I’m sorry, like them both very much but I too find this hypocritical. I had totally forgotten they had a baby until now and I’m pretty sure everyone else did too.
They deliberately exposed her for the world to see : they put her in the public lights. Not the paps.
The market for celebrity babies is huge, and now they’ve given that market an appetizer of their adorable baby. They say “leave my kid alone” but then they create the desire to see more of their kid. Anymore I think celebrities just can’t have it both ways. If you crack open that door, a stampede will come through.
I agree with Em’.
I agree.
Whether they are creating more interest by tweeting a pic is debatable. I would lean on the side of no. They may be “boringly normal,” but there are still people who are interested in them (how many twitter followers does he have?) and would love to see a pic of baby Hazel. I’m one of them. And there is a big market for baby photos, period. No paps or media would turn them down if they offered up pics, or a story on their life together. They have been papped now and then, and they will be out more with Hazel as she gets older so it’s probably inevitable that she will eventually be papped. Sharing a pic on twitter is about the most boringly normal way to proceed.
I’m agreeing with Sugar on this one. Just because the parents don’t want their babies and children to be harassed by paps doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to share their joy of becoming new parents. It’s two different things; just because they’re celebrities doesn’t mean it has to be all or nothing. They had Hazel in February and this is the first we’ve seen of her. Hell, every new parent on my Facebook feed is posting updates of every outfit change and by the hour nightly sleep updates (which is why I’ve almost stopped signing on at this point). As a fan of both of them- one photo released by them in 3 months? Sweet. Not hypocritical.
I agree. I understand “they’ve served up an appetizer” in theory, but the reality is there will always be hungry paps and they would have probably gotten their piece eventually. This couple may not visit regular pap haunts and paps may not be as hungry for pics of them as they are for some other celebs, yet they’ve still been papped in the past. This is a more normal way to get the first pic out of the way, where they are in control and are sharing as much as they want to, with their fans. It may even undercut the value of any pap pics.
How? That bit of hashtag activism, along with the bill that went along with it, has to do with barring paparazzi from stalking and harassing celebrity parents and their children. Does not translate to “thou shalt never share your own snap of your kid.”
Emily has a movie coming out with Tom Cruise. I figured they released it so the paps wouldn’t bother them too much for pictures. Though maybe it will create the opposite. They’ll probably keep her covered in a carseat or something.
Anyway, she’s so cute! Big blue eyes!!
so, #nokidspolicy, but post a picture of your kid on a public platform?
No- I think the no kids policy is that photo agencies shouldn’t take unapproved pics. As in it they need parents consent, like anything else with minors. So any picture obtained with consent is fair game.
Karate baby! 😍💪😄 so cute!!
I was thinking the same thing. She looks like she would be thinking, “Yes, that is my binky. Touch it, and I will take you down!”
So adorable!
Yeah that hashtag is complete irony. But hot damn, she looks so good so soon! Quite jealous, I’m sure I’ll be carrying that extra weight for a long time after. I do like this couple though
Only if you learnt the meaning of the word irony from that terribly misinformed Alanis Morriset song 🙂
Hahahahaaaa!
Nope pretty sure I know the meaning of irony, without Alanis screaming at me about it. I thought the original idea of the policy was that children weren’t celebrities, therefore shouldn’t be taken advantage of to get views or hits on blogs/pages/social media. Yet celebrities use their own children for their own purpose. Ironic.
Lol!
I think the idea is children aren’t celebs and therefore should not be harrassed by paps, or have their pictures taken without their parents consent. No child was bothered in the taking of this pic, at least not any more than any child is by their proud parents armed with a camera.
I had my baby Hazel Elizabeth two weeks before they had their baby. I was kinda annoyed they named her Hazel. I thought we were picking a name no one uses anymore and now that a celebrity used it I’m guessing its going to get real popular real soon! Oh we’ll. 😉
She is super cute though!!
*cough* Julia R. named her daughter Hazel *cough*
That almost always fails. Sorry. :(. There’s nothing wrong with a kid having a nice, normal name, though, so be proud of that. Hazel can ride a resume and transition well into adulthood. You’ve already done your daughter a kind service in that.
Alas, the name was already pretty popular. It was the 157th most popular girls name in the US last year-and has been steadily climbing (it was 465 in 2009) It’s 84th in Canada.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/hazel
It’s a great and beautiful ‘goldilocks’ name though. Not so many that everyone in the class will have the same name (e.g. Noah or Aiden)-not so weird that people were look at it with a head tilt.
That’s kinda what we were going for Lsays! lol I ALWAYS forget Julia Roberts named her daughter Hazel. You never hear anything about them and I’m not a huge fan of hers, maybe that’s way.
You always feel such ownership of the names you pick for your kids. 🙂
Mallory and Benjamin are my current set names. I’m seriously considering Mallory Elise. Perhaps I should be thankful kids today don’t know that show, or worried because there are reruns on hub. I have also always liked Jason, and happy it seems to be nowhere near as popular as it was in the 80s. There were five in my fourth grade class alone.
You guys, speaking of popular names, is Mallory popular? That is our first choice for our daughter ( we’re having twins). Second choice is Katherine. The boy will either be Thomas or Damien.
We already have Alexandra and Freddie.
Congrats lollipop!! I don’t know any girls named Mallory. And I used to teach before my kids. I really like it though!!
Are you in the US? All the Mallorys (about three) are in their late 20s. I have three kids 6 and under, and we’ve lived all over the midwest and the south, and I haven’t come across any young Mallorys. It’s a pretty name!
I love the name Thomas.
I also like Konstantin or Benjamin.
Yep, in Vermont.
My sister in law has a Benjamin, and Konstantin is a bit too unusual for my taste.
I like both Mallory and Katherine.
What do you think of the name Luka?
I like Luka. I don’t know anyone with the name Luka/Luca. I know one boy named Luke, which is similar.
I can’t believe your choice in names! I’m due in four weeks. We don’t know the sex, but if it’s a girl we’re leaning toward Mallory (Anja is a distant second). I don’t think it’s very common now, but it definitely was in the mid-80s with “Family Ties.” We’re going with Kai if it’s a boy, but if we have a second child and it’s also a boy, we’re thinking Damian.
Great minds!
I only know two Mallorys – one is in her 30’s and one is about 5.
I have a Mallory and never heard the name until I had her. Now we know 3. That’s how it goes. I almost didn’t because the name means “unlucky”. Then my husband asked me if I knew what my own name meant – and since I didn’t she was a Mallory – and it’s a perfect fit (;
I like Mallory – always reminds me of Family Ties, but I never really met anyone with that name until about 2 weeks ago.
I meant to reply to this comment. Oops. I love the name Mallory, too, I don’t think I’ve ever even met or known one. It’s probably a safe bet she’ll be the only one in her class. Congrats on the babies!
It always puzzles me when people get annoyed by their babies sharing the same name with another. Unless you name your baby “Flipflappityjipjab”, there’s a good likelihood that there will be a couple other kids with that name. Now, if it’s a close friend or relative…maybe there’s cause for some frustration. But if it’s someone you don’t know…it’s kind of silly.
Beautiful little girl!
I am not familiar with Instagram, but can’t just anyone go on the site and see photos? At least with Facebook you can limit who accesses your profile to your approved “friends”. She is a cute baby and her parents have a right to be very proud, but I don’t know if I want everyone on the internet to know what my child looks like or even worse some of the sickos out there.
There are actually privacy settings on Instagram, but I don’t know that many celebrities would use them. And I think this was on Twitter, which is separate so anyone could see it since he has a public account.
I have mixed feelings about sharing pictures of kids online. On one hand I think, “Yeah! Be proud and share those pictures of your beautiful baby!” (even though I don’t care about the ones dominating my feed at all times). And on the other hand I agree with you about too much information about children being made public. But ultimately it is a parent’s choice on what to share.
You’re right, it’s the parent’s choice and everyone has a limit to what they’re comfortable with. Personally I can’t stand those so called “mommy blogs” because honestly if I don’t know you, your kids don’t really interest me either. Some of them really cross the line with pics of kids using the bathroom or bathing.
That said introducing your daughter on social media and then getting all high and mighty with a hashtag is kinda tacky imo.
lovely little girl!
as an aside, i am seriously tired of the constant “she lost the baby weight so quickly!” remarks. which are so often juxtaposed with “we shouldn’t shame women for not losing pregnancy weight quickly.” which one freaking is it then? don’t draw constant attention to the issue, then everyone will feel better, whether they lose the baby weight quickly (as the vast majority of celebrities appear to since, you know, money, nannies, household help, etc.) or not (most of us who have zero time for the gym between work, cooking meals, shopping, cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc.)
Was going to say the same thing! I wish “losing the baby weight” would just go away as a talking point altogether, whether someone loses it or not. But I guess that’s the thing about celebrity culture and our obsession with the state of their bodies. It makes sense that they’d lose weight quickly for the above mentioned reasons and because for their jobs there is a focus on looks and being thin, but come on. Why must we always talk about it?
I agree. I’m currently pregnant, and I’ve already gotten lots of surprising and unwelcome scrutiny about my body and my size, from even before I was ready to announce and people just suspected. I think that with celebrity baby culture and the body politics involved, people seem to think a pregnant or post-partum woman’s size and body are now appropriate for open, casual discussion. This is not something I ever thought I’d care about, but it’s hard not to be self-conscious in the face of it. In spite of myself, I’m giving about as much headspace to recovering my normal body post partum as I am to caring for a newborn. It really sucks.
Agree. I’ve done the baby-weight-drop twice now and while it can be done, A) that shit doesn’t just melt off that fast for us ‘normals’ and B) realistic expectation is that your body will never be the same as it was before baby. I might be in fighting shape, but I can’t jump too much or I pee myself a little. #realtalk
@nopity Nope #kegels #reallyworks
I don’t understand how you can say “no kids policy” while posting a photo of the kid. Those are two opposite things, you know. If you have a no kids policy, then don’t post photos of your kids.
they’re ironic or they’re hypocrite ?
Not sure why this is is so hard for everyone to understand… the #NoKidsPolicy campaign has nothing to do with photos that parents take and share themselves. It’s about hounding kids on the street and publishing their photos without parental permission.
In fact, posting this picture actually decreased the value of a pap shot, so this is symbiotic, not contradictory.
@ Brittney. Agreed. It’s the idea that parents haven’t given permission to the paparazzi to take pictures of their children. They can, however, take pictures of the children themselves and show it to whoever they like.
Brittney, I’m not sure why it is so hard to understand that it is pretty ridiculous to demand that you are the only one who’s publishing pictures of your child when you are a celebrity and profit of the machine of paps and industry and magazines. Why not hide your child completely if you’re really that concerned? Look at Kerry Washington, it’s possible. Or look at the Jolie-Pitts – they play the game and get more or less along with the paps. In my opinion they should decide if they want to be open or not. They earn more than the average person, but still want to cherrypick everythting. Being papped and their value as an actor/actress increases with every picture taken by paps. Believe me, they know that. It’s like what George Clooney says. If you are a celebrity and do twitter, you are inviting the public in.
(I’m not defending the behavior of certain paps and I think there should be better laws like paps are not allowed to come close to kids or something).
@Britney & co
I remember that i defended Reese Witherspoon’s staged photo-op with her and her younger kid in a park by a “i understand she wants to control and doesn’t want to be harassed” .I remember how here the persons trashed her.
For me,there is no difference between a stage photo-op and a pic released on an official social media or a pic showed in a tv show.
Here they chose to show their daughter and they can’t complain on the paps
@Liv: Or Matt Damon’s kids. We never see them, total opposite of BenJenFleck.
Adorable baby, they must be so in love. I also love the name.
Too bad kids & babies can’t give consent to have their pictures on the internet for eternity. From ultrasounds shots & growing up, so many kids lives are out there without their permission.
I love John and Emily as a couple and he’s my forever crush. Hazel is adorable! I am not surprised that they posted a pic of her on twitter (though the NoKidsPolicy hashtag…I have mixed feelings on that one) since they announced her birth on twitter. I think, not that I know them or anything obviously, that they want to control the media presence of their child and by posting the photo on his twitter, it scooped any price a pap would get for the inevitable photos of the three of them together. They cannot keep that child in the house forever. I’d saying following the footsteps of Matt Damon and his wife are good ones…because I couldn’t pick their kids out of a lineup…which is how it should be.
I heard he’s quite stuck up. I love her, though.
Stuck up?! Say it ain’t so! 🙁
Someone mentioned Julia Roberts up thread, and I started thinking and I don’t think I’ve seen her kids ever. It’s totally possible to live a true “no kids policy” lifestyle as a celebrity. It just doesn’t involve social media.
I’ve seen pics of Julia’s kids plenty of times over the years, especially when they were little, and I’m not even a fan, nor do I frequent celeb baby sites. Her husband isn’t famous and I think they may live a little bit off the pap beaten path (I want to say Venice), so that probably helps. She probably has a nanny or two, and maybe some security, as well. And she had them before the internet really took off, with all the social media and gossip sites.
I remember her being angry with a paparazzi for following her kids to school, so they definitely were photographed. i think she lives out in Malibu or something now so it’s not in the middle of paparazzi central, and I don’t know that they’re as interested in her anymore.
she is adorable! look at her binky, LOL
she shares the name with my grandmother.
Aw, Hazel really is a cute little baby. As for the no kids on social media policy, I think it’s ok to post a picture every once in a while of your kids (especially if it’s a picture from a special occasion), but not to post pictures every single day and go into great detail about their lives on the internet.
There’s an elderly lady in my building named Hazel – she rocks 🙂
For some ppl, Celebs who are paid millions for exclusive baby photos and parade their children around are money grubbing attention seekers who exploit their children. And celebs who prefer to keep their child away from paps (#nokidspolicy) and turn down exclusive offers but, take photos of their children and release them on their own accord are hypocrites…
I don’t see the hypocrisy…I believe the no kids policy is more about the safety and security of their children and not so much about photos of their children being taken
It was cute that John released a photo, then the message with it reminded me why he always leaves a bitter taste sometimes. It really did come off self righteous.
Dude, you wife is about to headline a big budget movie that needs to be a hit. You have not worked since The Office and your indie films are all but forgotten. Get off your high horse.
Emily is wearing the same sunglasses as Amal Alamuddin! Coincidence? They went on a double date not too long ago… (they’re really ugly shades, though)
Yeah, I noticed that, too. They look better on Emily, though. Something about them doesn’t suit Amal’s face.
She’s adorable. And clearly a ‘spitter’ like my two babies were. The burp cloth used as protective covering for the bedding is a dead giveaway 🙂
Honestly, I don’t think its that hypocritical in theory. The No Kids Policy about the parents deciding on what images of their children should be out there. Because, the paps can be absolutely disgusting to children all in the sake of a few bucks. (Remember when Suri was called a bitch?) That doesn’t mean that the parents can’t tweet out their own pictures or take them to red carpet events (because thats all controlled). However, it does make me raise an eyebrow a bit that this picture was released just as Emily’s movie is about to come out.
Cute baby – as they all are – but what a great photo. It really focuses on her, there’s no mom in the background showing off cleavage ; ).
As far as how appropriate it is – well, I will withhold judgement. If we see photos of the kid rarely – two to the three times yearly, then I will believe that Emily and John are serious about protecting her privacy.
Very cute baby.
I’d still feel hesitant about putting a photo out there, but there’s a HUGE difference between taking a photo at home and choosing how and when to share it, vs having a hoard of paparazzi in a kid’s face, taunting them and blinding them with flashbulbs.