[MamaS]

I wish there were more of this kind of story:

Emma Thompson's family prove celebrity adoptions CAN be inspirational (but not if you're as selfish as Madonna) | Mail Online

[ananas]

Have to agree MamaS, I saw this article a few days ago in a newspaper which had shoved it to the middle pages as they felt the ex girlfriend of the brother of Prince Williams partner more interesting. It is an amazing story and made more so by the fact they have never in all the years of having their son seeked publicity. There are many famous people who adopt quietly without all the fanfare that other famous adopters seem to relish.

[cborsa7]

I was confused by the comments and poor writing of this article.
I don't have a clue who these people are (Thompson, Wise) so I am guessing they are not famous on the same level as the more "well known" AP's, Jolie, Madonna, Cruz, Jackman, etc.

First, didn't we critisize Michael Jackson for "hiding" his children? Now we think these famous people are bad because they don't?
The writer states, "They adopt the cutest babies offered, preferably black one's". Is this just about Madonna adopting? Who are "they" the writer is speaking about? The writer seems to approve of this black childs adoption (Tindy), and It was ok that the celebrity families (thompson, Firth) the writer talks about all adopted black children. Hmm, I guess they are not the "they" the writer is talking about.
The writer also appears to know the (man) (I am assuming she means main)motivation for Madonna to adopt. I am sure Madonna and the writer are great friends for Madonna to have shared this information with her.
By the many examples of misspelled words in this article, and the obvious intent to be a bashing of Madonna, it seems like typical trash. If you really want more of this the Enquirer is full of it. The writer could have really written a great story on this incredible adoption journey worth hearing. Sad.
I am not a fan of Madonna, and although the writer talks about "they" this article seems to be an attack at her. I do not personally know her, I do not know the details of her adoption and don't find it to be my business. I can't judge or comment on her childrens life because I am not there. I am also smart enough to know that everything I read is not always truth.
Judging is better left to god, especially when you don't even know the person you are judging...

[ChelleBrewer]

Emma Thompson is a very intelligent, talented actress. Um....trying to think about the US popular movies she's been in: Sense and Sensibility, Nanny McPhee...tons more but I cannot remember them. I absolutely love her. She is very famous, but has always been the type that doesn't try to get media attention, she just loves her profession.

[ranoutofnames]

Emma Thompson was also a model, but I once read an article that her favorite roles have always seemed to be where she gets to be ugly or nearly hidden. When she played in "My Father the Hero" I knew it was her from just the voice. She also has a role in the Harry Potter movies. There was a story about how they really had to do a lot to make her "ugly" because her natural beauty kept coming through, just like in Nanny McPhee.

I agree the article could have been better written and I wish it had focused on Tindy's story and not taken it down a path it didn't need to go.

[jennyfreddie]

What spelling errors are you referring to? Although the article is certainly biased toward a particular perspective, I didn't find it to be poorly written at all. It's an editorial expressing a particular opinion. The point was that some celebrities have very high profile adoptions of cute babies while others seem to adopt more behind the scenes and are open to older children from adverse circumstances. I agree that none of us can know Madonna's or other celeb's motivations, but it's a reasonable issue to grapple with.

[DPline]

There is the one editing error (man/main) but because it is a British publication (well, rather a tabloid of sorts) and a British author it is just the British spelling of words and British grammer that I am seeing.

It would have been nice if the author could have focused on Thompson and Wise instead of the opportunity to bash Michael Jackson and Madonna and other American celebrities who adopt internationally. (The 'they' as I read it.) Though I think it was written the way it is because of the publication it was in.

[cborsa7]

The point was that some celebrities have very high profile adoptions of cute babies while others seem to adopt more behind the scenes and are open to older children from adverse circumstances.

I don't agree with this at all.
I don't see any celebrities letting anyone in on their process. Matter of fact most we don't even know about until the child is coming home, or when the press has dug something up about it, including Madonna.

What I see is the media making this high profile. Some celebrities are more popular than others. While I am sure Emma Thompson has some fans and is a fine actress, she hasn't been making news in the celebrity magazines. I doubt she has photographers camping out at her house and watching her every move. Thus, we hear about those "other" adoptions.

I don't agree that the other celebrity adoptions have been of all "cute" babies, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A few were cute. Just like a lot of the babies posted here. But then, I thought Tindy was a nice looking young man.

I didn't adopt an older child from an adverse circumstance either, some people choose not to, for various reasons. I am not going to judge any celebrity for not doing so. Apparently, that judging has been left for the media to do.

Adoption is a wonderful way to build a family and this would have been a wonderful story to hear. Just not the way the author chose to use it for her agenda, and that, for me, is sad.

[CRAZY_WOMAN]

I like the story until they started trashing Madonna and Micheal Jackson.After that it just seemed like tabloid trash.Why do people assume she's a terrible mother and her children are going to turn out bad.I would rather the article would only spoke about Emma Thompson's family and left others out,Especially if they were going to talk trash about them.

[millie58]

Why is Madonna selfish?? At what point did she seek publicity? I think the media goes after who they want to and people blame the person. I wish there were more people like Madonna, Emma and Angelina. Then there would be no need for orphanages.

[Jensboys]

Originally Posted by millie58

Why is Madonna selfish?? At what point did she seek publicity? I think the media goes after who they want to and people blame the person. I wish there were more people like Madonna, Emma and Angelina. Then there would be no need for orphanages.

Madonna is not an example how to do an ethical adoption - and I think that was the point. Madonna used money and influence to adopt an unadoptable child that has a family that easily could have supported her with a tiny part of the money Madonna used to adopt Mercy (or David). It's about entitlement ... and the attitude that adoption is about finding a baby for a family - rather than a family for a child that NEEDS it.

In Michael Jackson's case - as previously endlessly discussed - he purchased an egg, purchased sperm and hired a surrogate, in fact "manufacturing" a child for adoption. Its the paid production of children for the need of the parent, AGAIN no example to me about how to do an ethical adoption -- the needs of the parent superseding the needs of the child.

Emma Thompson adopted a child that truly NEEDED a family -- and never paraded her son before the cameras, asked for publicity on the adoption or treated him as anything other than a valued member of her family (as she does all her children).

[CRAZY_WOMAN]

Originally Posted by Jensboys

Emma Thompson adopted a child that truly NEEDED a family -- and never paraded her son before the cameras, asked for publicity on the adoption or treated him as anything other than a valued member of her family (as she does all her children).

You mean the media didn't care enought about her to take pics of her,Like they others celebs.

[MamaS]

Jens Boys: Very well summarized. You should be a writer.

CRAZY WOMAN: Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't mean she isn't famous. She has three Academy Awards -- you might call them Oscars -- and about six nominations. (Those are American Awards.)
Her vida is too long to list here -- look her up in Wikipedia.
The big difference is that Ms. Thompson is famous for what she does with her life -- not how she does it.

[cborsa7]

You mean the media didn't care enought about her to take pics of her,Like they others celebs.

YES! That's exactly it. It doesn't matter how famous anyone thinks she is, truth is, she's not making the "A" list gossip. If she was, we would have heard about her adoption as if she was flaunting it as well. The story would have been skewed which ever way it would have sold a magazine, negative or positive. That's how it works. And possibly why this author had to throw in the other celebrities to make this "news". We could debate this topic all day, but a lot of famous Oscar toting people don't get chased by papparazzi.

Again as far as the other celebrities, especially Madonna, I learned a long time ago to not believe everything I read in print. Because it is in print anywhere does NOT make it true. How in the world do you know the facts about Madonna's adoption? A person can't speak factual to subjects they have no facts on, anyone. It simply becomes that persons opinion of what they have read, the positive or the negative. It's silly.
Again, judging is best left for god. People just aren't good at it.

[Jensboys]

The laws of a country are not celebrity gossip. Madonna adopted a child she "fell in love with" by surpassing the laws of the country with massive financial donations. Never, EVER do I as a transracial, international adoptive parent EVER want to be compared to her. EVER. EVER.

I would happily be compared to Emma Thompson. Happily.