Keith Urban 'Not Pining' For Another Baby

Fame

Calling himself  “immensely blessed” to have welcomed daughter Sunday Rose, 16 months, with wife Nicole Kidman, country crooner Keith Urban admits in a new interview the couple were unsure if they would ever become parents together.

“We didn’t get to meet each other in our 20s and 30s,” he points out to the UK’s Hello! magazine, “so we thought maybe that’s not our journey, we’re fine with that.” Keith adds,

“It’s such a miracle to have her.”

Although their marriage has offered its fair share of ups and downs, Keith says they are united in their commitment. “We want the best for each other and we support each other to do that,” he explains.

Whether that includes more children remains to be seen, however. Keith elaborates,

“We’re very grateful and not pining for anything more than what we’ve got. But if another was to come, Nicole and I would be very happy.”

Sunday is the first child together for Keith and Nicole, who married in 2006. Nicole is also mom to Isabella Jane, 17 next month, and Connor Anthony, 14, with ex-husband Tom Cruise.

Source: Hello!

– Missy

Comments

I love them, such a refreshing story, Wish them happiness for their love and famiy!

- Trish on November 14th, 2009

They seem to have a really good attitude about it. That’s nice.

- Stella Bella on November 14th, 2009

Love Keith and Nicole! I hope they get blessed with another child also. Great to see such happy parents!

- Rachael on November 14th, 2009

Well said Keith.

- Mari on November 14th, 2009

aww i love this family. I always check the hello website each mon to see whats comin in the latest issue. When i saw that they had mentioned keith and nic i presumed it would just be a pic and a little paragraph. I was soo pleased to see an interview. Also this week,there is an interview with Nicole in SHE magazine. Soo sweet. She says that she is ‘devoted to her husband and baby’. Now guys i have already said i love the family but this comment struck me as odd….yea great to be devoted to your husband and baby but you do have two other children Nicole!

- maggie on November 14th, 2009

Well she does have THREE children yes?

- Electra on November 14th, 2009

“…maybe that`s not our journey.”

This quote means that he and Nicole would have been happy without having a baby together, does it?

-Well, isn`t he married to a woman that already has had two children when they met?
I just find it weird since both Nicole and Keith appear to never mention Isabella and Connor nor are they seen out an about with them.

- Linda on November 14th, 2009

The “she has two other children” comment never fails to come up. Nicole has said Isabella and Connor have asked her not to talk about them. She guards their privacy closely and that’s why she never discusses them in interviews anymore. We’ve seen some pictures of them out with her older kids, but not many, also probably because of the privacy issue. Just b/c the paps don’t publish pics of them, or CBB doesn’t buy those pics, doesn’t mean Nicole and Keith don’t see her older kids. All it means is we don’t see pictures of them.

And Linda, that’s exactly what I took his quote to mean, that he’d be happy even if they hadn’t had a baby together. Isabella and Connor are not his biological children, they’re older, and they don’t live with him. He may or may not have a good relationship with them. I don’t see anything wrong with him wanting a child of his own, and in this interview he even said he didn’t particularly care about having a child of his own (probably b/c Nicole has two other children that he gets to help love!).

Cut this couple a break.

- marfmom on November 14th, 2009

So sick and tired of the whole “Why doesn’t Nicole ever talk about Conor and Isabella?” nagging in the comments when Nicole has explicitly stated that they wish not to be mentioned. By not talking about them she respects their wishes while guarding their privacy and this shows how much she cares for her and what a good mother she really must be. So, seriously, cut her a break. It’s not like Tom is always talking about Conor or Isabella as well; he mentions Suri more than them. That does not mean either of them is a bad parent.

- Kaisa on November 14th, 2009

Guys just been reading through some comments that came after mine and can see i have annoyed people with regards to Connor/bella. Just want to clarify somethings:

1-I am a huge fan of Nicole. I really like her work but more so,her personality and take on life.

2-I KNOW Nicole has said Connor and Bella do not want to be mentioned and i think its awesome that she respects that.

BUT- ‘I am totally devoted to my husband and baby’! That quote seems a bit odd to me. She could have said ‘I am totally devoted to my husband and children’. That in my mind is not mentioning Connor and Bella. For example shes not blabbing about their personalities or their hobbies,shes just including them in that devotion.

- maggie on November 14th, 2009

“This quote means that he and Nicole would have been happy without having a baby together, does it?

-Well, isn`t he married to a woman that already has had two children when they met?”

Linda, Keith said they would be happy not having a child TOGETHER. Connor and Isabella are NOT their children together. They are Nicole’s children from a previous marriage.

- Ply on November 14th, 2009

“Isabella and Connor are not his biological children, they’re older, and they don’t live with him.”
Marfmom, they aren’t Nicole’s biological children either. The correct term would be that they are not Keith’s children. Whether or not they are his biological children is not relevant.

- Ply on November 14th, 2009

I know that you cannot judge anyone about paparazzi pictures etc.

We have seen Connor and Isabella with Tom, Katie and Suri in so many pictures together. I don`t remember having seen a single picture with Nicole and them since Sunday was born.

Yes, I know that they live with Tom and not with Nicole.
Still, I find it odd that they don`t call her mom anymore.

- Linda on November 14th, 2009

Linda, she said that they don’t call her mom in a JOKING manner. *shakes head* Some people never give it up.

She’s their mother, has been since before they can even remember.

- Natasha on November 14th, 2009

its funny how all of these four children are not related my blood!

- Blackrose on November 14th, 2009

And no ones know why they chose to be with Tom more than Nicole. It might have nothing to do with Nicole, but just be because they wanted to stay in LA near their friends. Also, Tom seems controlling so it may have to do with that.

- ecl on November 14th, 2009

ecl I think that part of the reason why Bella and Connor chose to live with Tom was to practice their “religion.” IIRC Bella and Connor are both scientologists.

- CJ on November 14th, 2009

Both Tom and Nicole have said that Connor and Bella chose to live in LA to be closer to their friends and their schools. Nicole still has a house in LA if I am not mistaken and when she lived in LA they shared joint custody.

- michelle on November 14th, 2009

I doubt it has anything to do with Tom being controlling. Those kids are just as much Nicole’s as they are his so if she really felt it wasn’t in their best interest to stay in LA, she would have made that known. Given that they’re older, I’m sure they didn’t want to uproot themselves to the other side of the country, start a new school, and make a whole different set of friends. Since the option to stay was there, my guess is that they chose that.

- Liliana on November 14th, 2009

Ply, I see your point and sorry if I offended. I used the term biological children because that’s what he appeared to be talking about: having a biological child with Nicole.

- marfmom on November 14th, 2009

Kaisa, Maggie, Natasha and Liliana- I agree completely! I also want to add to what Natasha said. What Nicole actually said is that Bella and Connor don’t call her “mom”…because they call her “mum” instead, and sometimes they JOKINGLY (note the word JOKINGLY) call her “Nicole”.

It’s no different then when Angelina Jolie said about two years ago that Maddox sometimes jokingly calls her “Angie” (or at least does at the time. I have no idea if he still does or not.).

- CelebBabyLover on November 15th, 2009

It saddens me when people criticize Nicole for not mentioning Connor & Isabella, or for not “being out with them”. Nicole seems to be a very private person. Not being photographed with the children doesn’t equal not being with them. There are so many celebrities that alert the paparazzi about their activities, and pretty much stage “spontaneous” photos. Nicole doesn’t do it. Doesn’t make her a bad mother.

- martina on November 15th, 2009

I agree, Martina. She’s rarely photographed with Sunday as well.

Marfmom, I’m sure you didn’t mean to offend anyone. But there’s no mention in here of biological versus non-biological children. All Keith said was that he thought their odds of having CHILDREN together weren’t good because of their age when they met. Giving birth and adopting are both more difficult the older you get.

- Ply on November 15th, 2009

I remember reading earlier this year that Nicole & Tom both said Connor & Isabella are “city kids” and were given the choice of living with their mom in the country or their dad in the city. They chose the city b/c of the shopping, restaurants, etc. I can only imagine how hard it was for Nicole to give her children that choice b/c legally she is the custodial parent. She’s said in interviews that they come visit her, Keith & Sunday in TN and they see Connor & Isabella anytime they’re in CA. So, what’s the big deal. More kids than you would think go live with their dad when they’re in their early to mid teens. My youngest son did. Doesn’t mean they’re no longer close to their mother. My son wanted to be closer to his friends b/c he and I had moved away.

As for the kids calling Nicole occasionally, our son, who is adopted, occasionally calls us by our first names, realizes what he’s said and corrects himself. Biological children do the same when they’re young, to see what they can get away with. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just something most kids do.

- huneybea on November 15th, 2009

i’ve heard a lot about scientology – i do not wish to be offensive about anyone’s chosen faith – but i have heard a lot about how when one choses to leave the church, one choses to leave behind everything. including family members who remain members of scientology. maybe her apparent lack of involvement in connor and isabella’s life has something to do with that. i do find her comments odd, as a mother, but to each their own.
i just think personally, that penelope cruz had a lucky break, not having children with tom cruise, despite a long term relationship. poor katie holmes was not so lucky.

- mazzie on November 15th, 2009

Mazzie – I agree with everything you said. From personal research and opinion…..I agree!! Well said!!

- DianeC on November 15th, 2009

Scientology practices something called disconnection in which members of the church are forced to removed themselves from contact with people who are known SPs or suppressive persons. (Anyone who speaks ill of the church is an SP.) This is just speculation but if Connor and Isabella are practicing scientologists they could be implored to try and remove themselves from contact with their mother. It is not entirely unheard of for families to be broken apart because of this specific policy. One man cut off contact with his pregnant wife because she would not convert to scientology and considered it nonsense. Many of the high ranking people leaving now have spoken out against this policy.

- Camille on November 15th, 2009

I think it’s really sad that both Nicole and Keith are being critized for their comments. I know that Nicole loves ALL of her children biological or not and I’m equally sure that Keith loves and appreciates his step-children. For some reason this subject always comes up concerning this blended family even with Tom and Katie. I wish them many blessings and I hope and pray that they are able to have another baby but I’m happy that they are happy either way. I’m also happy that they are thankful for the family that God has blessed them with because family is just that….an immense blessing.

- I♥CBB on November 15th, 2009

Mazzie, very well said! I grew up with Katie Holmes in Sylvania, OH and I can tell you that her relationship with her siblings and lifelong (pre-Tom) friends is very very very different today.I used to envy Katie … but that came to a screeching halt as soon as he trapped and renamed her — KATE CRUISE.

- christina on November 15th, 2009

I to like Nicole, and think that she’s a fantastic actress, but…it’s one thing to move clear across town, to get some distance between you and your ex, but it’s a totally different thing all together to move clear across the planet! I can’t for the life of me understand why Nicole would move so far away from the children that she loves so much, and spend so much time with her family in Australia, but nearly no time with her kid’s in L.A.! Doesn’t she miss them? Don’t they miss her? Why wouldn’t they just do 6 months w/Tom and another w/Nicole? Many,many,many other couples split-up, and manage to share custody more evenly…obviously because they love their kid’s and they want and need to be in their childrens lives! I know that the wishes of children are important, but it’s much more important that kid’s be raised by both loving parents much more than the kid’s being close to their friends and schools…they have schools in Australia and in Tennessee!

Don’t hate me, but I think that Nicole never wanted those kid’s in the first place…I think Tom wanted them… and she wanted what Tom could provide her (super star success)… so she did what it took to please Tom. After all, she has openly shunned Scientology… so why would she leave her innocent children in a situation that she herself found to be toxic and unbeneficial.

(Same with Katie. It is said that she also dilikes Scientology, and that it’s causing problems in her family (parents) and marriage. Being tied to Tom guarantees an actressess star status.)
….Just one gal’s opinion.

- Torre on November 15th, 2009

That’s very interesting “inside info” Christina. I never know if it’s the media’s spin on things or the truth. But she certainly seemed to change a lot after meeting Tom. Sad for her and her friends that lost her.
As far as Nicole, I must say that I am sad that she doesn’t often talk about her older children and that I rarely ever see pictures of her with them (that’s not to say she’s never with them, just nevere photographed).

- urbanadventurertales on November 15th, 2009

I have a hard time believing scientology is what’s keeping Nicole and her children apart. Even if it’s true that they cannot have contact with their mother due to her inability to follow the same beliefs, there are a number of things, legally, that Nicole can do to make sure she is able to spend time with them. As I said before, those children are just as much hers as they are Tom’s.

People can speculate all they want but until Tom and/or Nicole comment on the situation, no one knows what occurs in their personal lives.

- Liliana on November 15th, 2009

One thing I’d like to point out is that the issues of the older kids having to attend different schools is moot: they have NEVER attended a “real” school. They are both tutored/home schooled with a Scientology curriculum.

It’s common knowledge in Toledo that Katie’s dad (a divorce lawyer) is still very uneasy with their union, but both parents are publicly supportive because Katie is their youngest child and they would do anything to stay in both her and Suri’s life.

- christina on November 16th, 2009

“As far as Nicole, I must say that I am sad that she doesn’t often talk about her older children and that I rarely ever see pictures of her with them . . . ”

I for one am GLAD that she doesn’t talk about her older children often. I’m GLAD that she doesn’t parade them around at media events. To me, that makes her a good mother. If my mother were a celebrity, I would NEVER want her talking to the media about me.

- Ply on November 16th, 2009

Torre, how many celebrity fathers have children that live across the country/world from them? Why don’t you criticize them? The only reason you criticize Nicole is because she’s a FEMALE and her children don’t live with her. That’s called SEXISM.

- Ply on November 16th, 2009

Liliana- I agree! Tom even said on Oprah at the very beginning of this year that he and Nicole share custody (note that shared custody doesn’t automatically mean 50/50 custody), and that the kids can see Nicole whenever they want. He has also said that he is NOT trying to keep Nicole from the kids (I think that was on the same Oprah episode).

Torre- Actually, Nicole lives primarily in Nashville now, not Australia. As for why she spends time in Australian on occasion…well, her parents live there, as does her sister (I don’t know if she has any other siblings, and if so, if they live in Australia as well). And Keith’s family hails from New Zealand if I’m remembering correctly, so they probably stop over and visit them when they go to Australia as well (since Australia and NZ aren’t that far apart).

Anyway, I think it’s ridiculious to suggest that Nicole never wanted Bella and Connor just because she’s never seen with them! It’s also beyond me how people assume that, just because we never see Bella and Connor with Nicole, that means they never see her. A lack of paparazzi photos doesn’t mean anything! As another poster pointed out, we rarely see Nicole with Sunday, either.

I also want to point out that Bella is very nearly 17 and Connor is nearly 14. Do we honestly expect them to be hanging out with their parents a lot at their ages (especially at Bella’s age)? I mean, when my brother was Bella’s age, he was hardly ever at home! Hence, he didn’t go very many places with me and our parents. Bella may very well be the same way.

At their ages, they also probably prefer to stay out of the spotlight (well, other than that one movie Connor did recently). In anycase, I think it’s quite clear that Nicole loves those children. She’s spoken about Connor visiting her on the set of Australia (which she filmed only a year or two ago. That was in the summer, and I believe the kids spent that entire summer with her), and about how one of her favorite pictures is of Isabella holding a then-newborn Sunday (Sunday was a few months old when Nicole made that comment).

Personally, I think Bella and Connor see Nicole (and Keith and Sunday) a lot more than we’re aware of!

- CelebBabyLover on November 16th, 2009

Why is Nicole not allowed to even mention her children’s names? I understand that they may not want to be put in the spotlight, but Tom mentions their names and it seems to be fine. Really unusual behavior. Also, mentioning a child’s name is not the same as invading his or her privacy. They are her children, and she should take every chance to acknowledge this positively. In some way she has compartmentalized her mothering to “my kids I adopted with Tom Cruise” and “my biological child with Keith Urban.”

- Ellen Smith on November 16th, 2009

I think none of us know how much time Nicole spends with her older children- they could be all the time and we wouldn’t know because she respects their privacy.

I think they have a great outlook on children, instead worrying about having more- they are just enjoying the baby they have now!

- Lila on November 16th, 2009

Ellen Smith, why does it always have to be adoptive versus biological? I doubt Nicole thinks that way.

She doesn’t mention her older children because THEY DON’T WANT HER TO.

- Ply on November 16th, 2009

To Ply: But they want their dad to mention their names? Again, the logic is missing. As for adoptive vs. biological children, I think Nicole was longing for a biological child, despite the fact that she loves her adopted kids.

- Ellen Smith on November 16th, 2009

No, they DON’T want their dad to mention their names. He has said so himself, yet he sometimes talks about them sometimes.

And wanting to have a biological child as well as adoptive children is normal. Lots of people want to do both. It doesn’t mean Nicole loves the biological child more than the adoptive children. Even if for some reason Nicole DID love her youngest more than her older two, there is no reason at all to think it is because the older two are adopted. The only people that come up with ideas like that are people that themselves have problems with adoption.

Nicole adopted her children because, at the time she did not WANT to get pregnant and have a baby, due to the heartbreak of her first failed pregnancy. After having her two kids, she has said she felt ready to be pregnant again. Some people want to experience birth and adoption.

- Ply on November 16th, 2009

Nicole being quoted in Vanity Fair magazine:

On having kids with Urban.

“I’m yearning to have one. I think I would be very sad if I wasn’t able to have a baby. Keith knows I want one, and he has been getting there slowly.”

In my opinion, motherhood to two adopted kids wasn’t as fulfilling to her as she would like us to believe. She obviously felt the need to have a biological child. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly she felt there would be a difference. This is not being judgmental, it’s being observational, at best.

Also, if she wanted to have a baby with Keith and they could not have their own child, the quote above clearly indicates that adopting with Keith was not what she had in mind.

- Ellen Smith on November 16th, 2009

Keith’s interview seems contradictory to what Nicole has said. She has stated many times that she loooonnnnged for a baby. I don’t think she was fulfilled with just adopting and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that BUT she does seem so much more enamored with Sunday that the older two for whatever reason. Maybe she has a hard time separating them from Tom? Maybe it was hard to parent them with Tom’s odd ways and she has more freedom with Sunday?

- Kimri on November 16th, 2009

Kimri- Or maybe she just shows her love for them in different ways than she shows her love for Sunday. I also want to point out that Tom talks about Suri far more than he talks about Bella and Connor…yet no one criticizes him for that.

Ply- I agree! People do the adoptive versus biological thing with the Jolie-Pitt children, too, and it drives me insane! For example, the tabs and even most reputable media outlets almost always say things like, “Angelina and Brad have three adopted kids and three biological kids” in articles about Angie and/or Brad (Two of the few media outlets that don’t differienite between the kids like that are PEOPLE and CBB, which I greatly appreciete!).

Just like you said about Nicole, clearly Angelina and Brad don’t think that way. Speaking of which, it always makes me chuckle that people used to accuse Angelina of Maddox, Zahara, and Pax more than Shiloh (thankfully, most people seem to have stopped with those accusations since the twins’ birth.)….and now are accusing Nicole of the exact opposite (loving her biological daughter more than her adopted kids)! Celebs just can’t win!

- CelebBabyLover on November 17th, 2009

Oops, I meant to say “…used to accuse Angelina of LOVING Maddox, Zahara, and Pax more than Shiloh…”

- CelebBabyLover on November 17th, 2009

“Also, if she wanted to have a baby with Keith and they could not have their own child, the quote above clearly indicates that adopting with Keith was not what she had in mind.”

All she says is she is longing for a baby. I don’t see how that indicates she wants to give birth. Adoption gets you a baby just as well. You people are imagining WAY too much between the lines.

- Ply on November 17th, 2009

“BUT she does seem so much more enamored with Sunday that the older two for whatever reason.”

She talked about the other two just as much when they were Sunday’s age. Sunday is at an age now where she is going to be with her mother much more than two teenagers.

- Ply on November 17th, 2009

Ply- I agree. And for what it’s worth, adopted children are your “own children” as well.

- CelebBabyLover on November 18th, 2009