So the only reason she wanted a baby and a wedding,was to get in there before peter,aww,i can't help but feel sorry for little jett,god bless him.
Wouldn't say the only reason Val, she may have been genuinely broody and she had a bridal range and new baby wear to promote too and the prospect of £££ exclusives to sell :rolleyes: But perhaps wanting to be first was part of the reason for the haste in hunting for a replacement for Leo who was willing to be a Dad. Whatever the reasons I agree - all the best for Jett!
I certainly believe that Pete's relationship with Emily may have caused her to frantically hunt for another relationship when she broke up with Leo- she really seems to hate being single. Although she had already squeezed in one marriage since their divorce so I'm not sure what the rush was there.
What I don't understand is why she didn't pretend the baby was due in October all the way through the pregnancy which would have pointed to a January conception but until the birth she was indicating the baby was due in late summer. If she wanted to hide the fact she got pregnant in December why say she was "halfway" on 1st May and in the third trimester on the 19th June and make all those comments in June about the baby being about to "pop out".Maybe she is too thick to realise people would count backwards and only realised she would have to pretend he was prem towards the end. Or maybe she just fancied a bit of extra media cover and realised a prem baby in a foreign land would garner some column inches while forgetting that she had already given some fairly strong pointers about when the baby was due.
I certainly believe that Pete's relationship with Emily may have caused her to frantically hunt for another relationship when she broke up with Leo- she really seems to hate being single. Although she had already squeezed in one marriage since their divorce so I'm not sure what the rush was there.
What I don't understand is why she didn't pretend the baby was due in October all the way through the pregnancy which would have pointed to a January conception but until the birth she was indicating the baby was due in late summer. If she wanted to hide the fact she got pregnant in December why say she was "halfway" on 1st May and in the third trimester on the 19th June and make all those comments in June about the baby being about to "pop out".Maybe she is too thick to realise people would count backwards and only realised she would have to pretend he was prem towards the end. Or maybe she just fancied a bit of extra media cover and realised a prem baby in a foreign land would garner some column inches while forgetting that she had already given some fairly strong pointers about when the baby was due.
I agree it's a puzzle, up until the very end everything was consistent with the earlier due date. I wonder whether both Sun exclusives could have actually been written after the baby was born and they took advantage of his low birth weight to say he was more premature than he was so as to remove any doubt about the paternity but they hadn't counted on people date-checking? It might also be to try to lessen criticism about travelling abroad so late in her pregnancy. So the rough sequence of events could have been true but the first report could have been published after the birth, there was over a weeks time lag to it being reported. There's no way of independently verifying without knowing where it happened but the actual birth date would have to eventually appear on the birth certificate. Just theorising! Tis a mystery ...
Of course NOW is telling the truth :rolleyes: another made up story they are renowned for ..
And how do you know junior told his dad she was pregnant?
Actually I don't believe a word in any of these magazines much as I would like to slag off Pwicey and PA - it's all "a concerned pal said" "a friend said". I do believe the Sun article was a direct interview with her though.
Actually I don't believe a word in any of these magazines much as I would like to slag off Pwicey and PA - it's all "a concerned pal said" "a friend said". I do believe the Sun article was a direct interview with her though.
I can't comment on the scum article as I don't read it .. But for me as soon as a "source" said I think rubbish
Just read part of the Leo article where he said Katie emailed him to say she was married ..then emailed him again later to say she was pregnant ...
By the way I believe she was just pregnant before she got married and her baby was due near the end of sept if she got pregnant between 12-19th dec her baby would of been due between 18-25 sept
Just read part of the Leo article where he said Katie emailed him to say she was married ..then emailed him again later to say she was pregnant ...
By the way I believe she was just pregnant before she got married and her baby was due near the end of sept if she got pregnant between 12-19th dec her baby would of been due between 18-25 sept
No.
"The moment she got married [to Kieran] she told me in an e-mail she'd done it. The moment she got pregnant, she e-mailed me again. I think that was in December."
"The moment she got married [to Kieran] she told me in an e-mail she'd done it. The moment she got pregnant, she e-mailed me again. I think that was in December."
Why say she emailed me AGAIN ...and yes he would be right she got pregnant in December ... I took it that he ment by saying "I think that was December" meaning he believed she got pregnant then not that she emailed him then...I hope that makes sense
On a separate note..will Leo come back here and face the courtcase he missed?
Why say she emailed me AGAIN ...and yes he would be right she got pregnant in December ... I took it that he ment by saying "I think that was December" meaning he believed she got pregnant then not that she emailed him then...I hope that makes sense
Yes, it does. It's probably just a transcription thing and/or the way Leo himself described it.
Yes, it does. It's probably just a transcription thing and/or the way Leo himself described it.
That's how I read it, English isn't even his second language I think (remembers the romantic "love speaks louder than words cos we like can't speak each others language") so when you translate into English things can read a bit arse about face.
Just read part of the Leo article where he said Katie emailed him to say she was married ..then emailed him again later to say she was pregnant ...
By the way I believe she was just pregnant before she got married and her baby was due near the end of sept if she got pregnant between 12-19th dec her baby would of been due between 18-25 sept
I got pregnant on the 10th December and the baby was due 4th September with a LMP of 27th November (and yes I can still remember even though it was nearly twenty years ago).
Yes, it does. It's probably just a transcription thing and/or the way Leo himself described it.
I know it's a waste of time me saying this ...but I find it extremely distasteful to keep saying this baby is not her husbands..I'd never dream of saying Peter n Emily's baby isn't his because she was away at uni and they only saw each other at weekends..
I got pregnant on the 10th December and the baby was due 4th September with a LMP of 27th November (and yes I can still remember even though it was nearly twenty years ago).
40 weeks by mine. That was the date I was given and he was born two weeks early on 24th August- I'm sure they haven't changed the way they calculate things. And even adding on another week still makes it early September. If she had got pregnant any later than mid December she wouldn't have known to be able to tell Leo. Plus all her previous tweets and comments mirror the landmark dates in my own pregnancy.
I know it's a waste of time me saying this ...but I find it extremely distasteful to keep saying this baby is not her husbands..I'd never dream of saying Peter n Emily's baby isn't his because she was away at uni and they only saw each other at weekends..
It's KPs fault for being seen out with several different men at the time it now looks like the baby may of been conceived. As she doesn't practice safe sex and is known for stating this then some people will add things together and get raised eyebrows.
Also Emily was not papped with several different men during the time of conception or falling out of clubs with different men and has never stated she prefers unprotected sex so why compare them? (apart from again, mention PA in this thread)
I know it's a waste of time me saying this ...but I find it extremely distasteful to keep saying this baby is not her husbands..I'd never dream of saying Peter n Emily's baby isn't his because she was away at uni and they only saw each other at weekends..
OK, Not sure why you're quoting me here but never mind....
Betty, the thing is, while I get your support of KP here, why do you ignore the factors that are contributing to the speculation? If you at least acknowledged those, then I - and I'm sure other people - would be less harsh about it.
The only person responsible for the speculation about Jett is KP. That is a bankable fact.
I know it's a waste of time me saying this ...but I find it extremely distasteful to keep saying this baby is not her husbands..I'd never dream of saying Peter n Emily's baby isn't his because she was away at uni and they only saw each other at weekends..
If she hadn't lied then there would be no speculation. And she HAS lied. You can't deny it - either in the Daybreak interview by pretending she was further along than she was or after the birth when she claimed he was eight weeks prem. She CAN'T have been telling the truth both times- it simply doesn't add up. I'm no Peter fan but there weren't pictures of Emily snuggling up to two different men around the time of conception.
It's KPs fault for being seen out with several different men at the time it now looks like the baby may of been conceived. As she doesn't practice safe sex and is known for stating this then some people will add things together and get raised eyebrows.
Also Emily was not papped with several different men during the time of conception or falling out of clubs with different men and has never stated she prefers unprotected sex so why compare them? (apart from again, mention PA in this thread)
So by being in the company of a bloke she must of been sleeping with them....
And I would NEVER claim Peter n Emily's baby isn't his... Id find that distasteful
So by being in the company of a bloke she must of been sleeping with them....
Perhaps. I'm just going by her past record Betty and how fast she moves onto another man the minute she splits from her last one. Or do you deny that she does that?
If she hadn't lied then there would be no speculation. And she HAS lied. You can't deny it - either in the Daybreak interview by pretending she was further along than she was or after the birth when she claimed he was eight weeks prem. She CAN'T have been telling the truth both times- it simply doesn't add up. I'm no Peter fan but there weren't pictures of Emily snuggling up to two different men around the time of conception.
Lied about what? She never gave a date he was due.. So she was a few days from her third trimester ..shoot her for a little mistake
Perhaps. I'm just going by her past record Betty and how fast she moves onto another man the minute she splits from her last one. Or do you deny that she does that?
No I have said she moves in to fast but that doesn't mean she slept with him... There is NO evidence she did
I also believe her n Leo split a bit before they announced it officially ...
So by being in the company of a bloke she must of been sleeping with them.... And I would NEVER claim Peter n Emily's baby isn't his... Id find that distasteful
Again, I repeat myself, EMILY has never given anyone any cause to stop and think that the baby couldn't be his, has she?
No.
You can use other celebs to do comparisons you know, not the same old ex each and every time Betty.
Comments
Wouldn't say the only reason Val, she may have been genuinely broody and she had a bridal range and new baby wear to promote too and the prospect of £££ exclusives to sell :rolleyes: But perhaps wanting to be first was part of the reason for the haste in hunting for a replacement for Leo who was willing to be a Dad. Whatever the reasons I agree - all the best for Jett!
What I don't understand is why she didn't pretend the baby was due in October all the way through the pregnancy which would have pointed to a January conception but until the birth she was indicating the baby was due in late summer. If she wanted to hide the fact she got pregnant in December why say she was "halfway" on 1st May and in the third trimester on the 19th June and make all those comments in June about the baby being about to "pop out".Maybe she is too thick to realise people would count backwards and only realised she would have to pretend he was prem towards the end. Or maybe she just fancied a bit of extra media cover and realised a prem baby in a foreign land would garner some column inches while forgetting that she had already given some fairly strong pointers about when the baby was due.
I agree it's a puzzle, up until the very end everything was consistent with the earlier due date. I wonder whether both Sun exclusives could have actually been written after the baby was born and they took advantage of his low birth weight to say he was more premature than he was so as to remove any doubt about the paternity but they hadn't counted on people date-checking? It might also be to try to lessen criticism about travelling abroad so late in her pregnancy. So the rough sequence of events could have been true but the first report could have been published after the birth, there was over a weeks time lag to it being reported. There's no way of independently verifying without knowing where it happened but the actual birth date would have to eventually appear on the birth certificate. Just theorising! Tis a mystery ...
Of course NOW is telling the truth :rolleyes: another made up story they are renowned for ..
And how do you know junior told his dad she was pregnant?
Actually I don't believe a word in any of these magazines much as I would like to slag off Pwicey and PA - it's all "a concerned pal said" "a friend said". I do believe the Sun article was a direct interview with her though.
I can't comment on the scum article as I don't read it .. But for me as soon as a "source" said I think rubbish
By the way I believe she was just pregnant before she got married and her baby was due near the end of sept if she got pregnant between 12-19th dec her baby would of been due between 18-25 sept
No.
"The moment she got married [to Kieran] she told me in an e-mail she'd done it. The moment she got pregnant, she e-mailed me again. I think that was in December."
Why say she emailed me AGAIN ...and yes he would be right she got pregnant in December ... I took it that he ment by saying "I think that was December" meaning he believed she got pregnant then not that she emailed him then...I hope that makes sense
On a separate note..will Leo come back here and face the courtcase he missed?
I remember juniour telling Peter that mummy was pregnant.
http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/gossip/the-juice/peter-andre-discusses-katie-price’s-pregnancy-with-junior-on-‘my-life-’-awkward-151726302.html
Yes, it does.
That's not proof he told his dad of her pregnancy...just proof he was talking about it to his dad..
That's how I read it, English isn't even his second language I think (remembers the romantic "love speaks louder than words cos we like can't speak each others language") so when you translate into English things can read a bit arse about face.
I got pregnant on the 10th December and the baby was due 4th September with a LMP of 27th November (and yes I can still remember even though it was nearly twenty years ago).
I know it's a waste of time me saying this ...but I find it extremely distasteful to keep saying this baby is not her husbands..I'd never dream of saying Peter n Emily's baby isn't his because she was away at uni and they only saw each other at weekends..
By my calculations that's only 39 weeks ...
40 weeks by mine. That was the date I was given and he was born two weeks early on 24th August- I'm sure they haven't changed the way they calculate things. And even adding on another week still makes it early September. If she had got pregnant any later than mid December she wouldn't have known to be able to tell Leo. Plus all her previous tweets and comments mirror the landmark dates in my own pregnancy.
It's KPs fault for being seen out with several different men at the time it now looks like the baby may of been conceived. As she doesn't practice safe sex and is known for stating this then some people will add things together and get raised eyebrows.
Also Emily was not papped with several different men during the time of conception or falling out of clubs with different men and has never stated she prefers unprotected sex so why compare them? (apart from again, mention PA in this thread)
OK, Not sure why you're quoting me here but never mind....
Betty, the thing is, while I get your support of KP here, why do you ignore the factors that are contributing to the speculation?
The only person responsible for the speculation about Jett is KP. That is a bankable fact.
If she hadn't lied then there would be no speculation. And she HAS lied. You can't deny it - either in the Daybreak interview by pretending she was further along than she was or after the birth when she claimed he was eight weeks prem. She CAN'T have been telling the truth both times- it simply doesn't add up. I'm no Peter fan but there weren't pictures of Emily snuggling up to two different men around the time of conception.
So by being in the company of a bloke she must of been sleeping with them....
And I would NEVER claim Peter n Emily's baby isn't his... Id find that distasteful
Perhaps. I'm just going by her past record Betty and how fast she moves onto another man the minute she splits from her last one. Or do you deny that she does that?
Lied about what? She never gave a date he was due.. So she was a few days from her third trimester ..shoot her for a little mistake
No I have said she moves in to fast but that doesn't mean she slept with him... There is NO evidence she did
I also believe her n Leo split a bit before they announced it officially ...
Again, I repeat myself, EMILY has never given anyone any cause to stop and think that the baby couldn't be his, has she?
No.
You can use other celebs to do comparisons you know, not the same old ex each and every time Betty.