Each Pitt-Jolie child gets own nanny

The Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie household isn’t inexpensive to run, according to Life & Style magazine. They quote Volkswagen spokesperson Mya Walters as saying: “We’ve provided them with more than 20 Volkswagens while they’re here in Berlin.” The magazine also reports that their spacious Berlin home has a dinner table that seats 16 and that they employ six nannies to look after their six children. However, during their recent stay in New Orleans, where Pitt was shooting The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the magazine says they tried to make do with four nannies, but couldn’t cope with the chaos, quickly flying in two more. However, family friend Wyclef Jean doesn’t want anyone thinking the kids are neglected, telling the mag: “They make plenty of time for the kids, they’re great parents.” Shiloh and Zahara Jolie-Pitt are pictured in New Orleans in what’s described at keystonepress.net photo agency as a shot with a nanny, at the time when the Pitt-Jolies were trying to make do with only four. Luckily both actors are multi-millionaires who average $20 million per movie.

Share this article:

Comments & Discussion

  1. Joshua • October 31, 2008 @ 10:28 AM

    Mt wife and i have 5 kids..Wish we could afford one nanny. But i mean ONE for every kid? i was wondering how they got all that work done with all the kids running around. So they are not superhuman after all, just really rich.

  2. Nancy • October 31, 2008 @ 10:37 AM

    OMG! There’s the photograph someone on here was just talking about the other day when they said that we never see pictures of the Jolie/Pitt kids with a nanny. Well well well, now we’re getting down to the truth aren’t we? 6 kids, 6 nannies, 2 parents…parents who most likely pay others to cook and clean and wipe their butts…so, what do these 2 do, besides breed? 4 nannies weren’t enough, they “couldn’t cope with the chaos and 2 more were quickly flown in”…I don’t know how all 8 of them can do it. I mean, 6 nannies watching 1 child each, with no other duties, cooks, maids, gardeners, body guards…it’s a hard job but I guess someone has to do it!

  3. London • October 31, 2008 @ 11:01 AM

    In a daycare system 1 adult is responsible for 5 children. It would seem that 2 nannies would be plenty. If 4 nannies find it difficult (while 2 parents are also supposedly around)..it leaves me wondering. How exactly are their children being raised? Is it utter chaos because the children are being allowed to act & do whatever they please? If that is the case..they are spending a lot of money & compromising their childrens upbringing at the same time. It sounds like the kids must be out of control 24/7? What kind of nannies are they hiring? A good nannie should be a child’s everyday teacher…in all aspects. From social interaction to how to tie their shoes & how to behave at the dinner table etc. Children need boundaries. If they were getting that from their nannies..they would be fine with 4 of them. There shouldn’t be a NEED for 6. If they WANT 6 nannies & can afford it…then its up to them. I guess they are more or less training their children to have a personal assistant rather than how to grow up with brothers and sisters. I come from a family of 8. We never had a single nanny & learned all of our lessons. I myself have children & also have nannied a family of 5 children. That usually includes all of the household duties/chores as well as childrens’ activities. Anyhow, to each his own. We need to respect the decisions others make in their own lives. It is not for us to judge. We all live & learn. Lets just not forget to love & laugh along the way. 🙂

  4. even Obama likes the Cosmos Rocks! • October 31, 2008 @ 11:23 AM

    »Interesting.Jolie/Pitt=the big couple of 2008!

  5. je • October 31, 2008 @ 12:49 PM

    why dont you just give the money and leave the kids alone in there real parent. your not taking care of them anyways..

  6. mandee • October 31, 2008 @ 12:56 PM

    i think they have good intentions, but maybe having all those YOUNG children is too hard. maybe they really ARE all that bad, we dont know since we dont live with them. originally when it was just angelina and her 2 she adopted, she never needed or wanted a nanny. also, they stated not that long ago *before the twins i think* that they still had no nanny and no desire to have one. so i am thinking maybe this whole *6 nanny* thing is being blown completely out of proportion, and given that this is the ONLY photo of any jolie-pitt child with ANY nanny, perhaps its not really true and someone is just looking for a story? i dont see who any of us are to judge anyways unless we knew them for SURE and knew without a doubt that the story is true. if you believe all this, im sure youd also believe all those magazines that say her and brad keep breaking up. i wonder how that happens when they are still together?

  7. Tammy • October 31, 2008 @ 1:15 PM

    That is not a nanny, that is Brad Pitt’s mother pushing the baby carriage.

  8. Kelly • October 31, 2008 @ 1:54 PM

    Interesting… Now we know why they started collecting all the foreign babies before having biological ones… If they’d done it the other way around with all these nannies, no official in their right mind would let them adopt another army-full. Now that they have three adopted ones, they are free to pump out another three or four. “That shouldn’t get too much in the way of your more successful-than-mine acting career, should it Angie?” “Don’t be silly Brad, we’ll just hire another 20 nannies, and Pitt-mom lookalikes too, just to make it fun!”

    (while see conspires under her breath about how if she can find a convincing enough pitt-mom lookalike, she can finally kill her off: That should teach her for taking Jen Aniston’s side!!)

  9. justkidding • October 31, 2008 @ 8:54 PM

    people, seriously, we have no idea what goes on their household, good bad or indifferent. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt.

  10. Anon • November 1, 2008 @ 1:45 AM

    How disgusting. They try and make themselves look to be so saintly but when cameras aren’t rolling, they’re just like all rich people with too much money to burn and think too highly of themselves. 6 nannies is ridiculous.

  11. Jennifer Person • November 1, 2008 @ 6:02 PM

    keystonepress.net should get the facts correct, this is not Brad and Angelina’s nanny, it’s Brad’s mom Jane just spending time with the grandkids. Guess the press has nothing else better to do.

  12. Jessie • November 1, 2008 @ 6:28 PM

    Je…those kids dont HAVE parents, they came from an orphanage…in a third world country!
    I think they’re a lot better off with Brad and Angelina. They get to travel the world, they’re going to get the best education money can buy, and I think they’re pretty well cared for by Brad and Angelina THEMSELVES.
    I think anyone who is berating them for adopting all these kids are jerks.
    This nanny thing could only be temporary, we all need some extra help sometimes. I do agree that a nanny for each kid is a bit too much, but that might not be true. It’s possible they only have 1 or 2 nannies and that the reporter mistook family friends/family members for other ones.
    They’re doing a good thing =)

  13. Charlotte • November 1, 2008 @ 11:25 PM

    I wish that every one would just get over themselves and leave Angelina and Brad alone. What are they doing that is so terrible. Raising and loving 6 beautiful children.
    I agree that was Brad’s Mom taking Zahara and Shiloh for a walk. Who has seen them with 6 nannies. Why don’t we all mind our own business and give them a round of applause for all that they do.

  14. tributegirl • November 2, 2008 @ 8:06 AM

    Jessie, I agree, those kids are much better off now than if they hadn’t been adopted.

  15. anonymous2 • November 2, 2008 @ 11:02 AM

    She’s a mother on paper only.

  16. Arnold • November 2, 2008 @ 3:50 PM

    no comment.

  17. mandee • November 2, 2008 @ 8:15 PM

    i wonder if any of you would spend this much time ridiculing your own friends or family if it was THEM that needed nannies for THEIR children? just because they can afford any extra help they need, doesnt give us the right to be rude about it. they are wonderful people, there are not that many people actually adopting children from these third world countries, and until you adopt and have as many kids as these 2, i dont think you have the right to judge. so let them be, at least theyre trying to make a difference while the rest of us are sitting behind a computer screen bitching about them. i bet if you had that kinda money, none of you would even CONSIDER adopting kids in need of better homes.

  18. Kelly • November 2, 2008 @ 10:18 PM

    Hey – No sympathy allowed. Only good natured banter!! C’mon everyone – none of us really know them (ESPECIALLY all of you out there sticking up for them – seriously, are you on their payroll too?). Nobody here actually intends any harm. We’re just goofing off. It’s the people writing the stories you should worry about. And yes, everyone knows it’s his mom in the pic – even tribute isn’t suggesting otherwise. Ease up, and don’t take all these too seriously. At least we haters aren’t pretending to actually know them. Sense of humours are a must here…

  19. mandee • November 3, 2008 @ 8:58 PM

    i have a feeling that last message was intended for ME. well, i never said i KNOW them, but they do appear to be the best people pretty much in the world. no one else does the stuff they do, no one else feels the need to help third world country children, or donate that much time or money to different charities, or even start their own. maybe the reason you are all “haters” as you put it, is because you are simply jealous that there is no point in your life that you could even be PARTIALLY as great as the 2 of these people. and i never saw ANYONE once state they KNOW these people. we are simply defending nice, hard working people that are at least on this earth for a good cause.

  20. zena • November 9, 2008 @ 6:40 PM

    I’m thinking more and more that these two act like narcissists. With all their money, they could hire some good psychiatrists to find out the meaning of the word. They both work too much and fly around the world to spend quantity time with their children, and I think that they care mainly about how society perceives them, not what their children are learning. Sure, having kids is fun, but they’re not the first ones to do it. My kids are the best in the world, and they get love and guidance, when I’m not jetting around the world getting on every magazine cover that I can manage, and adding a new “press child” every year. I hope I’m wrong, but they look like narcissists to me. Typical Hollywood.

Join The Conversation:

Trending Articles

Current Poll

  • Which TIFF film are you most looking forward to this fall?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

You Might Also Like


Close Menu