Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie apparently sold their wedding photos for $5 million

angelina people

Back in the day (lord, I can’t believe it’s been this long), Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had the most expensive “first baby photos” sale of all time. That was in 2006, for daughter Shiloh, and the photos reportedly went for $4 million, which then went into one of the Jolie-Pitt Foundations. Then, in 2008, Angelina gave birth to twins Knox and Vivienne and a new record was reached for those photos: reportedly, $14 million. After that, the market for celebrity baby photos did kind of drop off. Maybe it was the recession, maybe it was just a natural peak-and-decline cycle. Various celebrities were still selling their photos, like Jessica Simpson, Drew Barrymore, Snooki, etc. But those photos barely got a fraction of what Brangelina got.

So, when Hello and People released their joint covers this week – photo exclusives of the Brangelina wedding – many believed that this could be the second wave of big-money exclusives. And People Mag and Hello did shell out a lot of money, but not as much as I thought the wedding pics would get. Radar says the pics went for $5 million!

Something old, something new, something six figures? RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie scored a $5 million payday for making their wedding day public, but the philanthropic couple will be donating the money to charity.

People and Hello! magazine “each paid $2.5 million for a selection of wedding pictures from Brad and Angelina’s wedding,” an insider told Radar. “Hello! has the international rights to the pictures. Before the wedding, Brad and Angie personally chose a photographer they had worked with from Getty Images for the wedding.”

“Brad and Angelina knew there would be tremendous interest in their wedding pictures, and decided to donate the money to their charitable foundation. The couple has done this numerous times in the past,” the source continued. Indeed, Pitt and Jolie were paid $14 million to publish photographs of their twins, Knox and Vivienne in 2008.

[From Radar]

Radar goes on to imply that Brad and Angelina have already put the money into The Maddox Jolie Pitt Foundation, which “supports numerous humanitarian projects around the world ranging from providing legal services to children in war-torn Libya, providing clean, safe drinking water in third world countries, and giving vaccines to children.” Okay. I wonder if Brad is also going to donate a portion of his $13 million paycheck from two days of work on a commercial? As for the figure… I guess that sounds right for where the celebrity-photo-exclusive industry is these days. Brad and Angelina could have given away the photos, but they sold the pics to raise more money for charity, so God bless.

Incidentally, Brad Pitt and some of his Fury costars filmed a short video wishing everybody good luck at the Invictus Games. Brad Pitt and Prince Harry… I would like to see that meeting. Hell, I’d like to see Harry and Angelina Jolie together in a room. I bet he would flirt with her. Would she flirt back? Hm.

angelina hello

Covers courtesy of People and Hello.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

176 Responses to “Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie apparently sold their wedding photos for $5 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kiddo says:

    I’m actually more curious about where a declining outfit like People Mag would get its hands on that kind of dough. You would think an expenditure like that would put them under. How much does an issue of People cost and how many copies do they need to sell to recoup the payout?
    I wonder if they had to take out a loan.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      People Mag easily has $5M. Hell, just from the ads in their rag and on the website alone.

      • Kiddo says:

        Okay. I don’t habituate their site, and then I never see anyone buy the mag and I don’t know anyone who has a subscription, but you are probably right. Also adblock plus spares me a lot of the commercial stuff, especially annoying pop ups, so the ads are something I might be oblivious to and didn’t consider. Good point.

        My zit has greatly improved, BTW.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Neither do I but you just have to look at a magazine like New York Magazine, which generates about $80 billion in print ad advertising in only half a year.

        Hell, I bet the money People makes off of dentists and doctors offices yearly subscriptions would probably be enough to keep them afloat.

        Yes! See?
        Never underestimate the miracle that is Vicks Vapo Rub. Now, if you had followed mimif’s advice and use tea tree oil, that thing would probably be as big as the titanic.

      • Kiddo says:

        Yeah, I have to say, even before it looked better, the Veeks took out the crazy itch/pain. I hereby endorse your method.

      • sigh((s)) says:

        Vapo rub is amazing for bug bites as well.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ Kiddo & Sighs–it’s the camphor! So soothing.

      • Amy Tennant says:

        My mom has had a People subscription almost continuously since it started in the early 70s. Somewhere she still has that first issue with Mia Farrow on the cover. I love the magazine, warts and all. I grew up reading it, and now I inherit Mom’s copies after she and my dad both get finished with them.
        I’m so glad they decided to share photos from their special day with us. That the proceeds go to charity is just the icing on the wedding cake.

        I just remembered. When I worked at a public library, the People was our most stolen magazine after the SI swimsuit issue. We had to keep it behind the circulation desk and issue it out only on request because so many people stole it.

      • mimif says:

        *throws tea tree oil at Kitten*

      • Rae says:

        Vick’s works for zits and bug bites? How did I miss this interesting tidbit the first time around? I’m glad I decided to read another Jolie/Pitt story…

        While we’re doling out home remedies, Noxzema for sunburns. The original menthol. Takes out the sting and moisturizes so you don’t peel.

      • Máiréad says:

        I’ve never heard of Vicks (or the cheapo Aldi knockoff that’s even better :p ) for spots. I swore by tea tree oil when I discovered it at 18. That and oil-free products.

        As for the main discussion, they’d easily make that back in this issue between increased purchases and advertisement.

      • Alice says:

        Tiger balm on an insect bite, especially mosquitos, will stop the itch as well.

        Zits, even the cystic kind…if you feel one coming on, slather it in a kaolin clay (the white kind) mask, let it dry and sleep with it still on. You’ll be amazed at how much it’s reduced by the next morning. Do it for several nights and the cystic kind will disappear before they actually become a zit. The normal kind will be gone in a day or two, max.

        Current favorite is available at Sephora, Dr. Dennis Gross which also contains colloidal silver and sulphur. Very very effective.

    • Kimble says:

      Every doctor and dentist office I have ever been to has a copy …

    • MW says:

      I haven’t bought a People in years, but I actually did buy the Jolie-Pitt wedding edition, and it was $4.99!!!!!!!! Yikes! Last time I bought one, (and I still do like People magazine) I think it was around $3.95-ish?

  2. Brin says:

    I’m just glad they donated the money to charity. Well done, Brangelina!

  3. Chris says:

    The money these celebs donate is merely just an investment in their public image. It buys the PR that eventually recoups that money several times over. These people didn’t get to where they are without being business savvy.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      +1 And the tax benefits of donating these large amounts also. But ,honestly, I am not going to side eye anyone doing this, as long as the charity is legit and it is put to good use, the reasons why don’t matter to me.

      • Jaderu says:

        My husband and I have had this same “argument” over Bill Gates. He says Gates only does it to look good and for tax benefits. I say it doesn’t matter. Someone still gets to go to college who wouldn’t have otherwise, so it doesn’t matter the “agenda” Gates has in donating it.

      • Chris says:

        Ditto Jaderu
        Surely anything is better than nowt?
        Every time a famous name goes one step further, in pursuit of the common good, than they are required to, it’s a good thing, imo. The imbalance in reactions is absurd: unsolicited good deeds are torn to shreds and the motives questioned, while other similarly-placed people are encouraged in their blatant money-grubbing activities.
        It cannot be ascribed solely to informed economic critique…..I find much of the complaining seems motivated by no more than petty and personal begrudgery ( I’m not referring to anyone here at all).
        But that’s of no matter…..what is worrying is the impact of automatic negativity, of never letting anything pass with approval for fear of looking naïve or hoodwinked. Of course we don’t want to lose our critical acuity, but it’s grim to see well-intentioned efforts dismissed…..you get the feeling everyone will soon just throw up their hands and give in to inevitable failure, and do nothing for anyone. 🙁

      • Josephina says:

        Exactly. You can save whales or you can try to improve the quality of lives of human beings.

      • Máiréad says:

        Depends on the agenda, I suppose. If it’s to deck tickets for films, who the hell cares – people generally give to charity to either make themselves feel better or out of a moral obligation, such as thanks or religion.
        The Gates issue is a bit more interesting as there is the potential to influence agenda across industries and countries.

    • eva says:

      I’m sure the people/charities benefiting from their “PR business savy” don’t give a toss if they recoup their money a million times over, they are doing so much good with their money I hope Brad & Angelina do get some good from it themselves.

    • Tapioca says:

      Well obviously.

      It’s the ultimate PR coup – looking charitable to the public and getting maximum publicity whilst keeping your own money firmly in your own pockets.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Tapioca, who wrote: “It’s the ultimate PR coup – looking charitable to the public and getting maximum publicity whilst keeping your own money firmly in your own pockets.”

        You ‘do know that Angelina Jolie still donates a third of her salary to charity, right? But I’m curious … is ‘looking’ charitable and truly ‘being’ charitable the same thing to you? Take your time, I’ll wait.

      • Chris says:

        @Emma: is it really being charitable when you’re getting the money back with interest? That third that she publicly gives to charity is an investment in her public image that she’d recoup several times over. It’s part of a bigger picture that’s all about her gratifying her ego and accumulating wealth. I see it for what it is and I don’t respect it.

      • anna says:

        @emma- the jp lover
        Do you have a proof that she donates 1/3 of her salary? Beside what she says in the interviews?

      • Ennie says:

        So you are saying that people/ companies should not be charitable if they get tax refunds because that is not being charitable?
        They do more than many, they publicize their efforts because promoting charities do entice people to participate donating too.
        Only lesser mortals like me will donate with nothing to win back but my satisfaction for being helpful. Even my dentist sister donated to Unicef after the big 2005 Tsunami and got a tax refund. So , she was not really being charitable, maybe she should have not donated according to your view?

      • Artemis says:

        @anna:

        Do you have proof that she doesn’t? No because then you wouldn’t ask other people for proof 🙂 Works both ways you know.

        You can try and find out if she really donates because lord knows people have tried hard enough to find evidence. For what it matters, the tax returns for their Jolie-Pitt Foundation can be found online (also on gossip websites) and it confirms they donate quite a lot. Nothing shady.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Anna, who wrote: “Do you have a proof that she donates 1/3 of her salary? Beside what she says in the interviews?”

        Watch this video and decide for yourself.

        http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2014/05/30/n-romans-biz-of-being.cnnmoney/index.html

      • Máiréad says:

        @ Chris, shuuuuuush you’re just exposing the modus operandi for lotteries, exploit people for the feel-good factor and good old fashioned greed 😉

      • hmmm says:

        @Chris,

        Amen! The highest form of giving is anonymous. They are a glam couple with business to promote and an image to uphold and you are right- they get back way more than they ‘give’. I also wonder about their personal foundation.

        What bothers me is that they are lauded as so perfect, with perfect social interest, while all the while they carefully and obsessively control their images and publicity. IMO, they are too good to be true and that makes them suspect in my books.

        Indeed, some ‘private’ affair, that wedding. There was nothing remotely private about it. More likely, the ultimate PR coup, on all fronts. They’re working it like the old pros they are. I’m actually shocked by how much PR is coming out of this and *continues* to flow from this!

    • Chris says:

      You know greed creates poverty right? And if people like these celebs didn’t live such decadent lives there’d be less need for charitable organizations. The top five percent aren’t mythical, faceless, people. You’re looking right at them.

      • itsnotthatserious says:

        If there is such a big advantage to giving, how come every celebrity doesn’t donate? Why is that other celebs pocket their money instead of donating it as an investment in their public image. Some people twist themselves into pretzels just to find fault with the Jolie.

      • Chris says:

        Maybe the ones that don’t publicly brag about it have more integrity.

      • Ennie says:

        I do not side-eye people like Brad and Angelina who have children and are hounded for pics. They need their privacy.
        Brad started buying homes around his original property in Calabasas so he could have more privacy. I know that rich people, not only celebrities live like this. rich industrials (Mittal or the Ecclestones, even the Gates have a very expensive home) and even politicians, let alone “royal” families do live like this.
        The JPs are serious benefactor and philanthropists. They earn their money, be it for one hour of work or whatever. There are LOTS of artists who make more money and live extravagant styles, like those in music. Are they as charitable? Are they as criticized? Many of them just give the money or tweet to promote donations and that is it. Let alone those very rich celebrities who donate a few used clothes or bags, hahaha.
        Another blogger I won’t mention was throwing up that they should announce a generous matching donation from their pockets. Well, they have donated steadily for years and years, not only cheques, but their time. Does that not count?
        I bet even 1 million does wonders in poor countries with humanitarian crisis.
        If they did not say anything, everyone would say they pocketed the money. If they did not sold the pics, there would be less money for charities anyway.
        http://press.gettyimages.com/getty-images-partnering-with-jolie-pitt-foundation-on-exclusive-distribution-of-photographs-of-angelina-jolie-and-brad-pitts-wedding/

      • allheavens says:

        There are many more components that contribute to the creation of poverty besides greed but that’s another thread.

        I prefer they give the money to charity then not.

      • Anne says:

        “You know greed creates poverty right? And if people like these celebs didn’t live such decadent lives there’d be less need for charitable organizations. The top five percent aren’t mythical, faceless, people. You’re looking right at them.”

        Actually, this is completely incorrect. You need to study economics to get a better understanding of the way capitalism works. The kind of wealth that the Joile-Pitts have is really insignificant in terms of world poverty–for that kind of influence, you need to look at corporations and governments, which control not only trillions of dollars of wealth, but shape the economy with their policies and vast investments.

        Moreover, have they not earned their money? Isn’t that was free enterprise, capitalism and democracy are all about? They have a product to sell (themselves, their talent) that people are willing to spend money on. Why should they be demonized for profiting from their ‘product’? Do you not expect to be paid for the work you do? Also, people like them put money back into the economy, not just through charity, but through consumption of goods and services. Whatever you think of their motivation for giving, it does not change the bottom line of how much money is being donated, right? A lot more than you’re giving this year, correct?

      • Chris says:

        @Anne: judging by the tone of your post I don’t think any response I could give you would make any difference to your pro-capitalist view. As for what I’m giving? Now I’d be a hypocrite if I discussed that in public wouldn’t I? 😉

      • Ennie says:

        Annie, tnx for stating the facts. Others gain much more, donate less and live in far, far more luxury, but as always, the double standards only apply to this couple.

      • Andrea1 says:

        @Ennie execellently stated..

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Chris, who wrote: “Maybe the ones that don’t publicly brag about it have more integrity.”

        And neither do the Jolie-Pitts, others brag for them … usually the organizations and Foundations which benefit from their generosity. What, you see a print title announcing their generosity and automatically assume the Jolie-Pitts made the announcement without reading the article? It is the ‘receivers’ of the Jolie-Pitts’ generosity who make the announcements for their ‘own’ reasons.

        You seem to have issues with rich people donating some, but not all, of their wealth. What they donate is more than every person posting on this Board will make in their lifetimes. Isn’t that enough? They work in an industry that ‘can’ pay large salaries. It’s ‘their’ money and they are entitled to spend what they don’t donate in any manner they choose without moral dictation from anyone. And it’s not like the only thing they do is act, both are involved in other business ventures separate from their humanitarian/charitable giving where some of what they make is utilized.

        How much money do ‘you’ give to charity? Is it at least a third of what you make?

      • The Original G says:

        Wow. Being successful and smart is now the same thing as being greedy? Anyone who has had contact with real money knows that it’s actually a big responsibility to manage it. It depends on keeping a lot of people employed, it involves risk, scrutiny and a hell of a lot of work.

        And of course you know the motives of all these people. It’s the critical posts on here that are true altruism. Whatever.

      • Josephina says:

        This talk about tax breaks for the wealthy actually has very little to do with Jolie’s intentions. Her 12 year history ( and still growing) of traveling around the world to gain keen insight about suffrage has moved her into a stage of strategizing about how to affect change.

        Jolie has said that she finds her career in film to be rewarding, that she is fortunate to have such a career. She also says that actors are paid in incredible amount of money for what they do.

        Jolie has a bigger platform than most and it isn’t totally by chance. She is a human rights activist; she is definitely NOT JUST a philanthropist for humanitarian causes. In her case, both roles work together harmoniously.

        She has proven herself as an advocate for change in the advancement of human rights for those women and children enduring suffrage AROUND THE GLOBE. She has written papers of thought in consideration as evidence for government administration. Her effectiveness has afforded her as member of a number of boards and other think tanks trying to affect change through public policy and influencing foreign administrations. There are other actors who have similar wealth or more, and they simply do not spend their days in Bosnia, Africa, Haiti, Syria, South America and Afghanistan for the purposes of gathering evidence.

        Other wealthy persons may or may not give primarily for tax purposes. It is without a doubt (side-eyeing those trying their best to throw shade) that Brad and Angie WANT to give their money to charity because money is necessary to buy goods, services and afford help/manpower.

        There are people commenting here that are unwilling and/or unable to relate to global citizenship. Hell, the same people cannot conceive why you should give money to anyone outside the U.S.

        Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year– this couple will continue to donate. Brand and Angie have a purposeful INTENTION to assist those in dire need with their money AND their time.

        SMH–the nutters are definitely out today.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        “Chris says: You know greed creates poverty right? And if people like these celebs didn’t live such decadent lives there’d be less need for charitable organizations. The top five percent aren’t mythical, faceless, people. You’re looking right at them.”

        Actually, it’s the CORPORATIONS that pay little or no taxes, pay sub-standard wages, take the jobs offshore to areas where the they don’t have to deal with pesky health and safety regulations, and do nothing but line the pockets of their shareholders and CEO’s, that create the need for charities. When multi-BILLION dollar companies like Wal-Mart actively encourage their employees to get on public assistance, rather than give them full-time hours and enough pay to live on, THAT is the problem, not someone who is paid to be an actor. Could all celebrities do more to help out? Probably. Could everyone who earns enough to pay all the bills, buy enough food to put on the table to feed their family, and still have money left over at the end of the month contribute more to charity? Sure. Bottom line is – if everyone earned enough to support themselves (I’m not even talking buying the latest toys and gadgets, just the basic necessities of life like decent food, clothing and shelter, an education, a decent area to live in and a way to get to work) then there wouldn’t be the need for so many charitable organizations. There will always be rich people, and there will always be poor people. It’s just how rich, and how poor, that is the problem when there’s so much disparity between the two.

      • Chris says:

        Well said Anne and others, on ‘the causes of poverty’.
        (I didn’t see a rousing bravo for capitalism in Anne’s thesis, though Chris did.)
        This reminds me of fevered discussions as a teenage recruit to the old British Labour Party. I’d come home from meetings ready to change The System via random individual boycotts, only to face my father’s explanations about what was really going on in the vast superstucture of a free market predicated on a solid layer of the disenfranchised needy.
        *This* is the system the West is proud of and spends zillions defending. Maybe Bill Gates feels it’s still the only workable one, and so he attempts to alleviate some of its casualties.
        I’d say a shufti behind the scenes at the next Bilderberg conference would show up better targets for censure than a couple of actors, who are aware that great good fortune is rare, and who, unusual among their peers, actually stop to consider how to enjoy their gifts within some outline of sharing and gratitude.
        No reasonable person goes looking for ragged-trousered philanthropists in Hollywood.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Exactly, Chris. It’s still better than pocketing the money though, and it’s a smart move on their part, but let’s not pretend there’s nothing in it for them.

    • Artemis says:

      I understand that point of view because they do live LARGE . They need a lot of money to sustain their lifestyle. They are considered down to earth but still in rich people’s terms because despite not being fashionable she does she dress in high-end clothes for example. And I’ll never forget Jolie almost admitting she’s an Ayn Rand fan.

      At the end of the day though, there are few celebrities who donate so much money like they do. Jolie was doing it as early on too. She saw a different world and she changed. You can’t deny that her/their money has bought schools/education amongst many other things. That is an investment in other people’s lives that moves far beyond Jolie’s temporary ‘PR fix’ that it gave her.

      Donating to charity is usually accompanied with good PR but she has done more things that extend beyond that like her travels and her documentaries. That takes a lot of hard work which is why most people stay Goodwill Ambassadors and she moved beyond that (no matter how much I side-eye the UN for being elitist hypocrite bastards). Other people who have travelled/worked with her said she went to dangerous places and was always humble. This is not something we see in the media. Especially not her early travels.

      Also Jolie is one of those rare people (Elizabeth Taylor is another one) who no matter what they do or say, will be considered ‘villains’ because of their romantic life and looks but draw people into their movies anyway. Most people don’t care about her charity work let’s be honest. Not even her fans. Comment sections are filled with hundreds of comments if her personal life is involved but not so much when it’s about her charity. She wants to be remembered for her charity work but she will always be remembered as the wildchild, homewrecker, mother of 6 kids: a Moviestar essentially.

      My only critique is that they do sell their personal life to basic magazines and they don’t (as far as I know) match the amount 100 or even 50%.

      • Nikki says:

        She is actually not a fan of Ayn Rand
        “I’ll cop right up front to knowing very little about Ayn Rand, the legendary author and founder of objectivism. I’ll further admit that what I do know about her I don’t like. I don’t like her denouncements of altruism. I don’t like her outright rejection of all things socialist. I don’t like her novella “Anthem,” which I’ve read and think is ridiculous.

        But like I said, what I don’t know about Ayn Rand could fill a library. So why do I care enough to plug those holes in my knowledge? Well, because one, you never want to be ignorant. But, two, because every person I talk with who has read all her works, seems to talk about her with a passion bordering on religious devotion.”

      • The Original G says:

        I wouldn’t confuse the persistent bitterness of a dozen gossip blog commentators for general public opinion. Bitter people need to be entertained too.

        The entertainment industry, the UN, many many political and governmental organizations and charities, business partners, media etc. have decisively moved past your wild child characterization.

      • Artemis says:

        @Nikki:

        That’s not what she said, those are the word of the author of the article. Plus, you can tell Angelina Jolie doesn’t speak in that way.

        She did however say:

        On October 3 of the same year, Pitt’s soon-to-be girlfriend, Angelina Jolie, appeared on Topic A, a now-defunct CNBC show hosted by Tina Brown. Brown asked Jolie what she’d been reading lately.

        “What am I reading? I’ve been very into Ayn Rand, so I’ve read The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged,” Jolie replied. “I just think she has a very interesting philosophy.” She added: “You re-evaluate your own life and what’s important to
        That was in 2004.

        Movie insiders say it was Jolie who sought out the film’s backers. ‘She has the book. It is not a passing thing for her. She has a real interest in Rand and her way of thinking,’ said one film executive .
        Guardian article from 2007

        MTV: Are there certain roles that still excite you? “Atlas Shrugged” is one you’ve been associated with for a while. Is that one?

        Jolie: That’s one of those, I think, once-in-a-lifetime films that you feel, “If I only do a few more in my lifetime, that has to be one of them.”
        Interview for Wanted, 2008

        Different rumours about producers and making it into a TNT miniseries. Both Pitt and Jolie (and many other celebs) were interested and in talks of playing the lead roles.

      • Josephina says:

        I am a fan that likes her movies. She has a very colorful character because she lives a very interesting life.

        I have tremendous respect for her because of what she contributes and has accomplished socially from a global perspective.I I am amazed at her level of courage and determination to always give back to her global community. I wish more people were loving and giving like her.

        I love the Brad and Angie love story. It’s real and they are still crazy about each other. They have been through hell and back. They created their unique family according to their desires. The family is now large, intact and loaded with unforgetable memories. Love is a beautiful thing.

      • Artemis says:

        @The Original G:

        It’s not bitterness, it’s gossip. It’s their job and sorry but good mother and dedicated humanitarian doesn’t sell magazines. It’s nothing personal. Why are you on this site? Because you’re bitter or because you like gossip? Right.

        People love to hate on her but she is very polarizing (no polarity = boring celebrity) which is why they give their money to see her on the big screen. Because she’s interesting and pretty but don’t expect them to read her opinion on politics or anything else that makes her more human than celebrity.

        Sorry but those politicians are not the ones screaming Jolie’s name at her premieres are they? It’s regular people. Who read gossip. People know she does charity but they’re more interested in wild Jolie.

        Oh and why do I feel like I’m defending myself? I didn’t say anything bad.

      • The Original G says:

        @Artemis, you are really confusing interest in a literary work and it’s screen potential for personal philosophy in spite of a decade of documented behavior that says otherwise.

        BTW, she also produced and played Maleficent and turned that completely on it’s head.

      • Artemis says:

        No I’m not. I’m not saying she follows her philosophy at all but I think there are elements of it that certainly resemble Jolie’s way of life. Positive elements like being an individual and working for your aspirations in order to achieve happiness. Otherwise she wouldn’t be talking about one book for more than 4 years and even attaching herself to a possible film project.

        Throughout her career, she has always played strong women, interesting women. Women who have elements in them that she has or wants (her own words). She clearly supports Ayn Rand’s work which would make her at least a fan. I never said she was a follower.

        I know, I saw the film. What does a Disney film have to do with a grown woman’s famous philosophy? Two different genres and we all know that there are many Ayn Rand believers and followers but I’m not sure how Maleficent would be applicable into the real world 🙂

    • MsMercury says:

      I agree to be honest. Don’t get me wrong I think it is nice to donate the money to charity. I went to look for the ratings on their charities and it wasn’t as good as I hoped.

      Almost all the info is blank and not rated.
      http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/20-5176706/jolie-pitt-foundation.aspx

      This one is a little better but it is still not rated.
      http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-0723027/make-it-right-foundation.aspx

      Before I donate to a charity I always check them out now. Again what they are doing is nice but I hope the money finds a good cause. Brad and Angie have enough money that they could donate some of their money and keep their pics private. I do think they are one of the better media savvy couples though.

      • Irishae says:

        I’ve work in major gifts and development for non-profits and you are soo right about looking into a foundation or charity before you offer financial support. The fact is, many organizations even at the highest and prolific level are not at all utilizing the support they receive efficiently. Sometimes you might as well throw your dollars in the trash for all the good it will do. This rings true for celebrities with their own foundation, even those with the best of intentions (not referring to Brad and Angelina here, I have no knowledge of their organization).

        That said there are still plenty of wonderful charities that simply don’t participate in GuideStar, so you’ll see very limited information other than tax documents.

    • teri says:

      If that’s really the case “celebs just donate to charity to get noticed” we’d be hearing about it more often by how many celebs? So many sell family pics of events and keep the money.

    • Alesia says:

      Sigh. Damned if they do damned if they don’t. People are really nasty and vicious, like vultures. If I ever became rich and famous, I would NEVER donate to charity. For the simple reason that small-minded people would attack me for doing so. Far better to be selfish and keep all my money than risk having my motives questioned for having a heart and donating. If we keep going like this, we will drive celebs to stop donating all together. Then we will have a problem.

      • Linn says:

        I agree.

        If they give money publicly they get critized for doing it just for PR and being attention seeker.

        If they don’t give money publicly they get critized for being cheap and not giving back or not giving enough.

        Personally I prefer people talking about their donations as it might inspire other people to help as well. And in the end, that’s what matters.

        And of course Celebrities (Including Angelina and Brad) are also doing stuff for PR, I just don’t see why that would be a problem.
        Celebrities are brands and the right Image can make or break a career

      • Bohemia says:

        The transparency that the Internet provides is a double edged sword. One of the downsides is that people have become really, really cynical even when it is useless to be so.

  4. Chris says:

    Lord above, Brad AND Harry….yes, that works for me, thank you!

    Re the $$…..we already knew or inferred it was destined for charities, I thought. In any event, all round it’s good news. Good on them.

  5. TX says:

    Note to Kim Kardashian: this is what selling something for charity REALLY means.

    Good for them for playing the game and using their power to help those in need.

  6. lower-case deb says:

    arrange playdate between Pax and Lady Louise?
    maybe Maddox and his English ladyfriend can chaperone 🙂

    • itsnotthatserious says:

      You are very correct. Tax returns for their foundation is actually available and is rated as one of the best. Angelina has been supporting a whole community in Cambodia long before she got with Brad out of her pocket. You might not like her but it says more about her critics than it does her for those questioning her motive. Whatever her motives, many families from Cambodia to Ethiopia has benefited from her philanthropy.

      • tc says:

        Really? Would you mind linking to that information?

        I ask because ever since I read another comment questioning the validity of their foundation I’ve been trying to find information on its financials and/or a detailed list of the foundation’s grants. But I have been mostly unsuccessful. All I was able to discover were a few grants that did not nearly come close to the amount of the charity’s endowment and a “no rating due to inadequate information” rating given by Charity Navigator. (Usually a bad sign.)

      • lucy2 says:

        It’s a private foundation, not a 503c, right? So I wouldn’t think it’s reviewed by rating companies or anything like that.
        My understanding of foundations like that, which might be totally wrong, is that money is put in, managed, and donated out over time, but in an effort to always have some money on hand to fund future projects. So the money taken in usually doesn’t equal the money donated out.
        I don’t know much about theirs, but they don’t seem the type to use it for their own personal gain.

      • Katherine says:

        The Jolie Pitt Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt private foundation. Its yearly tax returns have been available on line every year since it started.

        There are a number of places you can see the tax returns but you can also just google the name of any foundation and “IRS form 990”. You can even find them just by googling “Form 990s” and looking at the hits you get. Some sites want you to join or even pay to see foundation returns but they are free at other places. The usual go-to site for me is now only listing the last 4 returns for their foundation listings but I recently found them all at CitizenAudit.org

        The JP Foundation is only one of their foundations and/or projects Jolie and/or Pitt fund. The JP Foundation has very low overhead and gives away a higher percentage of its assets yearly than most foundations – which means because of that they have to file a statement to the IRS declaring that despite the big give away of assets in a given year that they are not intending to close the foundation – it’s called a “contraction of assets” statement. A Foundation is also meant to grow from a portion of its assets so it will have more and more assets for future donations or assets for its stated mission.

        Though they usually don’t accept donations from other than themselves, there have been donations to the foundation from outside sources. Because it is a 501(c)(3) organization, donations to it are tax deductible.

  7. Emma - the JP Lover says:

    They always donate money from the sell of photos to charity. After doing so ‘3’ times and having statements made each time that they ‘never’ touch a dime of the money, not even to collect the check, I don’t understand why people still insist on wondering what they use the money for? When they sold pictures of Knox and Vivienne the money went to a third party (I think it was Getty) who then sent it to whichever of the Jolie-Pitt Foundations they had designated it for.

  8. Gia says:

    In not going to shade Brad for not giving his new $13 mil paycheque to charity. I can’t imagine how expensive it is to run this family and keep their ish as tight as they do. Private jets, security, nannies, houses. It cannot be cheap! They do better than most in the giving department. Good on them.

  9. MrsBPitt says:

    I never shade celebs for selling wedding or baby photo’s, because, honestly, being a celeb-aholic, I love seeing them. But I really, reallly, love the fact that Brad and Angie gave their paycheck to charity!

  10. roses says:

    I believe I read in usatoday that Getty will control further distribution of the pictures to any publication willing to pay for them and those proceeds will go to the foundation, too. So its a win win for everyone involved

  11. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I don’t understand why People chose that picture for the cover. There were so many happy and joyful pictures of her. That one looks like she’s nervous and distracted.

    • Kiddo says:

      I’m thinking because it has a ‘clean’ view of the dress minus the scribbling and sketches?

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      It’s my least favorite picture, but I think Kiddo is right.

      Her kids are so stinkin’ cute. Love Shiloh’s outfit. That girl has style for miles.

      • lisa2 says:

        I think it was simply save something for the inside. If you put the best on the cover no need to buy really.

        but hey I’m a happy loon.. going to buy my copy today.. will have to drive to B&N for HELLO next week.. or the weekend.. I have to have both covers.. I think a lot of fans will get both if they can.

        If there was anything shady about their foundation the media would be running with that. Over 9 years and nothing.. Bill O’Reilly and his staff did some research looking for something and said that he couldn’t find anything shady about them.. Trust he was wishing for something. \

        And I agree with another poster.. Why the need to question them on this when their track record is very well established

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Didn’t O’Reilly do the same sort of thing when Clooney and other celebs raised money in the wake of 9/11?

        That guy really needs to find something better to do with his time.

      • ididn'tdoit says:

        Bill O’Reilly checks on all charities to inform people on where their donations go and what percentage goes to the charity and how much gets pocketed. He does it so people see where their money is going not because he is trying to “find something.” I’m glad he spends his time showing which charities keep the money they take in. There have been several that made a boatload but never dispersed the funds to the charity for which it was raised.

      • “Bill O’Reilly checks on all charities”

        Single-handedly? How does he have time to do his show?

      • Ilsa says:

        I remember when Bill O’Reilly did a feature on Angelina Jolie’s charity (I think this was before or right at the time she merged Pitt’s name in it), and I was sure to watch it. The report was quite positive. I also think it’s important to know how charities spend their money–you’d be surprised how many big name charities spend little on actually helping the charitable cause they champion: a large portion ends up going to administrative fees, salaries, fundraising, etc.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      @GoodNames
      If it was ME, I’d have put the kiss on the front cover.

      • TC says:

        VC — The “kiss” was definitely the money shot for sure. I think Hello! Magazine had the better cover myself. But both Hello! and People got the exclusive, so it’s a win-win for both publications as well as the charities designated to receive the money from the photos.

      • zut alors! says:

        People knows their target audience. There is no way they were going to put that kissing pic on the cover. Just like when they put only the biologically related family members on the cover covering the twins birth. Hello also had access to the same pics and chose to show just the twins with their parents. I bypassed People in favor of Hello then and I will do the same with the wedding issue. People has shown me time and again that I am not their desired demographic.

    • Katherine says:

      It’s just a typical bride pose. Every bride has one like this. It shows off the dress beautifully.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        It does, but her face is so stunning, but this picture isn’t very flattering. Oh well, she probably doesn’t care, so why should I?

    • Máiréad says:

      I agree, I bought Hello! and it doesn’t even include that pic. It’s also the only one that makes that gorgeous luxe duchesse satin look cheap.

      • Chris says:

        Damnit…..I wonder do Eason’s sell People? Still waiting for my Hello, and I want *all*
        ze pictueurs.

      • Máiréad says:

        Pretty sure some of them do, especially in the bigger cities like Galway and Waterford. Are you in Dublin? The big one on O’Connell St is your best bet. It’s years since I’ve lived there, but there used to be a newsagents in the Royal Hibernian Way (between Dawson St and Grafton St) that used to have speciality and lifestyle mags other other places didn’t.

        I got my Hello in the Gala down the road so your local place should have it in.

      • Chris says:

        Cheers Máiréad
        Back in Uk tmro, so the airport should help. 🙂
        Zut Alors’ point re People is fascinating….now I will see can my moral duty withstand my keen interest in the photos!

  12. Jules says:

    This is how it’s done.

  13. Lydia says:

    I want the video that David Fincher shot of it.

  14. mazza says:

    Smart. This way they control the message as much as they can, get money for charity, which helps their chosen causes, makes them look good and gives them a tax break.

    I don’t shade these two because I think they’re genuine about their causes. Not like some celebs who pocket the cash.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I didn’t get a few of the comments that said that the JP’s were ‘so supposedly private that they wouldn’t sell wedding pics’…um, no. Angelina and Brad have said in numerous interviews that they understand that they are public people, and that their is an interest. So that’s why they USE that interest to bring attention to their charity work. I said this before–they do use PEOPLE and whatever other tabloid mag. to bring attention to their charities. I read the article where they adopted Zahara–in addition to the photo (which was actually more of a pap photo), and some quotes about how she and mother were doing, etc–there was info on which agency Angelina used, etc. I think that’s great.

  15. Tulip GArden says:

    I think Prince Harry would flirt with just about anybody that would play that game! It’s part of his charm. That said, I would rather see him flirt with Jen Lawrence… Or someone else kind of goofy. Bet it would be worth a laugh for us…and them 🙂

  16. tracking says:

    So why not give a portion of his 2-day 13mil paycheck to charity and keep the wedding pics private? Because they did not want to keep the wedding pics, or their kids’ lives, private, that’s why. It’s a bogus rationale, but their choice to play PR game etc.

    • Teri says:

      BINGO! They have two big movies to promote. Over the next few months expect more wedding details to spill, Jolie attending humanitarian conferences, staged pap strolls to the toy store with the kids and Brad Pitt making some goofy claim about how he loves to farm the land on his vineyard.

      • Lea says:

        So bitter.
        Their kids are hardly seen at all! I did not see pap strolls for Maleficent. Their kids were just seen at the premier in a few shots. Tons of celebs walk the red carpet with their kids at movie premiers.

      • Ennie says:

        But you know, maybe they went to a toy store four months before the premiere of Maleficent… those shameless self promoters (sarcasm), hahaha. Oh, my.
        They are working actors, but still, they, particularly AJ is working much less, and still everything they do is analysed with a microscope. The JP children are actually hardly seen.
        I think many actors and actresses should go and live as recluses because every going out is promotion. please.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I see your point, but we have no clue how they work their finances. Who’s to say that Brad/Angelina don’t live off the money they make from producing/directing/acting, and then take on these side projects (like commercials and baby/wedding pics) and donate that money for whatever cause they want.

      Or maybe Brad wanted to work with Robert DeNiro in ANY capacity that he could. Especially since DeNiro is getting up there in years. If I’m remembering right, at one of those Oscar Roundtable thingies, he said that DeNiro was one of his acting gods when he first came to HW.

      Also–Angelina said either this year or last year, that when they do the wedding, they understand that their fans want to see something to. I don’t get how they’ve pretended to be above it all…they never have. In fact, that’s what Angelina IS criticized a lot for (by her non-fans)…..that she handles all her pr, instead of a PR agent.

      So it’s good PR for them (who doesn’t love a wedding?), gives money to charity, and makes their fans happy.

      • Ennie says:

        They are also producing, and that means creating jobs and a risk of losing money in their endeavors, which is a normal risk.

      • tracking says:

        I see your point too, Virgilia Coriolanus (fabulous avatar btw). They are public figures, so sure. My main issue is with the fans who deny they play the PR game and the fact that their children have no choice in this. Happy family PR works very well for them, but the fervent denials that they use their children for PR make no sense to me. And the photos are rather intimate for public consumption imo. One gorgeous snapshot of the couple alone would have raised money and made everyone happy. Clearly, they have plenty of capacity to raise easy money for themselves and for charity, so this was not necessary. It was a choice.

      • TC says:

        tracking — I think it’s the suggestive meaning of “playing the PR game” that is misleading. Are Brad and Angie presenting a false reality to the general public by posing for photos so their image is presented in a certain way? Or are they merely sharing special moments of their life experiences with their fans because they know there’s significant interest and that interest can financially benefit their philanthropic causes? The former has negative connotations because it’s false; it’s a lie. The latter is leveraging your star power and influence to do something worthwhile and meaningful. While both examples may be considered “playing the PR game,” one is clearly more authentic while also benefiting the causes the JPs champion.

        On a side note: I don’t think the JP kids are really papped all that much. The wedding photos have been the first time we’ve seen them in awhile. Brad and Angie do a good job shielding them from the day-to-day pap walks because they have the means and the resources to do so. I can think of other celebrity kids that I see on blogs on a daily basis. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner’s kids come to mind.

        And why would the JP kids not be happy? Their parents are now married. Something they strongly desired, according to Brad and Angie. Maybe the kids are just happy their wish has finally been realized and their parents are married and they got to play a part in that process. I realize it’s easy to automatically default to “PR move” mode, but it can also be as simple as being thrilled that their parents are now married and they (the kids) see themselves as making it happen.

        And yes, clearly they have plenty of capacity to raise money for charity. They’ve just exercised that capacity by donating to charity the money raised from their wedding photos. They did the same with their baby photos of Shiloh and the twins.

      • Jessica says:

        @TC You know it doesn’t work that way, there’s always a conspiracy.

    • Lady D says:

      How do you know he didn’t donate some of that 13 mill?

    • lucy2 says:

      Personally that’s what I would have chosen to do – keep more of the wedding stuff private, and use money from professional work to fund the foundation. Maybe, if I wanted to share a little with fans, release 1 or 2 photos to the AP or something, and keep the rest just for family.
      It’s their wedding and their choice though.

    • Bingo says:

      I don’t think he actually made that much. that seems like a Pr release to make us think Leo & Brad can command that type of $ for commercial. I don’t believe it.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Maybe that $13 million was the total paid for all of them, not TO each of them. Otherwise, that just seems way overpriced, even for an A-lister, for a commercial.

  17. Meandyou says:

    Re Getty Images. So in addition to getting paid $5m from People/Hello there are hundreds of websites which are using the pics for their articles though Lainey had scans of Hello mag rather than actual pictures. Wouldn’t publishing magazine scans be illegal for these websites? I would imagine they’d have to pay Getty for the right to publish the photos so even more $$ to the Jolie-Pitt foundation.

  18. msw says:

    I absolutely love the dress idea with the pictures. It is a great way to honor the entire family in the event.

    Someone would have grabbed that money, it might as well be them, since they can control where it goes.

  19. Dani says:

    They both look so happy in the kissing picture. Melts my cold, cold heart.

  20. Jessica says:

    Sorry people but I can’t complain and find something wrong with people that donate to charity whether a celebrity or just an average joe. All I can say, Good Job for helping someone that needs it the most. In this case, Good Job Brad and Angelina 🙂

    • Lady D says:

      That’s okay Jess. Believe me, there are more than enough people who can’t wait to tear them down for donating, not to mention demanding they match their donation of their money.

  21. Andrea1 says:

    Sigh.
    I guess brad and angie can never win with some people… 🙁

    • Lea says:

      Nope. People will always find something to whine about.

      • Andrea1 says:

        So true
        And that’s a sad thing you know. And also why the world can never be a better place!

      • Chris says:

        Andrea
        This is what makes me bite every time, more fool me:
        People whinging about someone’s good deeds, intent on rooting out just enough cynicism to make a scrawny roll-up.
        It makes me spit feathers to see every well-meant initiative automatically slapped down, (not here so much as in most other arenas) just as you say……at this rate no one will ever make an effort to improve things. So any Face who carries on, regardless of the slings and arrows of outraged cynics, is verging on heroic to me.
        I’m sure I’d say: ‘Well feckit, who needs this aggro’. 🙁

    • Alesia says:

      There are some really nasty and hateful people out there. I think its personal guilt that makes them need to tear down others. Brangelina make them feel guilty so they seek to ascribe motives to them to make it easier to tear them down thus ease their conscience.

  22. allheavens says:

    People complain about celebrities and their lifestyles but here they are posting on Celebitchy. Every click fuels the very thing you profess to loathe about celebrity. If people would stop paying attention, stop buying magazines, stop supporting their work, then blogs, gossip sites, publications and studios would quickly make them irrelevant.

    I don’t begrudge the Pitts their money, they earned it. We indirectly establish the hierarchy that begets those high salaries that some think are so undeserving. So why behave like they stole your favorite blankey?

    Go do your charitable work, fight against capitalism, try to end poverty on your terms and let others do it on theirs.

    • Andrea1 says:

      God bless you!

    • inthekitchen says:

      Very well said!! It’s shocking to me that people are so bitter or untrusting of the amount of time, energy, and money that the Jolie Pitts give to charity. I do think they get a PR benefit, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near equal to the effort and money that they put out toward charitable efforts and trying to change lives in various parts of the world.

    • Alesia says:

      +10000000000000000

  23. BunnyBabe says:

    Mmm… Brad Pitt and Jon Bernthal… So yummy! Their voices alone… What a wonderful way to start my Friday

  24. maddelina says:

    I admire them for their charitable donations but not for one second do I not think they are the ones who benefit most. When one understands finance it’s very clear. Why do you think they spend most of their time living outside of the USA? It’s not always because they are committed to making movies abroad. Plus they have to generate huge dollars to support their lifestyle for a very long time. They’re in their prime and have to make the money NOW. The movie industry is not quite as lucrative as it once was either.

    • Chris says:

      You’re doubtless right in alluding to non-domiciled tax arrangements and sll thst jazz…..but there *are* other reasons for living in such a place as Provence, in such style, and with evident appreciation of the region’s culture and tempo.
      If I had great wealth, I’d do the same!
      And…..there’s been justifiable anger st a load of middling British slebs who’ve taken advantage of rather sulphurous (and subfusc) tax avoidance deals, whilst remaining in dear old Blighty all the while.
      So of you are going to sidestep income tax, at least do it with some élan! 😉

      • maddelina says:

        I agree with you. I’d be doing the same. The Cayman Islands appeal to me personally. I’m not shading them just stating the obvious.

  25. Anon says:

    Damn the wealthy that save themselves and also try to do good for others ..always a scam somewhere…they cant win can they.. Anyone else know where or who we can hit up for donations maybe more from our pockets that are not far off of needing our own donation. Geesh some here need to rethink. Were all looking for the same rainbow and pocket of gold… Sme reach it and will share to try to make a small difference and will get challenged on motive..whatever happened to being thankful for receiving and donating.

  26. TW says:

    It’s nice to see when fortune is bestowed on the right people. Not just celebs, I’ve seen extraordinary care and funds given to worthy causes and people without anyone else knowing. It’s a great example to others. On a less thoughtful note, it’s sort of cute that he has bed-head while exchanging vows. 🙂

  27. Máiréad says:

    I went and bought Hello! today (I’ve got a chest infection, so I think I get a pass because the magazine has health benefits, hence the reason they are found exclusively in clinics 😛 )

    The pics look sooo much better than Lainey’s scans, and the dress and veil especially looks gorgeous. The embroidery is so sharp! And the kids look adorable – the detail on the Empress’s dress is lovely.

  28. Sara says:

    What I don’t understand about Jolie, and never have, is how she manages to be exposed to the most dire poverty and misery yet lead such a profligate lifestyle. I guess I’d expect a more low-key lifestyle, but perhaps it’s possible to reconcile the two somehow. As some of you have pointed out, men of state, royalty and men of industry are allowed to do it, so why can’t actors? In any case, I think sharing these pictures and donating the money is the right thing to do. And it has personally endeared them to me.

    On a separate note, my mother met Jolie once in a professional capacity, and loved her. She said she was very sweet and humble, unlike many other celebrities she’d had to deal with.

    • Ennie says:

      In their field, their power and their money come from their capability to make money, taking into account that they are not a multinational company, they are one movie actor and one movie actress, and in their respective jobs they gain that money. Actors and even models also make money from endorsements, but some are choosy, and do not endorse anything on sight.

      There are others, like those big successful musicians, Beyonce, even Taylor S., who make money form different areas, be royalties from lyrics, their actual cds or music downloads, and concerts/tours. They make big money also from other sources, merchandise, etc.

      Also, others who make big money are tv actors and actresses, like those who were on Friends, or currently, 21/2 men, or TBBT, who are receiving money and will keep on receiving for years.

      B and A depend on their reputation and clout, which can be hurt easily. They have to keep on looking/being successful and projecting an image for them to have contracts other than their movies and still get money to do good with. I think it is a fine line to walk, but as you say, others are living in that line and are not called upon it. I do not think either Elizabeth Taylor or even Audrey H. stopped enjoying a nice life fruit of their life work and still they were charitable. I would think most benefactors and humanitarians are richer than the average person, hence, can dedicate money and time to help while tending to their families.

      • Neil says:

        The biggest misunderstanding about these two is that they are all about triangulation. I’m a fan so I hunt down everything I can about Angie and am ALWAYS seeking out glimpses and hints about the REAL person behind the glamor and notoriety. From what I have gathered, she is the real deal. People (haters) like to throw around the word, karma, like it is some sort of curse. The irony is that THAT is what is what is actually going on with her and her family. There is no triangulation, what we see is the reward for hard work and noble aspirations. If anyone wants to see one of those “glimpses” just mosey on over to Youtube and look up her Louis Vuitton add. She has a very Zen-like way of being in the world.

      • Janet says:

        Elizabeth Taylor received great respect and admiration for donating generous amounts of time and money to AMFAR and other AIDs prevention programs. However, the timing was in her favor. It was more than 20 years after the sh*tstorm she generated by running off with Eddie Fisher, which caused her to be known as America’s “scarlet woman” for most of the ensuing decade. In the interim, people found other scandals to obsess about. Ten years from now people will read about the Jolie-Pitt-Aniston triangle and wonder what all the fuss was about.

      • Sal says:

        Oh that karma thing is my favourite, Neil. It seems karma has been REWARDING this couple for years.

      • Ennie says:

        I hope people would LET IT GOOOOO, but tnx to internet alkind of extreme people (not fans) can get together and encourage each other in their strange obsessions (not us, CB-ladies!).
        There are crazies who dedicate their lives to expose and spread the “truth” about AJ, we all know to which forum they belong, and they go to different sites to do so.
        They will stubbornly continue making fuss even after 10 years, I know because almost ten years have already passed!

    • Johanna says:

      Angelina lives very modestly compared to most in Hollywood. Her home before she hooked up with Brad was a pretty modest country manor house in Buckinghamshire.

      • hmmm says:

        Shouldn’t that read ‘she *lived* modestly? They also have a very peripatetic lifestyle. I can’t imagine the cost for travel. Modest, they are not, IMO.

  29. sdgirl says:

    I actually read that it was $10M or even as high up as $20M – not sure what is correct but the people doing that reporting was Roger Friedman (who has investigated their foundation and found it solid and doing what it promises to do) as opposed to what Radar Online is reporting (which Radar Online = Star Magazine). Anyway, next year, we can all look at the JP Foundation and see what they really received for their Wedding Pics.

  30. Lucky Charm says:

    Forget Prince Harry and Angelina, I’d like to see what Angelina and Duchess Kate would wear, if they were all there. You know it would be interesting if they gave each other pointers – Kate could wear something appropriate with a cute hairstyle. And Angelina could wear something in a bright color. But neither one has much of a shoe or jewelry game. 🙁 Maybe Queen Letizia could loan them some of her shoes & jewels? 😉

  31. Lena says:

    They are both filthy rich, why do they need to sell their private life for $$ for charity.? Why not just use their movie money? Oh, yeah, for Oscar pimping.

    • Alesia says:

      Sigh. Oscar pimping has nothing to do with it they have always shared photos with their fans. They use their own money plus money from these photos. So they use both. Its win win for the charities.

  32. Maeve says:

    I doubt that figure. I think it is more like $10 million for US and $10 million for global (HELLO! Magazine). They don’t mess around when it comes to their charity work,

  33. O.K.P says:

    After reading all these,i just had to comment. Why do people care so much about this couple? On one hand we have the self appointed defenders of this couple and on the other the people who just can’t stand them. I have only one question to ask? Do Jolie and Pitt know if you all exist? My point exactly!

    • Kate says:

      Some people care about this couple, other people care about why people care about this couple.

      Why are you even on a site like celebitchy if you don’t care about people who don’t know who you are?

    • Chris says:

      Blimey, what a question.
      Do you also wonder why people read novels, watch plays…….and spend hours discussing the characters’ motivations? It’s imagination, broadening one’s horizons for pleasure.
      I spend many hours arguing about history elsewhere, and about alternative narratives. That’s even less profitable that celebrity gossip…….but it keeps me out of trouble.
      The ‘they don’t know you’ barb is unnecessary here. I think it’s clear people re aware that this is straightforward human interest in extraordinary lives, that we can peek at and enjoy, (or not), but that it’s essentially harmless fun.

  34. Nikolas says:

    It’s nice when using their power to help those in need

  35. hmmm says:

    Having now seen the pix above of the wedding dress and veil, I think they’re ugly with the drawings on them as is. If they had been embroidered in miniature with some thought to colour and placement, it might have worked and made it deliciously secretive.

  36. Amy says:

    I think there isn’t much of a market for celebrity exclusive baby/wedding pictures anymore because of social media! Many celebrities choose to beat paparazzi to the punch by providing pictures free of charge on Instagram and Twitter, thereby eliminating any kind of exclusive access since they are available to everyone. So when other celebrities like Jessica Simpson or Christina Aguilera or whoever choose to offer the pictures to People for a fee, nobody is very interested in seeing them because so many celebs offer up a few pictures on social media. Obviously in this case the money went to charity and I don’t think Brad or Angelina have any public social media accounts. But back in 2006, Twitter wasn’t as big as it is now and I don’t even think Instagram existed yet.

  37. O.K.P says:

    @ kate,in answer to your question I’m on the site for the harmless gossip. Its commenters like you that take it too far. @ Chris,oh pls you can’t compare discussing characters from novels and watching plays to the way people argue back n forth about this particular couple. I mean its one thing to speculate harmlessly just for light gossip but my God the way some people carry on like they know them personally is just absurd!

    • Kate says:

      Commenters like me? You mean commenters who didn’t make a single post in this thread before you wrote yours?

      • Chris says:

        OKP
        I meant that all of it is essentially goal-less and without influence, and we know it but still let rip with enthusiasm.
        (But even if commenters are indeed ‘over invested’…..they are in an appropriate forum, surely, where speculation is encouraged!)
        ( should know better than to add to this thread…..just killing airport time). . 🙁

  38. jns says:

    I was reading the discussion in the threads above, and I wonder to what extent the criticism of the Jolie-Pitt’s use of funds originates from the fact that she’s a woman. If their positions had been reversed– if Brad had been the one first involved with humanitarian causes, adopting children, establishing a reputation as a serious human rights activist not only with the will but also power and money to make a difference, would there be as much criticism of them as a couple? It’s just an idle thought experiment, but it made me wonder. I know that they’re very much partners in their endeavours and the things they choose to do, but Angelina established her own reputation and course before they became a couple. She’s a powerful woman advocating for women’s and children’s rights, and doing so on her own terms, with her own money. If it were Brad who was the primary advocate instead of her, would our perceptions of the use of that power change?

    I also thought about Angelina Jolie and Duchess Kate– a lot of us would like to see Kate do more charitable work. If she did a quarter of Angelina does, I’d be pretty happy. Both are prominent women with celebrity status with access to power, people, places, most others don’t. Both are women with wealth, though the source of that wealth is very different. One is expected to do charitable work, the other took on the work in addition to her career as an actress. Both are scrutinised for their work, that it’s never enough, despite the fact that their workloads are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Kate doesn’t work, or works rarely. Angelina has been proven to be devoted to her causes, yet there’s still criticism. Donations ought to be completely anonymous; all her work is for PR purposes; her lifestyle is far above the people she helps. At what point will a woman stop being criticised for the work they choose to do? Is she supposed to abandon all her wealth and become a wandering prophet, laying hands on the people infected with Ebola and miraculously healing them? Can a woman only do true good and altruistic work if she’s a nun, living a saintly life beyond reproach?

    I’m not sure exactly what the source of my discomfort is, but I feel uneasy with the double standards put on powerful, famous, beautiful women who also engage in humanitarian work. They’re complex, with complex lives, simultaneously sainted and villified. It seems like a thankless task to me– that the only way you can do it and survive the gossip that goes around you questioning your motives is if you truly believe in the work. I know that they benefit from the PR, but I do think there’s an associated cost, especially for women.

    • Chris says:

      JNS
      (In great haste) I think you are dead tootin’ right.
      I’ve just discovered one can browse old threads here (duh, I know) and the frequency with which AJ is dismissed in terms seething with quasi-sexual resentment is startling. A woman acting in ways that breach her primary image does cause outraged confusion. It’s identical if inverted) to the way any intelligent woman is fundamentally viewed through her appearance…..Professor Mary Beard bring a handy example: impossible to dismiss intellectually, critics seek to dismiss her as a woman. .
      There must be discussions on this somewhere, I’d love to read them.

    • Ennie says:

      What an interesting post, tnx!

  39. ToodySezHey says:

    Profligate lifestyle? Angelina is one of the most famous women in the world..she can’t leave in the local cul de sac ffs!!!

    I mean seriously. Are she and Brad supposed to out and buy a colonial in red hook nJ???

    • norah says:

      evidently its ok for all other actors and actresses to flaunt their wealth etc but both angelina and brad are not supposed to. talk about double standards really it is so funny

  40. luana says:

    well, theirs must be a very expensive lifestyle and even if they’re among the best paid actors, that kind of money easy come and easy go, I think. All that employees, all those kids, the houses, the private jets, at certain point It becomes a dog who bites his tail.

  41. Lena says:

    Surprised (actually, not really, given this particular gossip site) you say “God bless” them for not just putting their pictures out free on instagram like all other celebrities, but selling them to low rent People because the money they get “goes to charity”. Why the hell can’t they just put them out free and cut a check to charity for $5 million themselves? Why do they need People’s money? Because they want the publicity. So much for a “private” wedding. It’s hypocrisy.

    • lisa2 says:

      well you don’t have to buy the mag. Nobody does.

      and if you are so upset then don’t buy the mag and stop reading about them.

      easy..

      • lisa2 says:

        another note the word hypocrisy does not apply here. They never said they wouldn’t sell family pictures. They have never said anything negative about other celebs that have also sold baby pics. So again you are not quite sure what that term means in this situation. And you have no idea what they give of their own money and what they don’t.. OH wait when they sold the pics that is their money.

        Hypocrites say one thing then do another. They have never said they would never sell pics.. and regarding privacy they are very seldom seen so they manage.

        the fans wanted to see the pics.. and so did the none fans. It gave those of you something else to get pissed about. so a win win for all. The fans got to see some wonderful pictures of their beautiful wedding and you go something else to whine and finger wag them about.

        Something for everyone.

    • Sal says:

      Its been said several times in this thread already; they do both. They donate their own money, and sell pictures. People magazine is respected, its hardly low rent. Its not like Star or the National Enquirer. They had a very private wedding. In fact, so private, that nobody knew it was happening. They make the tabloids pay them, and not give the photos for free. That is smart, and classy.

  42. raincoaster says:

    Ugh, Radar, $5 million is SEVEN figures.