Matthew Bellamy: “We’re Gonna Have The Baby In L.A.”

Matthew Bellamy: "We're Gonna Have The Baby In L.A."

It looks like Baby Bellamy is going to be racking up some frequent flyer miles!

Dad-to-be and Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy tells The News of the World that his baby mama, Kate Hudson, will give birth to their child in Los Angeles in order to make it easier for him or her to have dual citizenship in both the U.S. and the UK. But will the first time father be there to welcome his little one into the world?

“I’m gonna be there when she gives birth, of course I am,” says Bellamy. “I’ll be there with rubber gloves on.

“We’re gonna have the baby in L.A., that way it will have dual citizenship,” the rocker explains. “It’s easier to get citizenship in the UK. If we have it in L.A. – if you do it the other way round – it is just a complete nightmare. There are these special laws and we really want it to live in both countries.”

As for the rumors that the couple already knows the sex of the baby, Bellamy says, “We don’t know whether it’s a boy or girl yet – we want it to be a surprise. It’s going to be special – [it's] the biggest thing that’s ever happened to me.”

This will be the first child for Matthew. Fiancé Kate Hudson is already mom to 7-year-old son, Ryder with ex-husband Chris Robinson.

Filed under: Celebrity Pregnancies,Kate Hudson,Matt Bellamy

Photo credit: Flynet

24 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Anonymous

    Give me a break. Be honest Matthew, Mate is afraid of the British Natal care. There have been so many recent reports of mistakes. I had my kid at Chelsea/ Westminster and while there threes babies in the same day had extreme complications in otherwise healthy pregnancy. The NHS is not working right now and neither is private which is what she would do.

    Cristina R is right. My brother is married to an American girl. The child was born in the UK. My neice automatically received dual citizenship because the US recognizes the nationality of the mother. Be honest people.

    Reply
  2. sarita

    really they are probably just looking ahead to the future when their child runs for president… they want to make sure there are no problems :)

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Actually, Merriam Webster adds words based upon common usage by the general public. They had to add “irregardless” because it was being said so often. Just like they added “aint” and “lol”. Yes it is a word, but only because people continuously use it without knowing it’s incorrect.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      So it stands to reason that the majority of Americanized English vocabulary are rudimentary derivations. When it becomes part of the vernacular it then legitimizes itself as a word. They have Ebonic phrases in their dictionary, so are you thus stating that that part of black culture is incorrect or any less entitled to consideration? Very narrow-minded.

      Reply
  4. Cristina R

    A child born to an American mother automatically gets US citizenship regardless of where it’s born. A child born to a UK male gets automatic British citizenship. Their kid gets dual citizenship irregardless of where they have it.

    I think he is trying to avoid the white elephant in the room. Kate no doubt is aware that England has the highest infant mortality rate in the world right now in “civilized countries”. They have been researching reasons why and they believe it has to do with pre natal care.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Irregardless is not a word.

      Reply
      • Anonymous 71

        Since you were anal enough to focus on it-

        From Merriam- Webster;
        Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

        Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Aw are the pathetic MUSE groupies upset someone had the gall to correct their precious cross dresser?

    Reply
  6. Tara

    Citizenship won’t be their problem, the fact that he claims they want to divide their time between the UK/US will be when it comes to Ryder. Chris and Kate share joint physical custody of their son, that means that Chris will have to sign away his physical custody rights so that she can have Ryder live in the UK half of the time. I doubt he will do that. Plus no judge will allow a child to be moved country to country (particularly a us citizen) if the child is not with both biological or adopted parents since Ryder is school age now. They will mandate stability for the 9 month school year. Chris has stated in an interview with Rolling Stone that Ryder is his life and he could not bare not seeing him every week.

    It could get ugly.

    Reply
  7. Cane

    I think their kid is gonna be so cute !! Regardless of what country he/she is born in. Her son is to die for cute !!!

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    They should have the baby in CANADA, because Canada rocks, and its FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Reply
  9. Janna

    Citizenship rules are complicated. I don’t blame them for having the baby in US, because then there is *no* question about citizenship.

    Born on US soil = American Citizen (period)

    Reply
    • Cristina R

      Born of an AMERICAN MOTHER = US citizen.

      The child could be born in Taliban ruled Pakistan to a bunch of terrorists, as long as the mother is American, by birth, the kid is a US citizen. It’s the only country in the world that has this rule.

      My father in law is an INS officer.

      Reply
  10. Anonymous10

    I think that what he is saying is that it’s easier to become a British citizen if you are born in the U.S. than becoming a U.S. citizen if you are born in the UK from a BUREAUCRATIC point of view. Of course the baby will have the right to automatically become a citizen of either country but you are not issued a passport in the delivery room!. The U.S. bureaucracy IS a bit annoying. My son was born in Westminster and to get his U.S. citizenship (passport, SS#, etc.) we had to spend a LONG time at the U.S. Embassy in London WITH THE BABY WHO NEEDS TO BE THERE AT ALL TIMES! You need to make an appointment well in advance (about a month an a half!) so if you need a passport to travel it’s not easy and needs to apply for “emergency travel”. It’s very crowded, loud, tiring, etc. I don’t know how it is to get a passport/citizenship at the British consulate in LA, but I bet it’s a much more pleasant experience!

    Reply
  11. canada rocks

    Canada’s medical system is 100 times better then the US. I pay 3 dollars a month for medical. I feel like I am saving lives everyday.

    Reply
    • Not a fan of my Canadian healthcare

      It may only cost 3$ a day but as the saying goes you get what you pay for. I live here and am honest it is far from good.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Less than perfect is better than nothing at all. I’m sure the 45 million people in the US who have no health insurance at all would gladly take your “far from good” Canadian medical care.

        Reply
        • Stop the whining and get off your a**

          Healthcare is not a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT it’s a privilege. One does not automatically get it unless of course you are a drug addicted minority or an illegal immigrant. Get a job losers.

          Reply
          • Anonymous10000

            Sorry, it is a right. If you live in a State to which you pay or taxes and are under its sovereignty, then that same State has the duty to take care of its citizens whenever they get sick. It’s not a privilege, it is a right in a developed country. Besides, if an American goes to London or Paris or Rome or Montreal and gets a heart attack, he/she’s taken care of. In the US, if the same American (not to mention a simple tourist with no travel insurance) gets a heart attack, watch out because you need to pay to a private company so the “public” hospital takes care of you without throwing you into massive debt. Please, it’s not even democratic. Everyone knows, even those who don’t want to admit it, that American Health care is one of the worst things in the American system.

          • Leahsmommy

            What a bunch of crap. I work in the emergency room as an intake nurse. Not once did we refuse to treat someone because they did not have insurance. In fact they do not even ask before giving treatment. It’s slanderous to even write that accusation and you would be wise to read up on your constitutional rights.

            Healthcare is NOT a guaranteed right. Your taxes have nothing to do with medical care. America is a democracy not a sovereignty. Your taxes pay for infrastructure, education, security, domesticity regulation such as sanitation and maintenance, property and local government. There is NOT a stipulation for healthcare. That is and always has been a private responsibility and thus each individual must be held accountable. There is Medicare and Medicaid for those who cannot and that is sufficient. The healthcare reform as it stands will never pass to fruition because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot force a citizen to have healthcare. The ACLU even agrees to this point.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>