(no subject)
Watching the Together Again video I d/l earlier from
adelate...
And I wondered... does JC ever feel uncomfortable or embarrassed that he doesn't have any pictures of himself as a very young child. On MTV's Snowed In, and on the little photo album segment in this video (which may have been the same picture, I can't remember), all the other guys had pictures of themselves between the ages of months old to a couple years old. Then JC's picture is of him at age 6 or 7.
It just kinda got me wondering. It'd be one thing if it was just him & his personal life. But when there're these occasions where he & his bandmates have to produce a photo from a certain era in each of their lives, it's instant comparison.
And I wondered... does JC ever feel uncomfortable or embarrassed that he doesn't have any pictures of himself as a very young child. On MTV's Snowed In, and on the little photo album segment in this video (which may have been the same picture, I can't remember), all the other guys had pictures of themselves between the ages of months old to a couple years old. Then JC's picture is of him at age 6 or 7.
It just kinda got me wondering. It'd be one thing if it was just him & his personal life. But when there're these occasions where he & his bandmates have to produce a photo from a certain era in each of their lives, it's instant comparison.
no subject
I have to say, I've wondered the same thing. I've actually seen two pictures of JC when he was a baby, one with his dad that I couldn't find and this one:
A lot of people think it's because he was adopted, but actually I've heard that the Chasezes had a fire that wiped out most of his baby photos. It is sad, though. Everyone should have their baby photos, and you're right, it is always very obvious that JC's are so much older.
But at least we get to see that cute little gap-toothed six-year-old JC that they always show instead!
no subject
And thank you for sharing that cute little picture of baby!JC!
no subject
The fire thing may be a rumor, but it definitely explains why JC has so few baby pictures.
no subject
i only say this because yes, a fire could very well have destroyed all the baby pictures, but if you have baby pictures of your child, you send them to relatives, you know?
and i know my mom was adopted when she was 4 and she has exactly 1 picture of when she was a baby that she got from her birth mother when she was an adult. and it's really the only picture her birth mother had of her because she didn't have the money for things like pictures.
i ramble. fire or adoption, combination of both, either way, he doesn't have the pictures *pets him* but hey, all his teenager years are captured on film. *snicker*
no subject
That's especially true about how if you have a baby, you take pictures, and you show off to your parents, your siblings, any friend or relative who'll see how gosh darn cute your new baby is.
And the poor boy, all his glorious awkward teen years captured on film for all eternity.
no subject
no subject
there's been some rumors floating around that roy and karen were friends with JC's birth mom and therefore have kind of always been around. i highly doubt that, but it's out there.
i think it's probably more likely that either a. JC was placed with them as an infant (adoption can take years) or b. when Roy says that he doesn't mean a baby, baby. becuase really, no baby can sing. JC probably had to be 3, 4, or 5 to be repeating things back from the radio anyway which would fit with a foster care scenario. i tend to lean toward option b myself.
keep in mind, though, that this is all totally speculation on my part, and i'd love an actual answer, but it literally took years for JC to confirm that he as adopted; i doubt we'll get more out of him. i think for him, roy and karen are his parents and he doesn't want to diminish that by having the press and the fans and what not going into the whole 'real parents' deal. i mean, if you hear him talk about his parents, it's obvious that he loves them and loves them hard.
he's a lucky boy, either way.
no subject
no subject