Adele Possibly, Accidentally Reveals Her Baby’s Name

Whoops?

Back in October, British singer Adele gave birth to her first child … a baby whose name she decided not to announce. Since that time, Adele has remained staunch in her refusal to reveal the child’s name … that is, unless she accidentally revealed the little dude’s name here in LA this week. While out on a shopping excursion, Adele was spotted wearing a name necklace that possibly reveals the name of her child. If so, the revelation is certain to be an accident because, as I said, Adele is really weird about revealing her baby’s name. Wanna know what Adele possibly maybe named her son? Click below to find out.

So far, Adele has kept her baby boy’s name a closely guarded secret. But has she revealed the moniker by keeping it close to her heart? Born in October, the little boy is staying with his mother in Los Angeles during Hollywood’s awards season. On an outing Monday to a favorite baby boutique, Adele – who won a Golden Globe for her James Bond tune “Skyfall” and is scheduled to perform at the Oscars – was spotted wearing a gold necklace featuring the name “Angelo.” Could that be her angel? The singer, who has referred to him as a “little Peanut,” won’t likely say. “I am not sharing his name at the moment. It is very personal to me,” she told PEOPLE backstage at the Golden Globes. “I am enjoying him on my own.” A rep for the singer did not return calls for comment.

We know that the father of Adele‘s baby is Simon Konecki so it’s highly unlikely the “Angelo” necklace has anything to do with him. It seems entirely feasible and likely that Adele slipped up and accidentally revealed her baby’s name without meaning to do so. Again, I don’t really understand the weird need to keep the baby’s name a big secret but, I guess it’s how Adele wants things to be done. Since she’s so private about the baby’s name, I think it’s going to be a very long time before we get to see what the little guy looks like … you know, outside of the wee feet and legs we’ve been able to see thus far. Ah well, I guess we’ll get to know “Angelo” soon enough.

[Photo credit: WENN; Source]

Share:
| Posted under:
  1. I understand why she would want to keep it private. Sometimes people, especially tabloids etc., will take a bit of information and then exaggerate it and stretch it into something more. Most importantly, sharing the name allows strangers who don’t know you to come up and say, “How’s Angelo doing”? It feels very weird when people you don’t know act familiar with aspects of your private life. It makes you feel vulnerable. It makes you feel like someone has access to things that you don’t want them to have access to. I am sure that if you are a mother, the instinctual feeling is even greater.

  2. Drew

    I don’t agree with your decision to post this story, Trent. It’s very clear she doesn’t want her infant son’s name out in the public eye; I don’t think that’s weird at all. I realize your job is to post gossip, but for some reason this rubs me the wrong way.

  3. Puhleeeze. Has fame really been that hard on her? If it has, then she should stop singing for us and retreat back to where ever it is she came from. She’s a person. Not divinity. Her behavior is very Michael Jackson eccentric. Why not just give him a public nickname? The name Blanket is available, I think. Best be careful, though, because people might become reluctant to cough up the money to buy her shizz if she is so reluctant to be a star. There’s always someone else to listen to. Next!

  4. I don’t get it. Celebrities deserve privacy but I think she is pushing it too far in the other direction and causing more talk about her and her baby. If she said the name people wouldn’t keep making stories about it. It is the same and Beyonce’s baby. The public don’t have a right to see Blue Ivy, but by teasing pictures instead of showing her face they are driving up the demand. Photographers will be going ape shit over being the first person to get that exclusive photo.

    • @Hannah — Exactly, which is why I think it’s so weird. If Adele had just said, My baby’s name is Joe, no one would’ve gave it a second thought and we certainly wouldn’t be caring at all anymore. It’s just so interesting … and weird.

    • Anna Paquin’s children are 4 or 5 months old, and she hasn’t released their names either.

    • @Krissy — Nor has she made a big deal about not revealing the names … and nobody really cares. It’s when people say, “Well I’m not telling” that things become a point of interest.

  5. She could’ve just given a false name and let the media run with it. That way she can still keep him to herself and no one would be asking anymore.

  6. Tru

    I totally get why Adele is private. Especially about her baby. I mean she can be a public figure all she wants but think about it for a second you have a child of your own. Do you want the whole world to know every single detail of his or her life. The child didn’t asked to be born to the public. Adele did but not the baby. Do we as a society need to know everything about a celebrities family? What does that information bring you anyway?

    • I do get the whole privacy angle, but stars like Angelina Jolie, Madonna didn’t have a problem with the world knowing the names of their children. As far as I know, it didn’t do their children harm to have their names known. When Britain’s royal baby is born, I doubt they will refuse to release what name is given to heir/ess. I agree that private details should be withheld, but everyone has a name for a reason. Keeping it a secret, to me, isn’t respecting the baby’s identify. Each to their own, I suppose.

    • Tru

      First I would like to say what does knowing Adele’s baby name going to bring you? More happiness? A million dollars? Is knowing the baby name going to make you hate Adele or like her more? Why do you need to know it?
      Using Blue Ivy name as an example. That baby’s name was criticized by the press and other people. People were like why did they name their baby Blue Ivy? It’s a horrible baby name. Do you want you baby name to be criticize by the whole world? Then people are going to name there baby’s Blue Ivy. Also people tried to make money off that name. I read someone trade marked that name before Beyonce and Jay-z had a chance to do so. So do you want your baby’s name to go through that?

  7. Lauren

    I think if she wanted to keep the name a secret she wouldn’t wear it on a necklace. There are definitely perks to privacy. The more you give, the more they take. Look at Beyonce and Jay-Z, few journalists ask because they know what the answer will be.

  8. Apparently, it has been confirmed that the baby’s name is Angelo James Konecki. Very nice name, but I can see why she wanted to keep it private. She is not one of those celebrities out selling baby pictures.

Leave A Comment