Saturday, May 30, 2020

Season 9 Full Episodes

Grilling with Gil Bates and Zach Bates
Grilling with Gil Bates and Zach Bates
 
The first half of Bringing Up Bates season nine is officially over, but have no fear, for the show will return on July 23rd. UPtv just uploaded the first three episodes of the season to its website (links below), so you can enjoy a Bates binge this weekend. Full episodes of Bringing Up Bates, what could be better?

Episode 901 "A First Time for Everything"

Episode 902 "A Busy Business and a Baby Bombshell"

Episode 903 "First Home and Strict Chaperones"


Photo courtesy of UPtv

32 comments:

  1. Thank you, Up TV, for posting the three episodes for those who can’t get the reruns on their tv’s. That will help with the giant hole left in Thursday nights for some.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for posting those. I can't access UPTV from Canada, so it was wonderful to watch these episodes. They were fantastic!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The part with Tracy and Chaney was painful to watch, knowing that she later broke things off. I'm a bit confused about what their status was during filming- were they just "dating" at the time, nothing official? Was there really any relationship to end? The impression I got was that there was this undercurrent of pressure from the family, making comments about her becoming a Bates, moving to Tennesee, etc. That would've assuredly turned me off. Chaperoning with the little brothers really illustrates to me the superficial rule-games with this. Those young kids can't comprehend what they're doing and they should not be used to police anyone's behavior or to be put in a position of tattle-tale. Chaney made a comment that the boys' rules were stricter than Gil and Kelley's. I thought the adults were to make their own guidelines. I fail to understand how two people can really get to know each other if they're never alone to have a converstation. There's always someone watching and listening. I can understand why Chaney bailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) His name is Trace not Tracy
      2) When Trace visited Chaney in Texas, He asked her to court. They were officially courting through out the rest of the episodes.
      3) I never thought the Bates were making underlined comments, if anything I believe it was Chaney and Her family that were making some interesting comments.
      4) When Trace asked Chaney's Dad for permission to court Chaney he made the comment "I didn't raise my kids to leave their home, I raised them to stay close." After that I knew the relationship wouldn't last.

      Those are my thoughts.

      Delete
    2. I believe Trace asked her to take the next step with him, courting, and she agreed. Anyone correct me if im wrong. I watched that episode only once but since they are thankfully they are already showing season 9a reruns!!
      It was either in the season 8a or b, or 9a. MORE Bates family show marathons please!!

      Delete
    3. I agree. Two adults of marrying should not have constant prying eyes and ears. And to put the responsibility on children is ludicrous. It’s totally out of balance. Extreme control has nothing to do with “personal conviction”. I’m sad for Trace, but he needed man-up if he wanted to keep dating her. After all, with the exception of Micheal, all the girls ditched their “personal convictions” regarding modesty according to Gil and Kelly Jo. Trace needs to ditch the “chaperones“ who don’t even have the maturity to handle the situation.

      Delete
    4. I think Chaney liked Trace, and was interested in getting to know HIM. She was not interested in dating his younger siblings. Don’t blame her.

      Delete
    5. Precisely. So well said. How can a couple even discuss things like will the wife work, or when will they have children, or who handles the finances, etc. Or even, whether to kiss before the wedding. Which, by the way, is not a sin. Can you imagine Jeb or Judson running to their parents and announcing that the couple kissed? It certainly doesn't lead one to believe what is said when they claim the couple sets their own rules.

      Delete
    6. They had more than one date. The little guys chaperoned that one date. We don’t know if they went on any others with them. Obviously the film crew was there so “chaperones” weren’t actually needed.

      Delete
    7. I agree with 9:46. It’s like it would be a constant tug-of-war with the parents wanting the couple live in their area, although the Bates seem a little more understanding about that. Her dad was particularly stubborn about not letting her go. That sounded very controlling to me. Poor Trace and poor Cheney for that matter. I think her parents played a part of breaking them up. Also, and I have nothing to base this on whatsoever, so obviously I could be way off base here, but I just couldn’t help feeling that Chaney thought she was a little bit better than Trace. I’ve never felt this way about anyone the Bates or Duggar’s bring into the family, but could Cheney have wanted tv exposure? She is a lovely girl and will do well n life. Trace will too. But it will take time.

      Delete
    8. 8:11. Totally agree and well said. Talk about the ultimate game of “I Spy”! That can’t possibly build unity in siblings when their job is spying and tale-bearing on each other.

      Delete
  4. I agree with you @8:11; It feels like the parents either really don’t trust their children or how they actually brought them up! Either way, having a young sibling tag along as your chaperone on a date is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The episode where Jeb told Chaney she couldn’t sit near Trace was awful. If they feel they require chaperones at a bowling alley at least have adults.I would have ended it too if I was Chaney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They needed to have another couple as their chaperone so it would have been more fun. That was an awful episode to watch.

      Delete
    2. They needed to have another couple as their chaperone so it would have been more fun. That was an awful episode to watch.

      Delete
  6. So wrong to give authority to a 10 year old boy to tell an adult women whom she can/can’t sit next to. Not cute. Not funny. I totally understand why Chaney decided the relationship with Trace wasn’t worth being bossed by children.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with others on here. I’m not a fan of the little boys telling Chaney what she is “allowed” to do. I’m curious if Chaney called it off solely because the family has zero boundaries or if she and Trace really were not a good match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen! I've always the "little ones", boys and girls both have not been taught to monitor their mouths. The adults seem to think their comments are "cute". They need to be taught some verbal restraint and manners.

      Delete
    2. Not a good match.

      Delete
    3. Yes@12:06.

      Delete
  8. The older boys are seemingly having a tough time finding wives. Maybe these women don’t want to be submissive to little boys? I know I wouldn’t put up with elementary age children being my “chaperones” judging my “purity” actions. Seriously, Chaney wasn’t “allowed” to sit next to Trace because a child said so? No thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see it differently. Trace knew that he was bringing a handful when he brought his two youngest brothers rather than one of his sisters (like Katie, Addallee or Ellie) who would know how to keep their distance. But by bringing his two youngest brothers (especially Jeb who he has a special bond with since they share the same birthday) shows that Trace is a definite keeper. Trace knew how to make sure his brothers are having fun, he laughed with them and he gave them an opportunity to have a good time. And Chaney with six brothers and sisters, can figure out when Jeb and Judson were doing and laugh with Trace at their attempts to keep them apart. If Chaney couldn't handle having a date with the two youngest brothers and seeing Trace act as a beloved big brother, that she wasn't the girl for him. Someone is going to get the same treatment from Trace-and say to herself, "This guy is going to be a great father. He is definitely a keeper!" And whoever that future girl is, she's going to be a great husband.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:40. I respectfully disagree with this thought process. Trace was courting/dating Chaney. Chaney, as an adult woman, is not required to “handle” the intrusiveness or get permission from two little boys telling her what she (as an adult)is allowed. Trace was responsible to make sure Chaney was feeling like his priority, not demonstrating what a “beloved” brother he is.

      Delete
    2. 8:40. Trace was a “definite keeper” because he made sure his brothers were having fun..while he was on a date with Chaney? To be honest that would be a big red flag to me; and must have been to Chaney as well. If i was the lesser priority in the relationship there is no way I would have progressed.

      Delete
    3. Hmm...don’t think whomever Trace marries will make a great husband. I don’t think this family supports that.

      Delete
  10. Children in charge of adults? OK then.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I’m curious as to how much “impurity” Gil and Kelly Jo think Trace and Chaney could have gotten into at a public bowling alley with a film crew?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, they might have sat next to each other. Then comes the googly eyes, and *gasp* their fingers might touch when getting their bowing balls because nobody was there to interrupt such brazenness.

      Delete
  12. “I think Dad would be very proud of me for keeping Chaney away from Trace”. Mission accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's cute how Gil and Zach share the same rounded figures. Adorable gentlemen!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Has anyone explained why the intro is not in birth order? It drives me crazy!! Why is Michael so far from her place in order of the kids birthdays?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do what I do and fast forward through the opener! 😄

      Delete

Thanks for leaving your comments! Our aim is to post all points of view, but we do not post anything that is profane, insulting, derogatory, or in poor taste.