Are the Beckham children too exposed to the media?
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11ca4304284a888def0154ff2c34712f.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 446 Forum Member
✭
They have groxn up since birth with papz around them, is this healthy?
They all seem great kids!?
They all seem great kids!?
0
[Deleted User]
Posts: 446
Comments
I don't think it will impact how the Beckham kids turn out in the future. They have had a privileged and more importantly stable upbringing with happily married parents
They are too exposed.
How???
Fame-hungry media ****, just like their parents.
Wow that was a hateful comment.
So children that are 12, 10 and 4 are "Fame-hungry media ****" ?
You're an idiot.
Not sure how stable it has been. Moving to different countries and no doubt know the rumours about dad and Rebecca. However, it's their lives and I'm sure they don't give a hoot what I think
All helps with the 'perfect family' image, anyway.
Okay, Dave.
They fart and the paps are there waiting, stalking even. So if the papers and mags stop paying for photos then the paps will leave them alone. Simple
I disagree.
They have the money to keep the paps away - many celebs with their profile do this. The fact is that the Beckhams have sold out since day 1 with OK photo shoots, documentaries etc...
If they didn't want this high level of press attention they wouldn't have it.
They drag their offspring to pretty much every gala, ceremony and event they attend. Promoting their family brand to the world's media, shoving their children's faces in front of the camera. This is exactly the behaviour that the paps feel gives them a sense of entitlement to constantly invade their privacy and personal lives.
What chance did those kids ever have when their own parents sell cherished, intimate family moments to the highest bidder?
I think the parents must have some say in whether the images of their kids are used or not. Some zelebs kids I'm more familiar with than members of my own family but others I wouldn't know if I tripped over them in the street - which is as it should be. I can't see why the paps would wait for pics of the Beckham kids and leave the Martin/Paltrow ones alone, for arguements sake.
What a foul thing to say about children, one of whom is only 10. Why such venom?
Aside from that stupid remark I personally would have kept my children as hidden away from the media as possible, had I been famous. I think their kids seem lovely anyway.
Forgot one is just 4.
I wouldn't want my kids faces in the papers everyday, not just photos of them in public at airports/fashion shows/ sports games but intimate shots such as David kissing Harper on her 4th birthday, when they're adults they may look back and wonder if their whole lives were just staged for the cameras, was anything ever spontaneous? Must be like growing up on The Trueman Show.
Links?
That's a bit much it's not really been their choice has it? but the oldest one is all over instagram and snapchat and boasting about his 1million followers so I think he's enjoying the fame. Plenty of celebs manage to keep their children out of the spotlight which I think is the better choice, then they can decide when they're older if they want to be all over the DailyMail.