Lisa O`Brien Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 So,Just like last year,12 year old Romeo Beckham is again this year the face of Burberry. I`m sure he`s cute and photogenic,but so are thousands of other children who are on the books of model agencies up and down the country. But because of his name and who his parents are,he is given a high profile,and i`m sure highly lucrative modelling contract many others would die for. Makes me want to vomit. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Much gets more.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 You have to question; was there a casting or an audition for the part to give others a chance? Or did they just give it to him? Makes you wonder,if the Beckhams had a daughter who had done ballet lessons. Where might she be training at the age of 11 or 12 do you reckon? [Ooh, i`ve got my cynical hat on today.!!] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) I quite agree. Ever more fortune is bestowed on people who have already been incredibly lucky in life, seemingly on very little other than just being in the right place at the right time. Never more so now it seems in our vacuous celebrity culture where anyone can be famous despite achieving nothing in real terms. In this two second attention span society, one might have expected/hoped the empty Beckham star to have faded by now, so whoever is behind their marketing knows what they are doing. If people are prepared to buy an overpriced dress or pair of pants just because it has the 'name' on the label, more fool them but who cares as long as those tills keep ringing. Wasn't it George W. Bush who said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and they're the ones you need to concentrate on." Edited November 4, 2014 by Jacqueline 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pas de Quatre Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I think it is totally out of order to attack a child in public. Personally I have a lot of time for the Beckhams, they both came from humble backgrounds but were blessed with talent. They only achieved their success by hard work in very competitive fields. Victoria trained at a Vocational school, Laines and got her big break at an audition. You don't become a top footballer by accident either! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 I`m not attacking him per se. Good luck to him. It`s just the whole culture of those who have plenty get more. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 12 years old? Didn't I see him in the Evening Standard (I guess - I don't see anyone else's) gossip column as "dating" someone else, or am I getting my Beckham boys confused? Anyway, I thought Burberry was a "grown-up" brand. Why use a 12-year-old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi4ballet Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 The thing is though, that advertisers like to use well-known faces in their adverts, and do so simply because they are famous. Does that mean that every celebrity endorsement is taking work away from an unknown? Many children of famous people go on to become successful in their own right - think Damon Hill, Stella McCartney and the various acting dynasties to name a few, and I expect on many occasions people have suspected an element of favouritism. Give me anonymity any day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2dancersmum Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Regardless of his parentage I think that given that he has been modelling for a couple of years now and was obviously a successful face for the campaign last time they used him, he has proved he has what it takes to succeed. Famous parents can give a child the opportunity for sure - like in one of Jonny Depps latest films where his daughter and the directors daughter are his co-stars. Or think of the number of celebrities that get leading roles in major musical productions because they are the big name to draw audiences in. But bottom line is that they have to do the work and be successful and fame is often very fleeting. Alison - I don't think he is the eldest son. I think you may have confused him with his elder brother whose name escapes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 There`s Romeo,Brooklyn,Harper and another one.[Cruz?]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonty Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I think it is totally out of order to attack a child in public. Personally I have a lot of time for the Beckhams, they both came from humble backgrounds but were blessed with talent. They only achieved their success by hard work in very competitive fields. Victoria trained at a Vocational school, Laines and got her big break at an audition. You don't become a top footballer by accident either! Er - David might have come from a very ordinary background, but I think Victoria was called Posh Spice for a reason. I believe her father was very well off. And although he undoubtedly had talent, and worked extremely hard to become one of the best captains of the England football team, the idea that she is "blessed with talent." is open to debate! Personally, I think she was extraordinarily lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I think she is a very astute business woman, though. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna C Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Quite how being a mediocre singer at best and then becoming a fashion "designer" (with no apparent training) gives one a net worth of £210 million escapes me. Just my humble opinion but I think it's utterly bonkers. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 Quite Spanner. Also,just to add,isn`t it funny how most female celebrities keep their own surname? Yet when she married David suddenly she became Beckham instead of Adams. I`m sure she would say until her dying breath she took her husband`s name because she loves him so much, and nothing at all to do with the fact nobody knew who Victoria Adams was.[Told you I was cynical !] 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneMarriott Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 There's this weird concept called "rent of ability". It explains, or rationalises, the uncomfortable fact that a footballer or singer earns far more than, say, a nurse or fire fighter, despite the latter being arguably far more valuable to society. And the footballer or singer doesn't even have to be particularly good, either - they just have to have some indefinable quality that makes them attractive to the public. Bur David Beckham is or was a good footballer, and Victoria Beckham is not the only singer of average talent who married a footballer and took his name. Heaven knows there are examples of celebrities who get a lot of money for being (to my eyes) unprepossessing, crass, foul-mouthed ignoramuses (ignorami?). Whatever the injustices of the Beckhams' success and wealth, they don't appear to represent any negative characteristics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I'm one of those people totally bewildered by 'celebrity culture', sure, there have always been celebrities, but the celebrity was in some way deserved even if the press went over the top about them. When I was young it was Taylor and Burton, Callas and Onassis, even our own Margot and Rudolf, but these were all people of solid achievements. Of course telly was different back then and you could sit down and watch a complete Shakespeare play in the evening (when I tell people this they have difficulty believing me) but now with umpteen channels I'm still likely to settle down with a book. AnneMarriott is correct, these people are grotesque the Beckham's aren't quite so bad, though I understand disquiet about fast tracking their offspring into the limelight. By the way, footballers were at one time recipients of very average wages, not sure how it all changed. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Quite so MAB. We have a very different celebrity culture now. Achievement is entirely optional. Z listers being photographed doing the most banal things, having tipped off the photographer as to where they will be of course and then complaining about their privacy being invaded is a particular irritation. Who buys all those celeb filled magazines weighing down the shelves? I can't imagine how it would feel to lose one's anonymity. To be unable to leave one's home or relax on holiday in case there is a camera pointing at you. To think that some people are so desperate for any sort of publicity, that they seem unable to exist without it is beyond me. The difficulties of being a celebrity child or the offspring of a famous person, are well documented. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Unless that child develops a particular talent of their own or is spectacularly self - confident or both, wouldn't it be always wondering whether success or lack thereof, is down to who it is. So much pressure and expectation on the one hand and assumption on the other that you only got the job or whatever, because of who you are. As far as the Beckham child is concerned, he already lives in a world of publicity and what 12 year old wouldn't say yes to being a model, having everyone saying how wonderful they are, taking their picture and so on. I certainly wasn't attacking the child. Quite the opposite in fact. Despite the enormous wealth and fame, I actually feel rather sorry for those children and others like them. He did it last year, why not just give another child a chance this time? As for Burberry, didn't they acquire a rather unfortunate reputation for being a teensy bit 'chavtastic'? I remember that photo of a certain ex - soap starlet pictured walking down the street with her baby. Mother and child were dressed from head to toe in the Burberry uniform, even the buggy was Burberry. Infact, I think it is fair to say the only thing the mother was wearing that wasn't Burberry was her new nose! 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I'm one of those people totally bewildered by 'celebrity culture', sure, there have always been celebrities, but the celebrity was in some way deserved even if the press went over the top about them. When I was young it was Taylor and Burton, Callas and Onassis, even our own Margot and Rudolf, but these were all people of solid achievements. Of course telly was different back then and you could sit down and watch a complete Shakespeare play in the evening (when I tell people this they have difficulty believing me) but now with umpteen channels I'm still likely to settle down with a book. AnneMarriott is correct, these people are grotesque the Beckham's aren't quite so bad, though I understand disquiet about fast tracking their offspring into the limelight. By the way, footballers were at one time recipients of very average wages, not sure how it all changed. Their wages were capped. It is a seller's market these days for professional footballers. Like houses, they are worth precisely what someone is prepared to pay for them. And for the top players, the sky is the limit. I don't begrudge the fact that they earn this money. If you think about the number of men who play football, the ones who earn the Beckham type wages are incredibly small. The top professional players are the very best in a sport that is hugely popular worldwide, with a massive amount of competition for places in the best teams. Therefore, I would expect them to be paid accordingly. Top models are also paid vast amounts of money, but again they have a rare set of features that photograph in such a way that everyone wants to look at them. Whether or not they deserve it is beside the point. They have those facial characteristics, and the market wants what they have. However, I do have a problem with someone who earns a king's ransom by simply being related to someone who has a rare talent. Or taking their clothes off for photos. Or by appearing on some reality tv programme and being remarkably ordinary. And don't get me started on those males and females who are always in the public eye because Daddy (or less frequently Mummy) is hugely wealthy and puts an obscene amount of money into a trust fund so that they can spend it by informing us about every single detail of their lives as they jet off around the world doing absolutely nothing useful. Or....I think I have better stop here, or I shall start to rant on about Robbie Williams filming his wife as she gave birth, by playing all his records to her, miming along, and posting it on the web. Talk about attention seeking! 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi4ballet Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Er - David might have come from a very ordinary background, but I think Victoria was called Posh Spice for a reason. I believe her father was very well off. Very ordinary background too - he started his own business from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 He may very well have had parents from a very ordinary background, but his children will have reaped the benefits of his success, and their upbringing will reflect this. However plain and working class David Beckham's own upbringing was, nobody in their right minds would say his children came from an "ordinary" background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I really think this thread is getting a bit too personal. If we could please keep it more general about the spouses and children of celebrities seeming to get opportunities because of who their spouse or parent is. I do not know the Beckhams or their children but I will never forget David Beckham and his interaction with the young disabled girl at the Manchester Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. I would say that their children are being brought up in a loving and caring environment first and foremost. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Was that directed at me, Janet? I wasn't aware I saying anything particularly personal about anyone. (Except my rant about someone taking a video camera into the birthing suite....) The point is that children with wealthy parents who have media connections have a head start in certain areas, because their parents know the right people to contact. It may not seem fair to others, but then, life isn't fair, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 No Fonty it wasn't specifically aimed at you but I am getting a bit uncomfortable with this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi4ballet Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Me too Janet. The point is that children with wealthy parents who have media connections have a head start in certain areas, because their parents know the right people to contact. It may not seem fair to others, but then, life isn't fair, is it?The children of wealthy parents have a head start in certain areas, because their parents know the right people to contact. This has always been the case, and always will, whether their parents are in the public eye or not. Certain newspapers and glossy magazines make a living from muck-raking celebrity gossip, most of which is probably made-up nonsense, and some of which is downright nasty. Millions of people read this stuff. How come there is now such a collective public resentment of so many celebrities? Is it, in fact, stirred up by those very publications in order to increase their circulations and their vast profits? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now