To find Kim Marsh's wedding pictures in incredible bad taste

[Whitershadeofpale]

daily mail alert

Selling your wedding pictures may not be to my taste but each to their own but making money out of posing in your wedding dress with your dead son's ashes leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth.

I understand if she'd wanted to take the ashes as a private tribute but exploiting it for financial gain I find frankly disgusting.

the problem I have with this photo is this: OK magazine wont have published this particular photo because they think it will raise the profile of stillbirth and make it more acceptable to discuss it. As a force for good and discussion etc...They've published this photo for its sensational quality. They've a reputation for putting very controversial/shocking/taboo images in the magazine because that's what makes people buy it.
I don't have a problem with the photograph itself, and if it helps Kym, that's a positive thing.(Although I'd hate for my own grief to be displayed and sold in such a public way.)

YABU - she wanted to include him in her day. She is grieving and doesn't want him forgotten. She is not making financial gain out of it as she would be getting money for her wedding pictures with or without her son's ashes.

Just out of interest, how do people feel about those pictures of Jade Goody's children and her husband taken at the graveside by a tabloid photographer in a 'private' visit to the cemetery? He was accused of 'cashing in' on her death at the time? There was also criticism of the newspaper for printing them.

I'm NOT saying that Kym Marsh is doing the same. Or criticising the way she chooses to mourn for her child. But there is a valid debate here. The magazine is driven by commercial reasons in its choice of cover photos. Celebrities are happy to be photographed, whether paid or not, for publicity purposes.

I do think the exploitation of personal tragedy for financial gain is in poor taste and disrespectful to the deceased. It should be possible to discuss this without giving offence.

But it's nt the exploitation of personal tragedy, it's the exploitation of a wedding in which she has chosen (and rightly so) ALL of her children

magazines put images on their covers not just because they think their readers will want to see them, but also to attract new readers. and this photo has brought this edition of the magazine to a wider audience (not least on MN) so must be judged a success on that score.

perhaps Kym Marsh will support OK in their decision to place the photo on the cover, on the grounds that more people get to know how precious Archie is to her, or perhaps she will feel that her precious moment is being exploited, who knows?

that's the problem when you sell your wedding, your most intimate day is immediately just fodder for a magazine to increase its readership.

Kayano - but the other children are not on the cover.

Would they have made such a feature of this photo, even the wedding itself, if it had not been linked to a tragic death? Genuine question, since I don't know anything about Kym Marsh. Would she have been a cover story without the baby's death?

How can anyone possibly begrudge a woman remembering her child on her wedding day?

Anyone who thinks she should ought to feel ashamed of themselves.

Words fail me.

But people aren't begrudging her remembering her child. They are wondering if putting that particular photograph on the cover is in some way exploiting a very sad event.

She's exploiting a happy event; her wedding.

I think a lot of people are totally misinterpreting what other people are saying on this thread
People who have expressed concerns or objections about the positioning or use of the photograph are not saying that Kym Marsh should not be remembering her child on her wedding day or should not want to have his ashes at her wedding or make sure he is remembered daily and remains a part of her family. However, some posters are unfairly accusing other posters of saying this.
You may disagree with us on our view regarding the photograph and that's fair enough. But please don't imply that we're saying things we are not saying in order to bolster your argument.

I doubt marsh is in control
Of the cover. She posed with ALL her children

I think it's in incredibly bad taste to EVER judge a woman who's lost a child, no matter what she does in relation to it.

I think people aren't judging her and how she chooses to cope with a situation so awful it is hard to even imagine but I think its ok to be dubious about the magazine and its motives. I doubt they care a damn about her and her real life they are in the business of selling celebrity stories and will do anything to up circulation

It's a photo of a very private and intimate moment. It should have been kept private.

It's a photo that not so long ago if we'd seen it we'd be saying "only in America".

"bad taste to EVER judge a woman who lost a child"-really? we all judge and are judged constantly-thats life.

I judge people all the time as Im sure they do I and I AM the mother of dead children-having suffered the lost of my children hasnt afforded me some sort of saint status.

I just dont like all this mawkish imo displays of grief. As I said only my opinion though-I am sure others deal with their grief differently. I am private when it comes to dicussing our losses but each to their own...

She's one of many that has sold her wedding to a magazine.
The celebs get everything paid for and wonderful photos as well. She's not the first to take advantage of that, it's her choice.
Taking her child's ashes was something that she would have done anyway, and OK chose to put the picture on the front cover.
IMO it's a beautiful picture, and one she can be proud to display in her home.

Well said, LBE :)

We can be compassionate about women who have lost children without saying they can do no wrong. What about those who go on to take other people's babies or the poor souls who lock themselves in the past with reborn dolls? Is it impossible to say they need help to enable them to grieve in a different way?

I would feel better about this cover story if a (very large) donation were being given to a charity like SANDS. And, even then I would still be uncomfortable because I agree with Pink.

Thymeout - That has to be one of the most insulting posts i've read on MN of late. Well done. I think perhaps you've been watching too much Eastenders though - bereaved mothers don't tend to steal other peoples babies. I think you'll find that most of us would rather have our own children back, not someone elses. As for reborn dolls, i cannot comment, other to say - i don't want a doll, i'd much rather have my son back, frankly a doll would not cut it.

I'm not particularly bothered about the photos iin the magazine. It's not something i'd do but i am in no way going to judge Kym for doing it. Whatever gets her through, frankly.

I think you're being ufnair deemented.
Thymeout's was answering a poster who had said that bereaved parents should not be criticised no matter how they choose to deal with their grief.
She was simply pointing out that not agreeing with the way someone deals with their grief does not equate to lack of compassion and pointed out a couple of ways that some bereaved parents try to cope which isn't necessarily healthy or right.

I have never lost a child but that post was so utterly ignorant Thymeout, I despair

Personally I dont think Kym Marsh would have had a lasting impression on the public consciousness if it wasn't for the tragic death of her child and I can say that without it taking away from the empathy I feel for her as a mother who has lost her child.

It's up to her how she chooses to deal with things and whether she wants to have her most private and raw feelings splashed across the front page of a tawdry magazine but it does seem necessary for a certain type of celebrity to exhibit every facet of their private life for a voyeristic public

Can i just clarify something, please.

Bereaved parents DO NOT ROB OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN

That is all.

And no, having a dead child doens't mean i'm immune from being criticised. If i was a cunt before my child died, then i probably am moreso afterwards. But that doesn't give me any immunity from being called up on it.

Bloody hell. Stealing babies and locking yourself away with a reborn doll?

Really?

REALLY?

Did someone really just say that?

Thymeout that is a hideous post, very offensive and totally uncalled for.