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.

I thought she looked beautiful and the photo was a lovely way to ensure that their little boy was still very much a part of their day.

YABVU. It is not for you or anyone else to judge how someone should choose to grieve and to remember a lost loved one.

Not for the faint hearted link coming up - I make that point - the Victorians often photo'd their children in death. For those of you who don't like that sort of thing, photos of dead children laid in coffins, quite normal for the time , please don;t open.

www.google.co.uk/search?q=victorian+children+death+photos&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMO_en-gbGB471GB471&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bJZPUJn0N9KX0QXA_4DoCg&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1360&bih=667

How did we get to a place where celebs want to/have to serve up their every emotion and experience for us all to see. And for money.

I am sorry her child died but I think the world has gone mad.

Death is a horrible part of life but there's no need to deem it untasteful or shy away from it. Anyone who has died has also lived and it's that that people are celebrating.

YABU

Who are we to say what is right for her and her family, and the way they chose to remember and include their lost child?

The photo is lovely. There is nothing unpleasant or wrong about it. It doesn't make me feel even slightly uncomfortable tbh. If it did - well, that would be my issue, not hers.

Maybe death shouldn't be quite as taboo as some people might prefer. That way maybe bereaved parents, children and other adults wouldn't have people trying to avoid them, not knowing what to say, etc.

Celebrities are people just like the rest of us. Why do you think they should only share their triumphant moments and not their dark ones?

I think that my choice of title for this thread was wrong and I apologise to anyone I've offended.

As I hope I've made clear I don't think that Archie should be ignored or that grief should be hidden and the picture itself and the ashes at the wedding are not offensive to me.

The thing that I found in bad taste (and obviously taste is a personal thing) if the way the picture has been used to make money both for Helllo magazine and Kim Marsh.

I think those Victorian photos are beautiful and I completely understand the reasons they were taken. Death shouldn't be a taboo but I think selling personal tragedies for financial gain or publicity should be.

But why would you find that in worse taste than any other photo from her wedding? Why was it specifically that photo that made you judge a grieving mother so harshly?

Why should that photo not be used for Hello?

OK - some people might not like Hello magazine and the whole celeb in magazine think. fair enough. But interestingly - no comments on just that, only because this time it is a picture of a celeb with her son's ashes. So, is it really just the actual idea of celebs photos in Hello? Or is is really bcause of the subject of this particularly photo?

As soon as I saw the photo I just knew that there'd be a thread on MN slating that photo.

YABU and totally without empathy.

Whatever anyone thinks of KM (though I doubt of any/many Mners actually know her even vaguely well enough to be able to comment) she is a bereaved Mother FGS.

The point is you assumed she did it for financial gain and publicity. Empathy would have been better, as many have suggested there are a myriad of reasons she may have done the shoot.

"selling personal tragedies for financial gain" That is a truly horrible thing to say. Really, one of the most tasteless things I've ever read on MN.
She sold her wedding, not her soul. Do you honestly think she thought, "oh, I'll get a photo with the ashes because that's sure to rake in more cash"..?

Well whitershade as it doesn't actually infringe upon your life at all I suggest you keep your opinion to yourself on this one in future.

I couldn't give a hoot if she or Hello have made money out of this picture, its beautiful, it is helping to bring an important issue into the public eye and the fact its on the front of a magazine is a huge step forward to making people realise that babies are still a massive part of grieving parents lives.

I don't like any photos being sold in these magazines. I think that perhaps that's why I had a strong reaction.

Generally the more personal something should be the more in bad taste I find selling it. So to me I'd be more judgy about someone selling baby pictures than I would be of them selling pictures of their birthday party.

Good backtracking. How about you just say that you didn't really think the situation through with any empathy.

I do find the photo a bit gratuitous if I'm honest. But it's the magazine that I consider to be at fault, certainly not poor Kym.

YABU

Are you suggesting as you appear to be that Kim Marsh agreed a price for her wedding photos and then said 'how much extra will you give me if I pose with my dead sons ashes?' really you think this is what happened?
I would imagine it is far more likely that she agreed a price and then went along and organised the wedding she wanted, which included her baby boy's presence. And as part of the day, photos were taken, and why shouldn't they? If he was alive he would have been photographed. And why shouldn't it be on the front cover? Is she meant to hide him away like some dirty little secret. He is her son. The baby she carried, gave birth to and watched die in her arms. She can celebrate with him how she chooses.
It is a beautiful photo. And I think sniping at an obviously grieving mother is quite frankly disgusting and leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth.

If you don't like celebrities hawking their photos, then I would stay off the Daily Mail website...

There are a few bereaved parents on here telling you that you should are being unreasonable. You should probably listen to them, and beat a graceful retreat from this one.

Good post DixieD.

Op, you are unreasonable.

I was one of the first ones in to agree with OP and while my opinion hasn't changed I can completely see what majority of posters are saying. I think my real issue is with the whole concept of selling photos to magazines and using your children as marketing devices in bad taste.

I would never, ever criticise parents for including all of their children in their lives. I actually think the groom's cufflinks being representations of the baby's feet is absolutely beautiful. I've never lost a child, although it has happened to my immediate family, so would never judge how people cope with grief.

Would i be unreasonable to think your an arse?
You have clearly never lost a child.

YABU Op.
It's a beautiful picture.