Harper Beckham

Wonder what HM thinks? (and I don,t mean Victoria...)

I wouldn´t get so het up about this. I don´t really care one way or another. The Royal family are always being scolded about being high up there on a pedestal and then, when they team up with the "commoners´ royals", they get more stick. Obviously, the two families are friends in a way and it is heartening to see. Wouldn´t have happened a generation or two ago. I am sure that Princess Eugenie hosts parties for disadvantaged children also. Only those may not merit a place in the tabloids. Like I said, I don´t care. Good luck to all of them. Lovely birthday party, I think, for a 6 year old girl. My granddaughter loves a treasure hunt in my back garden. Let us not get the green-eyed serpent get the better of us.

I'm with MB on this. PE is a complete and utter waste of space and there is not a shred of evidence that she has ever hosted a party or done anything for disadvantaged children. The whole thing was tacky and tasteless - and why the need to publicise it anyway? And why do people so often resort to talk about jealousy and envy because the Rf have been criticised? WHat a nasty pathetic comment

I think the problem is, not the party for the Beckham child, but the fact that it was held in Buckingham Palace. 'Fergie' is not a member of the Royal family, and should have held the party elsewhere.

In your dreams if you are implying anybody is jealous by your reference to the green eyed serpent polyester
David Beckham seems to be happy to have allowed the impression that this was his daughter's birthday party etc etc so it is as much their flaunting of the connection , their sycophancy which nauseates me.
While I do agree the Beckham are commoners, mind you, there has NOT been any mention of charitable work by Andrew's daughters in the way the Cambridges and Prince Harry seem to have a genuine empathy with disadvantaged people.
green eyed serpent? My ar*e

I agree with Maw.

I agree with Maw too !

There are poorly and disadvantaged children who would never get to set foot in buck house and yet money talks doesn't it? It stinks !

I have no real idea what this "celebrity" news item is about other that something about the Beckhams and Buckingham Palace.
This is where the expression "Ignorance is Bliss" is totally true. I don't give a toss about so called celebrities.

It still won't get him a knighthood, (I hope).
In the same edition of the DT which has photos of the party and posing in the front of the palace, there is a full page ad of DB selling a watch, now the fee for that would have paid for a party at McDonalds or the local play centre. They don't need freebies.

What a fuss, Andrew has rooms at Buck house , he and Fergie live together at Windsor. They are friends of the Beckhams , they give a party for six year old, so?

I'm usually with Maw but on this I'm with polyester! I can't get het up about hugely wealthy and doting parents having a princess party for their six year old, abely assisted by their pals. The fact their pals have access to a real palace is an added bonus. I don't have any royal pals and the treasure hunt we arranged for one of ours sixth birthday only involved chasing clues around the area we live in, with a treasure box finally located, buried in the garden. The box held those gold foil covered coins and bits of shiny costume jewellery donated by grannie. I'm sure our part was as much fun as the one HArper enjoyed.
The Beckhams are stinking rich, have made a success if brand Beckham, love their children. I could list lots of other stuff that is driving me demented so this issue goes on the don't worry about it list ?

I don't have a problem with where it was held or how much was spent on this party, what I don't like is the releasing of pictures. It was a party for a 6 year old, why use it to promote brand Beckham even more. This was a deliberate PR operation which frankly leaves an unpleasant taste - using a 6 year old for publicity.

I wouldn't do it to my children sunseeker but the Beckhams, like many other celeb families chose to live their lives in the public eye.
The closest I get is sharing family photographs on Facebook. Lots of folks disapprove of that don't they.

Celeb culture and all the excesses and (to my mind) narcissistic posturing that goes with it only exists because some people are interested enough to keep it propped up - whether by buying into it wholesale, or still giving it oxygen through criticising it.

Six year olds party - lovely!
Privileged six -year olds party - lucky them - enjoy!
Privileged six-year olds party splashed all over the press with associated advertising benefits ... I wonder if the day will come when little Harper resents a lack of choice / privacy in these matters?
Privileged six year olds party = 'happiness' - questionable.
Does it affect me? No.
Do I really care? No.

Party? What party?
Did I miss something?

I was just to learn that Fergie still lives in Royal Lodge. Shows how much notice I take.

I like the Beckhams. Okay, so they love the limelight, but they seem to be a close, loving family and both parents worked for what they have. And it's common knowledge that they're friends of the royalist, so the tea party's hardly surprising. I had to google this story to see what it was about, and was amazed at the bile spewed out in the comments underneath the tabloid reports. I'd hate to have to live with that. Even David's mum is sneered at for her (perfectly normal) appearance. At least when there's a photo of my DGS' birthday party on Facebook, there's no sneery comment about the size of my nose from some waster I've never met in my life.

Royals, not royalist. Ruddy predictive text.

???? Maggie ?

Maggiemaybe I agree with you.

I haven't actually read the DT coverage - only heard/read some reactions.

I like the Beckhams too - being in the public eye can be very costly and the depths of unkindness that people freely express amaze and disgust me. It is unjustifiable and unwarranted. However, I just cannot help but think that they - and anyone who also seeks to gain from media coverage - leave themselves vulnerable to it at times. When there are children involved the choices they make could mean storing up pain and resentment within the family for the future. I don't wish that on them, but /I fear it may happen.

I can't stand any of them and actually I didn't know anything about this. Now I know, do I care? Frankly I think it's boring. If fox hunting is the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable this is the unspeakable entertaining the uninteresting.

I think they have allowed their children to be exposed to the media far too much, not the kids fault of course. Browsing the books in Sainsburys today, I see they are stocking the eldest son's "photographic" coffee table offering. How many 17/18 year olds, still studying that subject at A level get handed a commission. Harper is a perfectly sweet little 6 year old, no criticsm of her, but I don't think the "birthday party" at Buck House was a good idea. Like so many today, they refer to their daughter as a princess, am I alone in hating little girls being called that. My own son does it, I find it nauseating so over used and tacky

It would be nice for their children to grow up normally without being part and parcel of the "Brand Beckham" they have more exposure than Prince George and Princess Charlotte.

With you jalima i have no idea what this is all about.

Oh, TerriBull, you're not alone, I hate the whole "Princess" thing too! And the segregating of toys that seems more common now. I've just been looking at Magformers (Intelligent Magnetic Construction for Brain Development, apparently), wondering whether to take out a mortgage to buy some for the DGS, and I was cross to see that some packs are marketed specifically at girls, "in the soft pastel colours that girls love so much", for making "a cute flower or a magic crystal". FGS!

Sorry for the off-topic rant!

Haven't the Beckhams trademarked Harper's name so it can be used in future to market a range of clothing, toys etc? That's pretty tacky to my mind...and the poor child!