New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Dennian
in reply to a message by vigdis
Why? He's cute :)
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
It's just a really big signature, dude!
1
Sorry. I'm always using the site from my phone so I guess it's never seemed that big to me. Plus I just love all of his expressions. Babies are so honest with their feelings.
1
Agree. It's huge. Never said anything because it became the signature after some royal baby related threads involving me being very tired of the royal babies and I didn't want to start anymore nonsense with Ismene, but it's a really big signature.
1
Yep. I wouldn't mind it if it was like, half its current size. Right now it's unreasonably gigantic.
1
Brutal honesty.
He's an infant, he's not a public persona, and it's just wrong to have pictures of a child that isn't yours in your signature. It really, really bugs me. Famous or not I wouldn't be happy that random people on the Internet were using pictures of my son on their signatures on message boards.
He's an infant, he's not a public persona, and it's just wrong to have pictures of a child that isn't yours in your signature. It really, really bugs me. Famous or not I wouldn't be happy that random people on the Internet were using pictures of my son on their signatures on message boards.
1
Also
What about all those Anne Geddes baby pics that were particularly popular in the late 90s? Those were massed produced into calendars that hung in thousands of people homes. It's the choice of the parent whether they put their child in the public eye. While being royalty isn't exactly "chosen," the repercussions should be well known if you're joining the family, and then procreating. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
What about all those Anne Geddes baby pics that were particularly popular in the late 90s? Those were massed produced into calendars that hung in thousands of people homes. It's the choice of the parent whether they put their child in the public eye. While being royalty isn't exactly "chosen," the repercussions should be well known if you're joining the family, and then procreating. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 10:01 AM
1
His being an infant (actually he is no longer an infant) doesn't preclude the possibility of his being a public persona. He is a public persona, as all royals are from the times of their births.
I'm a big defender of royalty, but one thing I do believe is that they give up certain things in exchange for their privilege, and one of the things they do give up is a certain level of privacy that most of us mere mortals are able to enjoy.
I'm a big defender of royalty, but one thing I do believe is that they give up certain things in exchange for their privilege, and one of the things they do give up is a certain level of privacy that most of us mere mortals are able to enjoy.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 8:20 AM
1
I agree. Same goes for celebrity kids.
And plenty of people put their young babies into acting where they are exposed to the wider public daily. I don't really see the difference between using a picture of a royal baby, or some stock baby photo picked from Google.
And plenty of people put their young babies into acting where they are exposed to the wider public daily. I don't really see the difference between using a picture of a royal baby, or some stock baby photo picked from Google.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 9:54 AM
1
I dig the signature.
1
Me too. I remember it got changed for a very brief moment and I felt a strange sense of loss.
1
Yes. Thank you. I did remove it not too long ago and a few people lamented. I like seeing all his expressions. Especially the top right one- I hear baby squeals everytime.
1