Kizzy and Ettie

[KateG1]

She’d started a subscription FB page but there have been no updates since March and people are quite understandably getting narked that they’re paying subs for no content.

Someone said they messaged someone who knows them and the response was that they’re looking for a “quieter life” which is all very well but surely a brief message to explain would have been decent?

A lot of people were starting to worry that something awful had happened to the family. It just seems very abrupt and cold to suddenly disappear - especially when the previous vibe was so Earth mother/fluffy/caring and sharing. I couldn’t be doing with the vomit-worthy cutesyness personally but I used to like seeing the kids and ponies. I just used to mute the sound so I didn’t have to hear the “giggle gurgle gallopy oink” stuff from the mum.

 

[AmyMay]

 

[webble]

Never heard of them

 

[stangs]

Sounds like the mother's finally realised how detrimental it is to post hundreds of videos of your children on the internet (telling complete strangers about their shyness or confidence issues or whatever), invite people to come have tea parties with the children, and then make people pay to see content with your children. It's foul and grotesque but the cycle continues with Jumping with Ivy, Callie Coles, etc.

I am never sure if the parents are so naive that they don't realise the harm this will have on their children, or if they don't care as long as selling their kids to the internet will get them free tack or whatever. Either way, it's a major safe-guarding issue IMO and clearly the parents have realised that but don't want to stop getting the extra income from the subscriptions, so going quiet it is.

 

[ycbm]

Sounds like the mother's finally realised how detrimental it is to post hundreds of videos of your children on the internet (telling complete strangers about their shyness or confidence issues or whatever), invite people to come have tea parties with the children, and then make people pay to see content with your children. It's foul and grotesque but the cycle continues with Jumping with Ivy, Callie Coles, etc.

I am never sure if the parents are so naive that they don't realise the harm this will have on their children, or if they don't care as long as selling their kids to the internet will get them free tack or whatever. Either way, it's a major safe-guarding issue IMO and clearly the parents have realised that but don't want to stop getting the extra income from the subscriptions, so going quiet it is.

I have an acquaintance with two young children and ponies who is getting so much stuff from companies as an influencer. It worries me, one of the kids is special needs, too.
.

 

[Glitter's fun]

Also never heard of Kizzy & Ettie but had an acquaintance who did something similar as a way of making money while being a stay at home dad. He was naive and didn't see any harm in it because he didn't use their real names but it stopped as soon as they went to school. I'm guessing because of objections from either the school itself or other parents.

 

[maya2008]

Maybe the children themselves began to object as they got older? I do agree she should have said something though, if she was going to stop doing it.

 

[webble]

Ok so I looked it up - cant see why anyone would want to follow let alone pay to do so but if they have done and now she isn't offering content it feels like there should be some sort of refund offered?

 

[Crazy_cat_lady]

Never heard of them, but as others have said its basically exploiting the children for parental gain, and putting the children's images potentially into the hands of unscrupulous people. Major safeguarding issue

I follow Tom Daley and Nico Rosberg on Instagram and admire how both never show the children's faces, Tom said in his autobiography he wanted to wait until his son was able to decide if he wanted to be shown or not

 

[Muddy unicorn]

Why on earth would anyone pay to look at videos of other people’s children who they don’t know

 

[KateG1]

Sounds like the mother's finally realised how detrimental it is to post hundreds of videos of your children on the internet (telling complete strangers about their shyness or confidence issues or whatever), invite people to come have tea parties with the children, and then make people pay to see content with your children. It's foul and grotesque but the cycle continues with Jumping with Ivy, Callie Coles, etc.

I am never sure if the parents are so naive that they don't realise the harm this will have on their children, or if they don't care as long as selling their kids to the internet will get them free tack or whatever. Either way, it's a major safe-guarding issue IMO and clearly the parents have realised that but don't want to stop getting the extra income from the subscriptions, so going quiet it is.

Is Callie Coles the one who seems to be bent on unaliving her son (I assume that’s the reason she constantly sends him over bushes and hedges he can barely stay in over)?

 

[Patterdale]

I always feel so sorry for these kids. How on Earth will they feel in years to come to have been subjected to this?
Hopefully the parents have realised this and stopped.

 

[Aleka81]

Is Callie Coles the one who seems to be bent on unaliving her son (I assume that’s the reason she constantly sends him over bushes and hedges he can barely stay in over)?

That's pretty unfair. Look at the family that the child is from. She isn't gaining anything from posting videos. The child is from a historic hunting family. And that's how most children from backgrounds are or were raised

 

[KateG1]

That's pretty unfair. Look at the family that the child is from. She isn't gaining anything from posting videos. The child is from a historic hunting family. And that's how most children from backgrounds are or were raised

Yeah fair enough. I’d have a minor heart attack myself

 

[ArklePig]

Anyone who gives their kids a digital footprint before they're able to consent, be they influencers or not, needs their head examined. I have only seen a couple of their videos but it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

 

[IrishMilo]

That's pretty unfair. Look at the family that the child is from. She isn't gaining anything from posting videos. The child is from a historic hunting family. And that's how most children from backgrounds are or were raised

It's completely irresponsible. Children have no concept of danger or self preservation and sending your tiny dot of a kid over a 6ft metal gate on a shetland or whatever it is is stupid.

 

[meleeka]

I don't think it's been all that sudden. There was a post last year about the impact of trolls. Unfortunately you don't get something for nothing and the fame and fortune was always going to come with a downside.

It's a bit naughty if she's still taking subscriptions from people though.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

It's completely irresponsible. Children have no concept of danger or self preservation and sending your tiny dot of a kid over a 6ft metal gate on a shetland or whatever it is is stupid.

I agree. And same with Jumping with Ivy. That started with them showing off the temperament of their breeding stallion - who is pretty amazing. But they just keep doing more and more reckless things with her. I assume to help them monetise him - eg jumping 1.20 oxers blindfolded. Jumping 1.50 etc. She was 5, I think, when they started her off jumping him at 1.20.

 

[suebou]

Tbf, as a society we are increasingly risk averse, particularly I think, with kids and ponies…..PC instruction can no longer do the ‘ come on get up and back on quickly’ when a child rolls off……our junior jumping used to start at 85( 2’6ish) riding club shows now start at poles on the ground. My friend started at BE novice because she WAS a novice!, x poles, and 40 cm…. BE and BS now start pretty small,
I do not agree with reckless btw! I haven’t seen the hunting child but remember mine drag hunting at 12 over substantially solid stuff…

 

[Patterdale]

Tbf, as a society we are increasingly risk averse, particularly I think, with kids and ponies…..PC instruction can no longer do the ‘ come on get up and back on quickly’ when a child rolls off……our junior jumping used to start at 85( 2’6ish) riding club shows now start at poles on the ground. My friend started at BE novice because she WAS a novice!, x poles, and 40 cm…. BE and BS now start pretty small,
I do not agree with reckless btw! I haven’t seen the hunting child but remember mine drag hunting at 12 over substantially solid stuff…

I agree to a point but 12 is really different to 5. There seems to be a stupidly competitive element to some of these parents. The one with the stallion I can’t even watch. If it all goes wrong when you’re 5 and you’re on a 12hh pony jumping 80, it’s going to be wrong enough.
But if goes wrong when you’re 5 and on a 16.3 stallion jumping 1.20…..it could be catastrophic.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I agree to a point but 12 is really different to 5. There seems to be a stupidly competitive element to some of these parents. The one with the stallion I can’t even watch. If it all goes wrong when you’re 5 and you’re on a 12hh pony jumping 80, it’s going to be wrong enough.
But if goes wrong when you’re 5 and on a 16.3 stallion jumping 1.20…..it could be catastrophic.

Blindfold! And she's jumping 1.50 now. On a horse she has zero control over as he's just far too big for him to even feel her. They are more or less sending him down a jumping lane with a small child on board.

Totally different to 12. 12 year olds are out eventing.

 

[teapot]

I stopped following Callie Coles after watching her little one being flung around all over the place.

Can just see the headline now ‘tragic accident’…

 

[SilverLinings]

I'm not sure how you would explain to the police and social services why you thought getting your 5/6/7yr old to jump >1m on a 16hh+ horse was a good idea if they land up in hospital seriously injured. There is no way that any adult could claim that they didn't know it was dangerous, especially as these parents are presumably horsey. Social services would have something to say if a 5yr old injured themselves riding an adult's motor bike or being allowed to drive a jetski, and putting them on a massive horse to jump adult heights is as irresponsible.

I also cannot see any benefit to the child in this, unless they enjoy inordinate amounts of public attention. The child would have just as much fun haring around on a small pony, and have less far to fall if it went wrong. They would also learn to be self sufficient as they can tack up and mount a small pony by themselves rather than needing an adult to do it all for them.

I really struggle to see what the child gets out of an arrangement like this, especially when weighed against the negatives of public exposure, but it is all too clear how the parent(s) benefits.

 

[stangs]

She isn't gaining anything from posting videos

She's making money from a basket saddle company that a) wouldn't have been created if not for the popularity of videos and photos of her children and b) whose products she markets with content featuring her children.

She also gains financially by the many ads and endorsements she posts on that Instagram account - except I can't blame you for not noticing them because, even though she is legally obligated to announce any sponsorships or ads or gifted products (e.g., with #ad), she doesn't do so. She's actively breaking consumer protection law by posting hidden ads like "Thank you @goodwood_races for looking after us so incredibly beautifully today" or "Thank you @brorafashion for the boys’ beautiful pony jerseys." or "Rocking the bandages with his @todphurs boots"

 

[Lady Jane]

Is Callie Coles the one who seems to be bent on unaliving her son (I assume that’s the reason she constantly sends him over bushes and hedges he can barely stay in over)?

It really looks like she is hoping to kill him on a regular basis!

 

[stangs]

Anyone who gives their kids a digital footprint before they're able to consent, be they influencers or not, needs their head examined. I have only seen a couple of their videos but it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

The tragedy is that, even among the older children, you can easily see how dubious any consent will be. "You can say no to getting posted but then we lose our sponsorships and then we can't afford your beloved pony..."

 

[Lady Jane]

I did giggle at some of the Kizzy & Ettie early videos but it was definitely getting to be a bit 'commercial' and I have no idea why anyone would have subscribed. Videos of your tiny children wobb;ong around seems to be the current fashion

 

[94lunagem]

I don’t know who they are and it doesn’t sound like my thing (I don’t do children!), nor do I have Facebook or know how subscribing pages work or T&C’s.

But as a basic principle if they’re taking your money and not providing anything in return, it sounds a bit naughty and subs should be paused or refunded.

 

[suebou]

I agree to a point but 12 is really different to 5. There seems to be a stupidly competitive element to some of these parents. The one with the stallion I can’t even watch. If it all goes wrong when you’re 5 and you’re on a 12hh pony jumping 80, it’s going to be wrong enough.
But if goes wrong when you’re 5 and on a 16.3 stallion jumping 1.20…..it could be catastrophic.

I do totally agree in this case!

 

[sarcasm_queen]

I agree. And same with Jumping with Ivy. That started with them showing off the temperament of their breeding stallion - who is pretty amazing. But they just keep doing more and more reckless things with her. I assume to help them monetise him - eg jumping 1.20 oxers blindfolded. Jumping 1.50 etc. She was 5, I think, when they started her off jumping him at 1.20.

There have been some pretty awful stories about Ivy’s parents, and their behaviour at shows. Feel very sorry for the kids.