First Pete Davidson, now Brooklyn Beckham – tattoos are the epitome of romance
They’re romantic precisely because they’re so reckless, so foolhardy
Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inbox
Get our free View from Westminster email
Who amongst us hasn’t ached for a grand gesture of romance; a “throw down your plush velvet cloak over a puddle, write a song about me, paint a portrait of my face and hide it in your attic” symbol of just how besotted the object of your affections is? Just me?
It can’t be – though I am sure that many a coiffed eyebrow will have been raised over Pete Davidson’s apparent decision to mark his love for Kim Kardashian (one which also has the satisfyingly smug side-effect of aggravating Kanye West) by having her first name branded into his chest; to show their relationship off to the world in eye-watering, skin-raising, permanently-scarred detail. And now, Brooklyn Beckham has done exactly the same thing by getting his wedding vows to Nicola Peltz inked on his chest.
It reads: “Nicola when you walked down the aisle you took my breath away you look so beautiful tonight and always. Let me start by saying that words cannot even describe my love for you just looking at you I see my future and it feels like a dream. You are my world and I continue to fall more in love with you every single day. Having you in my life is the best thing that has ever happened to me as you have made me become the man I am today.” The vow goes on to focus on the day of the wedding itself, and runs the length of his right arm.
Neither Beckham nor Davidson are strangers to a tat or two – or, indeed, a bit of light trolling, at least where Davidson is concerned. In his case, the three short letters of Kim’s first name were spotted in leaked photos he reportedly sent of himself, bare-chested, to her ex-husband while “in bed with [his] wife”, during a testy exchange relating to the rapper’s outbursts against the couple.
Kardashian confirmed that it wasn’t, in fact, a conventional tattoo. “It’s actually a branding,” she said during a recent appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. “Because he wanted to do something that was really different.”
When DeGeneres asked if an “iron thing” went on to Davidson’s body to “brand KIM,” she said “yes”. She also revealed that it wasn’t the first permanent nod to their relationship – Davidson also bears ink that says: “my girl is a lawyer,” as she passed her Bar exam last December. She also openly swooned about their relationship, saying: “I went for it and I took my time. I found it and it feels so good. I want to hold on to that forever.”
Since Kim is swooning, I might as well admit it – I’m swooning, too. It’s just all a bit gorgeously goth, isn’t it?
And maybe that’s what precisely appeals to me: it reminds me of Angelina Jolie and Billy-Bob Thornton, who famously wore vials of each other’s blood around their necks; of Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly’s Instagram post of the pair of them getting engaged beneath a banyan tree, before “drinking each other’s blood” (though, as I wrote here, I stopped short of swooning over Kelly’s gifting of a thorned engagement ring – the pronouncement that “love is pain”, while can of course be true, doesn’t sit right with me when it is specifically designed to stop a woman from leaving).
Tattoo tributes, though, I’ll take. I have friends who have done similar – one had his (then) new girlfriend’s name tattooed on his right pec just weeks after they started dating. A bit of a playboy at the time, he wanted to prove he was serious; that she was different – so chose the extravagant, impulsive act as a gesture of amour. It could have backfired, but didn’t – they’ve now been together 13 years.
Another couple I know went on a date that started out as a “dare”: they promised to choose the wording for a tattoo for each other, without telling each other in advance. Years later, they still have the ink – and two beautiful children.
Not everyone will be a fan of tattoos (though they have a rich and complex history, as explained here, which stretches far beyond lazy quips about “criminals” and “sailors”), but I am – and I’m sorry, but I think what Davidson has done is the epitome of romance.
To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here
It’s romantic precisely because it’s so reckless, so foolhardy – of course you shouldn’t permanently pay tribute to what could end up being just a fleeting relationship; a gesture you could ultimately regret and (potentially) end up wanting removed – or sheepishly need to have someone else’s name inked over the first.
But love has never been about “shoulds” or “shouldn’ts”, has it? It is all the more dizzying for it, because what it represents is naive, terrible, delicious hope.
When we fall in love, we fancy ourselves more in love than anyone else at any time of human existence. Our love is “different’”, we say, “no one has ever felt like this before!” And so, we try to carve it out and put some kind of physical memento on this feeling, perhaps because we worry we’ll – eventually – forget.
That’s why we should celebrate the ridiculous, grand gestures: the painters and poets and playwrights and painstaking piano crooners; the terrible tattoos and the cringe-worthy acoustic guitar odes and the impulsive declarations of ardour by those who exist entirely in the moment – because they’re in love, and that’s where the joy is.
It is giddy, chaotic and silly – and I applaud it. Love makes fools of us all. And we should celebrate Kim Kardashian and Pete Davidson precisely for their foolishness. If you don’t like it, you’re probably just jealous.