The Radford's life of luxury.

[Popxsixcle]

There's no hate In this post. Just watched some of their YouTube content this morning as years ago I saw them on TV. Wow their lives look like one big ball of fun. I'm guessing they have made alot of money from going on TV? Hot tubs and holidays and refurbishing a huge home whilst keeping all those kids in clothes. Not to mention they spend a fortune on every occasion.

I remember it was budgets before. Now it seems they have a never ending supply of money. Certainly not having to count the pennies now. .

Somehow they make family life look constantly fun. I only have 2 children and can't offer mine anywhere near What they have.

They seem to have a lovely family and seem nice people. Just amazes me now how social media has allowed people to get rich for contributing nothing of value to society. Not taking away Noel works hard. Again no hate. But it's ridiculous when normal people struggle to make ends meet.

You're very angry

interesting interpretation. You’re taking it very personally.

I'm not bothered to be honest @MotionActivatedDog

However, I've already said I know them personally so yes, there's a personal element to my responses.

I just find it mildly amusing that someone has "umm, uh, I mean Christ umm" as their go to when slagging off someone for not being well read.

Well, I mean, umm, Christ, umm, be mildly amused then if that’s what works for you, who am I to deny you that mild amusement?

And let’s be honest- it’s nothing to do with sue not being well read.

Can anyone find the direct quote/clip of sue saying she “doesn’t believe” in reading or homework?

It was during their C4 documentary so a fair few years ago, perhaps they have since found a love of reading and support their DC with their homework now? Who knows.

Not owning books or valuing reading isn’t the be all and end all but the older children sadly seem devoid of ambition. Two of the girls became Mother’s in their teens, none have gone to uni (I think one did but left after a month or so) and one of the older boys joined the navy only to leave shortly after. They all seem to work in the magical pie shop.

Not sure how the ones that are over 18 aren't "acting like adults" though. Strange statement.

You know they have jobs/partners/ambitions/mates/spouses/children/houses....all very adult things.

Its not a reflection on their kids it's more a reflection on sue and noel not wanting to treat them as adults and let them spread their wings for fear of losing their USP of having so many of their children still living at home.

Some of them may have jobs or partners but it does feel like anytime any of them try to move out or away such as go to uni or join the army they are not supported in succeeding and they're only too happy to have them back home again.

Its almost like they know if their elder children move out they won't have the same novelty factor.

You just sound really jealous. Lots of people make money as 'influencer' nowadays, I think some of your comments are really nasty.

boomwhacker

They live in the catchment area for the well respected Lancaster Grammar schools (boys and girls) and I'm fairly certain that none of the children go/went there. This says something about the value that the parents place on education and providing opportunities (beyond working in the family pie shop or providing grandchildren) for their children.

This is a ridiculous statement. There will be plenty of children who come from small families who have been trained up for the 11+ who still don't pass.

Who knew that getting your child into grammar school was seen as proof of doing a good job? Some children are more academic than others - it doesn't make them better than those who are more practical,

I grew up in Ireland back when contraception was at the whim of a rare liberal GP and many wouldn't prescribe condoms or any form of birth control, so large families were extremely common around us. I'm one of 5 and OH one of 7 and we'd probably have been average sized. DM would have had dozens had her uterus not packed up after 5 of us - she's said so loads of times. My older sister helped out a lot with the younger two - I was too young but I've no doubt if DM had had more babies, we would have been put to rearing the toddlers.

Being in a large family is great to have siblings for solidarity. But rather shit when it comes to parental attention. We never got any extra curricular activities. Even free ones because neither had the time to take us there. We rarely had one-on-one time with either, unless it was when helping them with housework or DIY.

DM - her whole identity revolves around her being a mother. It's all she's done, even as a child herself she reared the younger ones then straight into marriage and having her own. The youngest of us is mid thirties now and DM's only interest is us. No hobbies or any other interests. But weirdly, for someone who was all about her kids, I don't think she ever really got to know us as individuals. To her I think sometimes we are some sort of hive mind. For example, she'll buy me a top because "you love pink" yet I have never, ever worn pink. What she means is that my sister likes the colour, so therefore I must too.

That's only a top but it's the emotional stuff that's harder to accept. She's got this rose tinted view of our childhood. She thinks I had a great life but my childhood was miserable for several reasons and neither parent really gave a fuck all that much about our emotional well being. We were kids so therefore didn't have thoughts or feelings or emotions to them.

I've been a bit fucked up from my childhood to be honest. I love my parents but I see a lot of what they did as parents that I would never ever do.

The other side that makes me uncomfortable is monetising kids' childhoods. Not even the Radfords, but I remember DS being into Ryan's Toy Review and I just felt that was...wrong. Same with Mom bloggers for whom their children are the content. It just makes me feel uncomfortable that kids are too young to consent to their lives being out there for public consumption.

You can be an influencer without making 21 successive kids bring up the next one.

Drinkingallthewine thank you for sharing I'm sorry you had such a rubbish childhood.

I suspect however your experiences are not uncommon and I've certainly heard lots of similar stories from people who have been one of many. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Radford children also had similar thoughts about being raised as part of a large group.

As much as their parents might think it's a great environment they cannot possibly know about or spend quality time with all their children. It must be very difficult if you're not an overconfident or pushy child to get any kind of individual attention. Being a parent after all is about so much more than just having children.

Yes agreed & I do think having so many children is bonkers. But I still don't think the nasty comments are acceptable.

Would you all prefer the family to be on the breadline?

Lots of influencers get freebies & the companies get tagged in insta posts. Are you jealous for example if Stacey Solomon gets freebies which she tells people about?

It's like Susie verril too. She also uses her children to act for her Instagram.

She's got the fabulous hair.
The expensive wardrobe.
The flashy holidays.
The expensive kids clothes.
The huge house.
The expensive makeup.
The large garden with chickens.

Then she sits there pretending she's ever so relatable to the average mum. It's like no. Then you get mums wanting to buy the clothes her kids wear. The toys they own. It's just sad.

People just need to love what they have and don't feel pressured. You can't keep up with influencers unless you are already well off. In that case you don't need to copy them. This is why they are around. Because people think I want that fun, perfect life. I want my kids to have those things. I want to be that fabulous and beautiful.

It's all fake. It really is. They try and claim to really care about big issues. But only if it benefits them I believe. Awful way to make money.

"They all seem to work in the magical pie shop."

Do they? Which ones work in the shop then? I can tell you they don't all work there at all, most never go anywhere near it.

All very valid points about the lack of time spent one to one and overcrowding, I'm not disagreeing at all. But the comments about the grammar are ridiculous.

They're all decent kids/adults, there are plenty of families a quarter of the size in the area that neglect their children or raise them within criminality. The Radfords at least manage to raise decent human beings.

Decent human beings whose potential is stunted due to the nature of the family they are growing up/have grown up in.

Those kids don’t have ambition at all. Chloe went to university but the parents guilted her into coming back. They didn’t think about what was best for her, it was all about what was best for them.

Daniel’s dream, allegedly, was to join the RAF. Sue was like a wet weekend about it. She sent him a ‘care package’ absolutely jam packed full of junk food, chocolate, sweets and energy drinks. When he intimidated that he wasn’t enjoying the training, they had him straight back. Most parents, me included, when their kids join the forces tell them that the training is a means to an end, especially Phase 1, it’s a matter of weeks and remind them of why they went in the first place. It costs tens of thousands of pounds to get a recruit to basic training, but Sue and Noel have such an easy come, easy go attitude that they just don’t give a shit.

The children’s, especially the younger children, education is neglected. One of the girls, the 6yo, was reading a book last week. She could recognise the letters, but not the words. Sue was too busy giggling into the camera to talk to her and give her a hand.

I think it’s disgusting that the pair of them have been allowed to churn baby after baby out like some sort of puppy farm without a second thought to their emotional, physical or educational needs. There’s so much more to bringing up a child than just providing them with things.

"Decent human beings whose potential is stunted due to the nature of the family they are growing up/have grown up in."

Their academic potential? Because there is a lot more to life than academia.

It isn't unusual for children in the area to have their potential "stunted" due to the nature of the family they've grown up in. Quite the opposite actually since rickets made a come back here a few years ago.

Maybe it's from your experiences that you see the Radford kids as "stunted" but believe me, they're not seen as having been held back round here.

Which radford are you. Its obvious those kids are socially, parentally and academically stunted as they have no time to be themselves or get time to develop skills hobbies or interests outside the family, looking after siblings or the pie shop. Sure some of the older ones have tried but gave up at the first hurdle with no parental support and ended up back in the family cult. Are you seriously saying education or learning to read isn't important. It may be the only way out for some of these kids.

I would worry that it wouldnt be possible to supervise that many children safely unless they were all in one room which is unlikely outside a meal time.

My DS from toddler to early primary was an accident waiting to happen very adventurous and destructive, and I felt like I needed eyes in the back of my head with him to stop him causing damage to the house or himself.

I dont think its all that unusual for boys especially, to be a handful but with usually 3 or 4 preschoolers plus several more primary- high school ages it would be impossible to monitor and supervise what they were doing all the time.
In one programme several years ago Sue and Noel were laughing at how many tvs had got broken, and that there was a hole kicked in the wall but they didnt know who was responsible or when and how it had happened.

That’s why they locked them in bedrooms.

I personally think it’s tragic and the parents are completely naive and ignorant as to how to meet their children needs because they have just had child after child after child and haven’t the time to invest in each one individually. As everyone else has said it’s just not possible to give each of these children what they need and as soon as the next ones come along they’re in the position of helper. I find it really sad.

@walkoflifewoohoo

"Decent human beings whose potential is stunted due to the nature of the family they are growing up/have grown up in."

Their academic potential? Because there is a lot more to life than academia.

It isn't unusual for children in the area to have their potential "stunted" due to the nature of the family they've grown up in. Quite the opposite actually since rickets made a come back here a few years ago.

Maybe it's from your experiences that you see the Radford kids as "stunted" but believe me, they're not seen as having been held back round here.

I find it quite sad that some feel that they're not being held back just because others in the area have less opportunities. Just because some families may be worse off doesn't mean the children haven't been held back from achieving their full potential.

With the money made from exploiting them via multiple TV series / youtube they could have been provided with money to help pursue their desired careers, house deposits, fund travel and adventures. Or even at a more basic level, opportunities to pursue individual interests or nurture their talents. Yet we never see or hear any mention of savings or planning for the future, it's all about excessive spending and the newest pram. Of course no amount of money would make up for the lack of a parental input, and feelings of being replaced when a new sibling arrives. But it would at least provide them with a chance to spread their wings, offer different opportunities, and a different life from the ones their parents are trapped in.

"I find it quite sad that some feel that they're not being held back just because others in the area have less opportunities. Just because some families may be worse off doesn't mean the children haven't been held back from achieving their full potential."

I do agree with that and I've not made my point well there at all. I think I'm trying to say that the kids aren't seen as neglected in the way posters are making out here and I wonder if that's because here we see actual poverty quite widespread.

At what point should they have stopped to ensure their children achieved "full potential" (nobody has quite managed to explain what they think that is). Should they just have focused on Chris? Given him everything to achieve his full potential? Or was it acceptable to have one or two more? Five more? Should they have stopped at Dan?

@converseandjeans

You just sound really jealous. Lots of people make money as 'influencer' nowadays, I think some of your comments are really nasty.

boomwhacker

They live in the catchment area for the well respected Lancaster Grammar schools (boys and girls) and I'm fairly certain that none of the children go/went there. This says something about the value that the parents place on education and providing opportunities (beyond working in the family pie shop or providing grandchildren) for their children.

This is a ridiculous statement. There will be plenty of children who come from small families who have been trained up for the 11+ who still don't pass.

Who knew that getting your child into grammar school was seen as proof of doing a good job? Some children are more academic than others - it doesn't make them better than those who are more practical,

I agree with you converse. My DC go to state schools and will do as well as they can. It doesn't mean I don't support them at home! Not all children are academically minded, doesn't mean that they cannot achieve great things later in life.

@TheFairyCaravan very good post

Should they just have focused on Chris?

Yes.