Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

The Radford's life of luxury.

350 replies

Popxsixcle · 10/07/2021 09:03

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.

OP posts:
HarrisMcCoo · 12/07/2021 20:58

[quote AWiseWomanOnceSaidFuckThisShit]@TheFairyCaravan very good post [/quote]
Definitely sums up how I feel about it as well.

GreenCrayon · 12/07/2021 21:01

Should they just have focused on Chris? Given him everything to achieve his full potential?

Honestly yes I think they should have focused on their eldest. Sue was a child herself and if she had not gone on to have so many more children she could maybe have developed a life for herself outside of just being a mum she doesn't seem to have any hobbies or friends which I find incredibly sad.

I think the worst thing to happen to the children was the moment they agreed to do the first show. Without it they probably wouldnt have had more children.

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 21:20

"Should they just have focused on Chris?

Yes."

Ok @MotionActivatedDog fair enough if you think people should stop at one child. It's quite an extreme view I'd say but good for you only having the one. It's better for the environment at least Grin

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 21:21

"I think the worst thing to happen to the children was the moment they agreed to do the first show. Without it they probably wouldnt have had more children."

They would have. What makes you think every child after the 16th was purely for tv?

MotionActivatedDog · 12/07/2021 21:24

Ok @MotionActivatedDog fair enough if you think people should stop at one child. It's quite an extreme view I'd say but good for you only having the one. It's better for the environment at least

Your question was “should they just have focused on Chris?”

I answered that question.

Nothing to do with how many children people in general should have.

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 21:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheFairyCaravan · 12/07/2021 21:39

Should they just have focused on Chris?

Yes, they absolutely should. Noel should never have been allowed around Sue after she became pregnant at 13. He groomed her. She’s known nothing but being pregnant and giving birth.

They shouldn’t be on the telly, companies shouldn’t be giving them freebies and they should not be held up as some sort of paragons of virtue because they are absolutely not.

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 21:42

@TheFairyCaravan you're right, they're not "paragons of virtue". They've never claimed to be and I'm surprised that people are "holding them up" as such.

HairyToity · 12/07/2021 21:46

I don't agree with The Radfords. To me they epitomise gluttony of the earth's resources.

MotionActivatedDog · 12/07/2021 21:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

GreenCrayon · 12/07/2021 21:52

They would have. What makes you think every child after the 16th was purely for tv?

Because without the babies there would be no more content and no more TV shows.

Their whole USP was to be the biggest family. If they had not had the media attention then they would not have continued to have more babies, they might have had one or 2 more but certainly not the 8 they have had since.

Youdiditanyway · 12/07/2021 22:01

I think they would have carried on procreating regardless of the TV programmes personally. I think Sue is mentally ill and addicted to the attention she gets from pregnancy/having a newborn. It makes her feel important and she doesn’t like it when there isn’t a tiny baby who solely depends on her so basically when they reach about one it’s generally time for another to be born. Feel very sad for her. She has been pregnant or raising babies since she was 13 years old.

Nohomemadecandles · 12/07/2021 22:17

I'm now quite Hmm that we have these people as influences. A 18 year old man impregnates a 13 year old girl and it's a reason for a TV show ?
I hadn't realised quite how this all started.
Wow. They shouldn't be "influencing" anyone. Or at least he shouldn't.

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 22:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 22:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

whattodo2019 · 12/07/2021 22:39

Life must be hell in that house..::
i don't care what anyone says, how does anyone have enough time for that many children?? We aren't living in the 1800 when there was little choice but to have large families...
Those children will tell you they wished they lived in a smaller family. Personally i think it's selfish of the parents to have quite that many children.

MotionActivatedDog · 12/07/2021 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

jasminoide · 12/07/2021 22:52

Walkoflife is Chris doing very well? Last I read was he was unemployed with baby #7 on the way.

Bonjourfern · 12/07/2021 23:11

@jasminoide he's only on #3 so far.

BlatantlyNameChanged · 12/07/2021 23:29

My interpretation/idea of "full potential" is providing a child with as many opportunities that are within my ability to provide so that they can develop as individuals and build the tools necessary for adulthood (two of my DC are disabled and one will probably not live independently but he still has these opportunities that will help him reach his potential). This ranges from simple things like getting them to school every day, on time and with the right equipment. Listening to them read and helping them learn the words their teacher sends home. Taking them to extra curricular activities, clubs, and sports - I have one DC who has zero interest in these things but if they did want to them they could, my other DC all do at least one activity each, one does three. One to one time with me and/or DH. Helping them build their own interests and giving them the change to pursue these.

That house must be like a production line. Bathroom schedule, eating in shifts, bedrooms like dormitories, no private spaces, little in the way of silence, and no one to one time with mum and dad. Their physical needs might be more or less provided for, although a production line doesn't seem the best way to achieve this, but their emotional needs very likely are not being properly met. I can tell when something is bothering one of my DC, even if they don't verbally tell me there will be signs in their behaviour that I pick up on, how is that possible with so many children? I can tell when one or more of them is coming down with something, again based on behaviour, but again how is that possible with so many children? I knew when two of my DC were not developing typically and, again, how would that be so easily spotted with so many children? I imagine it's rather like living at school and, just like at school where a teacher in charge of 25+ children cannot focus on each one individually, things are going to fly under the radar purely because there is so much to get on with, the 'machine' of the schedule and the daily tasks churns on and there isn't time to stop and devote a lot of attention to one person.

Moonface123 · 12/07/2021 23:36

Forget the money, how do you know it's not an inheritance?
The thing that strikes me is how this family seem to escape most of the struggles a lot of parents on here are up against.
They must be doing something right, the parents do genuinely seem very much in love, they work brilliantly as a team, and the children seem very calm, close and well balanced.

walkoflifewoohoo · 12/07/2021 23:55

@jasminoide no, whatever you've read is wrong

BlatantlyNameChanged · 12/07/2021 23:55

So calm, close, and well balanced that Noel once stated on love TV that the older ones have to help out because they need the extra eyes and their then-11yo Aimee said she has to help out "a lot" and that it makes her "stressed".

If you have so many children that you cannot care for them without assistance from the older ones and you are making them stressed due to the responsibility then you are not good parents. It's one thing asking an older sibling to keep an eye on younger ones while you have a quick shower or take the recycling out and quite another to expect them to play a long-term, active role in childcare.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/tv/morning-fans-blast-parents-britains-14108760

BlatantlyNameChanged · 12/07/2021 23:56

Love TV = live TV

Kanaloa · 12/07/2021 23:57

@Moonface123

I think they escape a lot of the struggles by just opting out. I struggle with my ds7 who wakes up several times a night - they just removed the door handles to mitigate this. I struggle getting my kid to do homework sometimes - they just don’t bother.

And I don’t think the kids do seem very close and well balanced, if anything they just seem utterly bewildered most of the time, and pushed aside to make way for a running production line of new tiny babies.

Swipe left for the next trending thread