The listless “failson” of one family worth at least a half-billion dollars publicly divorces his family to be adopted across the pond by another dynasty worth three times as much. The “failson” in question does not have any actual career to speak of; his photography book only lives on thanks to internet memes lambasting his blurry snaps of fellow socialites, and his attempt at a cooking show was canned after each episode required six figures and 62 professionals to publish.
In other words, absolutely nobody would be talking about Brooklyn Beckham’s Instagram tantrum heard across the Atlantic if his parents weren’t Sir David and Lady Victoria Beckham, the soccer sensation and pop starlet, respectively, who created a Generation X empire of endorsement deals, Netflix content, haute couture, investment deals, and philanthropy. In fact, absolutely nobody would care about Brooklyn Beckham if not for his ancestry.
Now that the younger Beckham, 29, has found a second meal ticket, marrying billionaire hedge fund heiress Nicola Peltz, he certainly no longer believes he won the genetic lottery. In a scathing series of social media posts, Beckham said his parents have tried “endlessly to ruin [his] relationship” with Peltz and that they “repeatedly pressured and attempted to bribe” him into “signing away the rights to” his name before his wedding, affecting “the payday.” It’s unclear who was deprived of their fair payday; the elder Beckhams reportedly trademarked their children’s names decades ago, as internationally recognized celebrities often do to prevent the masses from profiting off their progeny. But even if the parents retained the legal rights to Beckham’s trademark, British law likely did not stop him from using his own name in commercial settings.
But Beckham was bailed out by his father-in-law, Nelson Peltz, the Trump megadonor who had already bankrolled a makeover and C-list acting career for his daughter by the time she entered Beckham’s radar. Shortly after Beckham’s declaration of war on the parents he said he does not want to reconcile with, the telegenic newlyweds posed for the paparazzi while on a scenic Malibu stroll, surely keen to capitalize on whatever brand deals look lucrative next.
Strip away the dizzying net worths, and the whole fracas is no less tawdry than the trailer trash that we saw on Jerry Springer every day.
Overbearing in-laws who perhaps mean well but come on a little too strongly and clingy? The parvenu Peltz dynasty that thinks that (new) money buys class as well as familial control? A bratty bride who is mad she was relegated to wearing a mere custom Valentino dress for her wedding, memorialized in the pages of Vogue, instead of getting a second custom-made ballgown from her supposed monster-in-law?
In our culture that celebrates suffocating and insufferable levels of self-love, it seems as though the public is more proud than ever to broadcast going “no contact” with family members. Sometimes the reason is so valid as to make a family divorce overdue; nobody should expect a family member to tolerate physical or sexual abuse, and addiction and infidelity have destroyed millions of homes.
But according to a YouGov poll conducted last year, those are not the reasons all Americans are dumping fellow family members. Nearly 1 in 6 said they are estranged from their parents, with the estranged twice as likely to say they dumped their mothers or fathers than the reverse. And while nearly half cited the obvious reasons of abuse or addiction, a quarter blamed “personality conflicts,” and another attributed “manipulative behavior.”
Does manipulative behavior mean intentional deceit, belittling, or gaslighting? Or does it mean dancing with your son at a wedding in a way the bride decides is inappropriate? In the Beckham-Peltz family feud, the participants may be elite, but the personalities are pedestrian.