Given how 2026 has begun, none of us wants to see the word “nuclear” in a headline. So, in a way, it’s a relief that last night’s news alerts—announcing in real time that someone had “gone nuclear” and “launched a nuclear attack”—turned out to be about Brooklyn Peltz Beckham. As of this writing, the story detailing his Instagram outburst against his parents, David and Victoria Beckham, in which he accused them of treating him as a commercial prop his entire life, was by far the most widely and deeply read article on the Guardian’s site. Again, I’m glad this explosion wasn’t used as geopolitical cover, because if there was ever a moment for Trump to invade Greenland largely unnoticed, this might have been it.
Whoever crafted Brooklyn’s intercontinental ballistic Instagram post—and it certainly wasn’t the childlike voice behind his usual “I always choose you baby… me and you forever baby” posts to his wife—the sentiments are undoubtedly his. Here’s a sample: “My family values public promotion and endorsements above all else. Brand Beckham comes first. Family ‘love’ is decided by how much you post on social media, or how quickly you drop everything to show up and pose for a family photo opp…”
Wow. Elephants. Brooklyn Beckham may not be able to photograph them, but he certainly knows how to address them when they’re in the room. If you watched Victoria Beckham’s lavishly produced Netflix documentary last October, you might have wondered why it didn’t even glance at the biggest elephant in Brand Beckham’s room: the clear and agonizing no-contact rift with their eldest son, which has been festering since last year and beyond. But most big documentaries today aren’t really documentaries in the way previous practitioners of the craft would understand the term. Like her husband’s before it, Victoria’s documentary was a self-commissioned advertorial on which she also served as executive producer. This is the high-end version of the curated, public-facing existence that defines our dysfunctional age, but it trickles all the way down through fourth-tier influencers and that friend of yours who can’t stop posting about her perfect life. The Beckhams, at the forefront of celebrity culture ever since both it and they exploded in the late ’90s, are part of how we all got here.
Before I continue, I should say I find this family rift desperately sad. I can’t imagine the agony of being cut off by a child, and I hope I never have to. All parents make mistakes, and all children do too. I believe the Beckhams truly and deeply love their children—but, to adapt Logan Roy, they have made it hard for them to be serious people.
Brooklyn Beckham has been commodified since he was a fetus. The story of Victoria’s pregnancy was sold by his parents. When he was born, David and Victoria sold the first pictures of him. They sold intimate looks around their home and his nursery. They sold their wedding, staying up until 3 a.m. on the night of the big day to decide which pictures would be featured in OK! magazine. They sold everything—mostly, back then, to OK!. Its proprietor, Richard Desmond, wrote in his autobiography about spending what felt like every Friday at Victoria’s parents’ house with the young couple, where they would all “plot and plan the next features we’d do.” A huge cheque was always involved, and the Beckhams wanted the limelight—all of it—so badly.
But as time went on, David and Victoria acquired more sophisticated advisers who understood the rapidly evolving potential of controlling their image and brand, building a vast and diversified empire on the back of it. When social media arrived, the Beckhams channeled their business through its pipelines. As I’ve written here before, they became past masters at not simply turning to their children to tell them they loved them, but at photographing them, tagging them, and sending that message of love via social media—a practice that proved alchemically lucrative.But is this an accident waiting to happen? I truly believe the Beckhams are now so immersed in this commercialized version of family life that they probably lost the ability long ago to understand how strange and potentially damaging it is. It reminds me of the line in Goodfellas where the mafia wife Karen says, “And after a while it got to be all normal.” And maybe there is something very “Family” with a capital F about the Beckham crew. The problem is, since families aren’t meritocracies, every so often the gene pool produces a Fredo Corleone or a Christopher Moltisanti—someone just not cut out for the strange life, who inevitably becomes a liability. As discussed before, this has happened a few times with that other deeply unusual family business: the Windsors.
Of course, the Windsors don’t have a choice. The Beckhams’ wealth is estimated at around half a billion pounds. That’s more money than even they could ever spend, and the only truly believable explanation for why they continue to live their lives so relentlessly in public is that they still crave attention. And, realistically, because they’ve forgotten how to live any other way.
They are the unicorns of this lifestyle, but they’re not entirely alone. Some of us have always refused to use Instagram and Facebook, never publicly posting pictures of our lives or families. But that’s not the norm. Billions of people have understandably been drawn into a world where they are the product, working for free for tech giants who successfully devalued privacy by promoting their big lie: that “being connected” through their networks is far more important than privacy; that it’s a win for humanity; that it’s social. But it isn’t. Societies are in a mess. Literacy is in a mess. Young people’s mental health is in a mess. The world is in far worse shape than it was when the tech giants found it.
I see Keir Starmer is considering banning social media for under-16s, so maybe someone could add an amendment to any bill, banning parents from plastering their children all over it from the moment they’re born. Maybe children can’t meaningfully consent to working in Mark Zuckerberg’s content mines any more than celebrity kids can meaningfully consent to being monetized by their parents. Or maybe that ship has sailed.
As for what David and Victoria Beckham will do, David was pictured at Davos this morning. Encouraging times. But they will also be locked in crisis talks, and I suspect they’ll issue a statement saying how much they love Brooklyn and always will, and that there will always be a place for him at their family table. And I truly believe all of that. As someone behind the scenes will say when the team approves it, it’s authentic. But even that word has been corrupted, hasn’t it? It now suggests a monetizable, easy charm—an ability to make staged commercial situations seem appealing, an instinct for embodying a brand or lifestyle. We live in an age of dangerous slippage: from private to public, from living to trading, from seeing ourselves as free agents to becoming unpaid and unwitting products. Not to interrupt his brief moment in the spotlight—but Brooklyn Beckham is the least of it.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic Its a Brooklyn versus Beckham Inc disaster what happens when the elephant in the room goes rogue framed in a natural conversational tone
Beginner Definition Questions
1 What does the elephant in the room mean in this context
It refers to a massive obvious problem or tension that everyone is aware of but no one wants to talk about openly In a family or business dynasty like the Beckhams it could be simmering conflicts jealousy or a members actions that threaten the family brand
2 Who or what is Brooklyn vs Beckham Inc
Brooklyn represents the individual aspirations and personal brand of Brooklyn Beckham Beckham Inc represents the powerful carefully managed family business empire built by David and Victoria encompassing sports fashion and global endorsements
3 What does goes rogue mean here
It means the elephant stops being passive and causes an open public conflict This could be a family member giving a revealing interview a public social media dispute or a business decision that directly clashes with the familys unified brand strategy
Intermediate Scenario Questions
4 Whats a realworld example of this kind of disaster
Think of the very public tensions surrounding Brooklyns wedding Reports of a rift between Victoria and Nicola rumors about wedding planning conflicts and the clear shift of Brooklyns allegiance to the Peltz family wealth presented a classic elephant going rogue that played out in global tabloids
5 What are the main risks when this happens
The biggest risks are A Damage to the lucrative Beckham brands wholesome aspirational image B Loss of control over the public narrative C Erosion of trust within the family business D Scaring off corporate sponsors and partners who value stability
6 Isnt any publicity good publicity Not for a brand like Beckham Inc
For an edgy startup maybe But Beckham Inc is built on a foundation of athletic excellence fashion credibility and family values Messy personal public feuds look unprofessional and
