"Dear Sidley Twins, again you've used my research during a YouTube video on Harry & Megs without crediting me or my blog (Istanbul Turkey April 2015). From 2017-2020 anonymous royal watchers on Tumblr & Facebook laid the foundation that you and dozens (if not hundreds) of citizen journalists/content creators/authors have built your royal watching careers upon. I'm proud of you & your work. We can all resist the free-rider problem by using citations or simply saying, 'thank you.' "- Grits Gal || My tumblr blog is GRITS-Gal- Raised-In-The-South
Screen grabs used on Sidley Twins Episode Aug 11th 2026
Mancur Olson's economic problem has stuck with me since undergraduate school. It's always interesting to see it manifest in such unsuspecting environments. If you enjoyed Freakanomics, you might be interested wikipedia's summary of Olson's work:
Summary from Wikipedia: "The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups is a book by Mancur Olson Jr. published in 1965. It develops a theory of political science and economics of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Its central argument is that concentrated minor interests will be overrepresented and diffuse majority interests trumped, due to a free-rider problem that is stronger when a group becomes larger."
"The book challenged the propositions that if everyone in a group (of any size) has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them; and in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority. It argues instead that individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to "free ride" on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods.
In economics, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods and common pool resources do not pay for them or under-pay. Free riders may overuse common pool resources by not paying for them, neither directly through fees or tolls, nor indirectly through taxes. Consequently, the common pool resource may be under-produced, overused, or degraded. Additionally, despite evidence that people tend to be cooperative by nature (a prosocial behaviour), the presence of free-riders has been shown to cause cooperation to deteriorate, perpetuating the free rider problem.
In social science, the free-rider problem is the question of how to limit free riding and its negative effects in these situations, such as the free-rider problem of when property rights are not clearly defined and imposed. The free-rider problem is common with public goods which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The non-excludability and non-rivalry of public goods results in there being little incentive for consumers to contribute to a collective resource as they enjoy its benefits as per the Tragedy of the commons.
A free rider may enjoy a non-excludable and non-rivalrous good such as a government -provided road system without contributing to paying for it. Another example is if a coastal town builds a lighthouse, ships from many regions and countries will benefit from it, even though they are not contributing to its costs, and are thus "free riding" on the navigation aid. A third example of non-excludable and non-rivalrous consumption would be a crowd watching fireworks. The number of viewers, whether they paid for the entertainment or not, does not diminish the fireworks as a resource. In each of these examples, the cost of excluding non-payers would be prohibitive, while the collective consumption of the resource does not decrease how much is available.
Although the term "free rider" was first used in economic theory of public goods, similar concepts have been applied to other contexts, including collective bargaining, antitrust law, psychology, political science, and vaccines. For example, some individuals in a team or community may reduce their contributions or performance if they believe that one or more other members of the group may free ride.
The economic free-rider problem is equally pertinent within the realm of global politics, often presenting challenges in international cooperation and collective action. In global politics, states are confronted with scenarios where certain actors reap the benefits of collective goods or actions without bearing the costs or contributing to the efforts required to achieve these shared objectives. This phenomenon creates imbalances and hampers cooperative endeavors, particularly in addressing transnational challenges like climate change, global security, or humanitarian crises. For instance, in discussions on climate change mitigation, countries with lesser contributions to greenhouse gas emissions might still benefit from global efforts to reduce emissions, enjoying a stable climate without proportionally shouldering the costs of emission reductions. This creates a disparity between states' contributions and their gains, leading to challenges in negotiating and implementing effective international agreements. The economic free-rider problem's manifestation in global politics underscores the complexities and obstacles encountered in fostering collective action and equitable burden-sharing among nations to address pressing global issues."
Without selective incentives to motivate active participation, collective action is unlikely to occur even when large groups of people with common interests exist. The book notes that large groups will face relatively high costs when attempting to organize for collective action while small groups will face relatively low costs, and individuals in large groups will gain marginally less per capita. Hence, in the absence of selective incentives, the incentive for group action diminishes as group size increases, so that large groups are less able to act in their common interest than small ones.
The book concludes that, not only is collective action by large groups difficult to achieve even when they have interests in common, but situations could occur where the minority (bound together by concentrated selective incentives) can dominate the majority."
In so many ways, we've been vindicated. The public and the press are finally admitting we were right—even if it took them over six years to get there ajajaaja.
For years, the world clung to an image of the Celeb that, while many of us knew was completely false, was still beneficial to her. She was sold as the intellectual, the feminist, the one with depth, substance, and a moral superiority that put her above the rest of the members of the BRF combined. Everything she did had a greater purpose; it wasn’t shallow, and it wasn’t performative—it was real. She was important. At least, that’s what they wanted everyone to believe.
And yet, here we are. After all the grand speeches and interviews and reality shows, all the awful PR, all the claims about how she was a serious woman with important things to say, she chose to make a show that proved none of it was true. Instead of something insightful or thought-provoking, she delivered a dull, self-indulgent vanity project that showcases just how little depth she actually has. It turns out she’s not some misunderstood genius—she’s just boring. Bland, unoriginal, devoid of any real talent, and so lacking in charisma that even with a massive Netflix budget, she couldn’t make herself interesting. She is so freaking beige.
And no, this isn’t about unfair criticism or impossible standards. There are plenty of celebrities who’ve made lifestyle shows that, while light entertainment, at least had something to offer. But this? This is a masterclass in mediocrity. There’s no charm, no wit, no insight—just an empty attempt to be praised for the most mundane things imaginable. It’s not enough to be rich and privileged; she also expects the audience to admire her for doing absolutely nothing and call it groundbreaking.
What’s truly astonishing is that this is the best she could come up with after five years of playing the victim, five years of insisting that she was held back, silenced, and never given the chance to show the world what she could really do. And yet, when finally given full creative control, the result is this. No depth, no originality, just a desperate attempt to craft an aesthetic around an identity that has always been paper-thin. It only proves what many of us already suspected—the problem was never the institution or even the press. It was her. And lets no talk about her selling freaking TEA. Ironically, the monarchy was saving her from embarrassment—and saving the world from all this nonsense.
Because let’s be honest: If she had even an ounce of the talent, intelligence, and influence her fans claimed she had, she wouldn’t need the royal family to remain relevant. She wouldn’t need to keep selling herself as the “Duchess” to get attention. And yet, after all her complaints about nearly losing her name and identity and blah, blah, she’s now trying to reinvent herself (again) using the name of a county she visited once and probably couldn’t even find on a map.
But finally, both the public and the press are finally catching up to reality—they were never special. They were never extraordinary. The only thing that ever made them stand out was being tied to the monarchy. And without that? There’s nothing left. Just two deeply unremarkable people, clinging to a level of relevance that continues to slip through their fingers.
After five years, The Celeb has proven exactly why, before she married in, she never really made it—no matter how much she and her fans pretend otherwise.
Didn't know this was an unpopular opinion in the royal watching bubble, but I actually like Self-Portrait 😂 some of my favourite royal outfits have been with that brand 🫣
Covid is not just the flu. You do not meet people, unmasked, for anything, even outdoors. Despite what any government says, you should isolate for ten days or until you test negative for two days in a row. And then… and then… you take it easy for six weeks (ie, no strenuous activity) unless you want Long Covid. Your immune system is a mess for up to eighteen months after EACH INFECTION. Your chances of Alzheimer’s is 25% for EACH INFECTION (the Brazil study). Your chances of heart disease and stroke increase after each infection (too many studies to cite). What will it take for people to smarten up?
Mini Royal Watcher Storytime: Twin BRF Royal Watchers
My late mother and my maternal aunt were twins. They were also royal watchers of the BRF. They became interested in the BRF via the marriage of Diana and Charles in the early 1980s. At first, they didn’t like the BRF because they thought they did Diana wrong (yes, they loved Diana and had a soft spot for William and Harry) but as time progressed, they respected the BRF (with the exception of Prince Andrew for obvious reasons) more and more.
Could this be a reason why I became a royal history buff and a royal watcher myself as I got older? Perhaps.
Are there other twin royal watchers out there? I’m just curious.
