Harry and Meghan news

[callmeadoctor]

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1292590/meghan-markle-prince-harry-la-career-plans-latest-royal-news

They have until August to refile an amended application.

I doubt this was done by solicitors. One error I can see, but not multiple errors.

It does seem a bit strange they chose that particular name. As they wanted privacy for their child.

@Halo84 but do they retain priority in that time or could someone register a similar name / logo in that time and take priority?
It was done by a US form of attorneys - it’s the Us mark, not Uk/eu

People saying no must be coming as a shock to PH.

@Sittingontheveranda

What was William like? Bored? Offhand? Arrogant? Impatient? Reeking of doing a duty?

That is how I imagine him to be? And Harry too tbh.

William was polite, appeared slightly bored but maintained good eye contact.

@TryAnotherNickname

This archewell trademark cocky is astonishing- never mind the content being inadequate, the basic procedural errors for a high profile client? Someone is going to lose their job. Someone might get ahead of them in priority if they get a better application in today...

Or is it done on purpose as a distraction from what they really want/intend to do? Perhaps they have something else lined up and want to be able to focus on it for a while without their hand being forced.

I never thought of Diana as beautiful. I found her very charismatic and attractive in the way she held herself, looked and spoke but not beautiful. Meghan is classicly more pretty but to me she always looks like she is trying to act like an innocent child with the head tilted down, big eyes looking upward kind of look. It comes across as fake and that annoys me for some reason.

It’s terrible publicity for the US law firm though. Basic errors. Not signed and too vague.

And I still don’t know how to pronounce it

It says that the application was filed by their lawyers, doesn't it?

It might just be that I'm from a largely post-Diana generation, but to me, she never glowed, internally or otherwise. (genuinely baffled by notion of her 'great beauty' - nice looking, of course, but even if you strip away the surface 80s horror, she's not anywhere near a top ten to me).

Meghan is far more beautiful. However, I think that slightly hampers her ability to pull off high-fashion. In relaxed, Cali-girl white shirt and jeans, she looks absolutely radiant. In more structured and stylish pieces, the clothes often don't sit well with her looks. To me, anyway.

(For example, Cate Blanchett, Rhianna and Lupita Nyongo look ravishing in couture gowns that others couldn't pull off, no matter how beautiful. Kate had a wardrobe that fitted better with her looks and figure by attempting less, if you ask me. Lots of flowing, decorated, willowy dainty pieces.)

The signatures are easy enough to fix, but it sounds like they are going to have to be much more explicit about their charity's purpose and structure. Which will only be a problem if they were being purposely vague.

Maybe they are cracking down on those type of foundation set ups. There was a lot of talk about the Clintons one being dodgy.

It is unlikely that a firm of lawyers would forget to sign a document filed on behalf of high profile clients.
One has to wonder whether this is a deliberate “mistake” aimed at delaying the implementation of Archewell, in order to give time to develop some ideas about what it actually is.

If it's wordy and vague, it would seem very possible that H & M wrote it themselves!

Just read this
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8435107/Meghan-Markle-no-longer-friends-Jessica-Mulroney-race-row.html

Really sad. She seemed the closest person in the world to Meghan until very recently.

@OverUnderSidewaysDown

It is unlikely that a firm of lawyers would forget to sign a document filed on behalf of high profile clients. One has to wonder whether this is a deliberate “mistake” aimed at delaying the implementation of Archewell, in order to give time to develop some ideas about what it actually is.

I agree. In fact, I’d go as far as to say I don’t believe they forgot to sign it as well as it being too vague etc. One mistake is unlikely but plausible but not more, especially considering they fact they will be a well regarded legal company.

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]Just read this
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8435107/Meghan-Markle-no-longer-friends-Jessica-Mulroney-race-row.html[/quote]
I haven’t read the article but based purely on the title, I don’t believe they aren’t still friends behind closed doors. The strong probability is that JM was one of the sources for MM’s People article and there is a risk she could be called to give evidence in court. I don’t believe MM would risk alienating her for that reason alone. However, MM doesn’t seem to have friends who go back over a long period of which does suggest she either struggles to make deep and long lasting friends, ditches people when they stop being useful, or has the sort of personality that regularly falls out with people.

Agree. It must be hard not knowing who can truly trust .

In some American publications (no idea how credible they are) Jessica is deemed to have benefited from the friendship with Meghan. She is bound to think that's unfair as she was very much one of Canada's social elites, her father in law was the prime minister and her and her husband (Ben Mulroney) are friends with the Trudeaus'. Jessica introduced Meghan to her friends including those at the fairly exclusive SoHo House. Without her contacts or involvement I don't think it's likely that Meghan would have been in the circles that led her to meet Harry.

Jessica is also very media savvy and is thought to have advised Meghan on how to maximise her publicity regarding her humanitarian endeavours. Jessica is not a particularly nice person if recent events are anything to go by and Meghan appears to have dropped her like a hot potato after a very close 7 year friendship to save her own reputation. (In M's own words she 'can't be seen to associate with her', no mention of how Sasha must've felt, or Jessica, just her own reputation). I'd be surprised if that's the last we hear of this fall out.

Looks like they have been very useful to each other over the years.

I'm sorry, but if I really wanted to drop a friend like a stone, I definitely would not leave my child with them for a week. Is that something people do?!

I think Meghan has used Jessica more than the other way round.

This is an extract of the reason why the application was rejected:

The wording 'providing a website featuring content relating to philanthropy, monetary giving, volunteer and career opportunities' in International Class 35 is also indefinite and over-broad, and must be clarified to specify the nature of the content provided

Perhaps (actually surely?) there’s more to their plans than highlighting/featuring work that other people are doing and can do? Anyone else and I wouldn’t bother asking, but with H&M it rings worryingly true that they thought themselves high profile enough to get regular people to give time and money to causes......because they say so. That’s literally preaching!

Jessica has not shown herself to be a nice person. The whole way she handled that situation was so odd, to pick out someone randomly and then threaten/ attack them. Sasha seems lovely and I hope it all works out for her. I gather she has a good following of fans who hopefully will support her. Meghan clearly must trust Jessica, if it is true that Baby Archie was left with Jessica last year when Meghan was travelling. It does seem like it wasn’t a friendship built on deep foundations, if Jessica’s true character remained hidden until now.

Monetary giving. Does that mean their own money or other people's. Maybe the USA isn't keen on a royal Prince from one of the richest families on the planet asking people for money.