Harry and Meghan news

[callmeadoctor]

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

Hello all, short time lurker, huge royal history fan. I find H&M fascinating in terms of how history will remember them.

My personal opinion is that Harry has always been unhappy with the press, with his father, with being in the RF. He was always going to leave once he found a partner. Meghan is from LA, everyone acts like her, virtue signalling, everything is just lacking in authenticity but the packaging is exquisite. It's not really her fault, but English people tend to be a bit more down to earth than that. Her family really made it so difficult for her with talking to the press.

I don't hate them, but I do think their attempts at PR are woefully transparent and I feel it's dishonest.

Not a fan! I wish them a happy peaceful life, I just wish they'd shut up and get on with it now.

The plan for Archewell sounds a lot like SussexRoyal: the pandemic hits and they take the WHO’s advice re hand washing etc, change the font and make it their own, garner hundreds of thousands of likes (or whatever they’re called on Instagram).

Meanwhile, it’ll be “look at this wonderful dog rescue charity, they’re really struggling after the pandemic, if you can find it in your hearts please donate what you can. I’ve renewed my £5/month membership in my son’s name, maybe you can too”, notwithstanding that normal people have jobs and bills and don’t live in multi million dollar mansions, travel by private jet and spend obscene amounts of money on couture maternity wear.

Yes yes, this is exactly what the entire RF does, worse if you’re PA. But there’s a deal with the RF: we’re british, we do all this for brand UK, we love you, you the people and the land we live in are what our lives are about. H&M have literally fled the country, turned their backs and shunned it in favour of not Botswana or Canada or a Commonwealth country, but Malibu!!

It makes the ordinary pleb, like me, feel like they’re taking me for a fool. How stupid do they think we are?

Monetary giving = taking a £1m fee for a speaking engagement in the personal pocket, plus a $250k donation to the fund, so you can claim the speaking engagement was charitable. See also - tax write off.

I agree with you Rose, you phrased it much better than I could ever hope to.

I know it's stupid but I do feel let down that Harry could walk away from this country, even though I respect his right to live how he likes.

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

To me this seems uncannily similar to the reasons for bits of the initial submission against the press being rejected - especially the parts about being over-broad and not clear enough as to what's actually wanted

I'd have thought professional lawyers, trademark specialists and so on would have advised them about this, but maybe they're just not listening?

It makes the ordinary pleb, like me, feel like they’re taking me for a fool. How stupid do they think we are?

Does it matter though? They can "take you " for whatever they want, but IMO you'd only be a fool if you bought it wholesale - and the folk prepared to do that are getting fewer all the time

TBF it can't be easy to regard the public as anything but stupid plebs when you've been brought up in a family with no accountability at all, but as long as we don't act like stupid plebs who'll roll over to their every whim that suits me just fine

I don’t think it’s a question of not listening re the trademark application. I think there’s actually only vague ideas around it. I don’t think they have advisors or knowledgeable and trustworthy friends and relatives to help them do what they want to do.

Lawyers act on instructions and offer advice, but what can a lawyer do if s/he says “I must advise you that this description is at risk of being rejected for lack of precision, the Trademark Office has a history of blah blah blah, I’ve seen it happen more times than I remember blah blah blah and section 47(a) of the regulations clearly states blah blah blah”, and the client just repeats themselves because they don’t have anything else to say. The lawyer can’t just make stuff up, and it’s not a lawyer’s place to give counsel along the lines of “listen, son, it’s in your best interests to blah blah blah, trust me” UNLESS that lawyer is also a long-standing trusted advisor. A bit like the men in suits in the RF, fgs!

Oh this makes me so cross. It’s a empty shit show, wrapped up in couture clothing, fluttering eyelashes and profound emotions, poor-me-Prince-of-the-Realm delivering free meals in a Porsche SUV, utter, incoherent, arrogant hypocrisy.

I think I’m going for a lie down

I don’t think they have advisors or knowledgeable and trustworthy friends and relatives to help them do what they want to do

Then they could do with getting some, if anyone's still prepared to throw their lot in with them - because right now they just seem to be lurching from farce to disaster

You're right about the lawyers, though, and it might explain why those involved with the media suit were at pains to say in effect "it's how the client wanted it done"
Translation: we gave our best professional advice but they wouldn't have it

@ARoseInHarlem the lawyers acting in the MOS case have more or less said that they’re simply acting on instructions and distancing themselves from those (crap) instructions!

ThIs this makes me so cross. It’s a empty shit show, wrapped up in couture clothing, fluttering eyelashes and profound emotions, poor-me-Prince-of-the-Realm delivering free meals in a Porsche SUV, utter, incoherent, arrogant hypocrisy.

Yes, that about sums it up. All style and no substance. A lot of hot air and posturing, and living off other people whilst lecturing anyone who will listen from their very superior standpoint.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

You’re right about everything in your recent posts. I think maybe I’m not alone, though, in having no appetite for optional, big-scale upheaval after years of austerity, Brexit, Covid, race protests. Because, logically, there’s just no justification for any of the RF any more. If they’ve any sense they’ll take the initiative once Charles is King to slim down radically, take funding cuts, turn over most palaces to the National Trust or whichever entity owns (eg) Hampton Court, keep a couple of private homes for Charles and William, turn Buckingham Palace into offices and State rooms. Everyone to stay out of the limelight, and quietly go about their business. No more crazy weddings, no more inspirational Instagram quotes, no more £50,000 engagement dresses (or [insert equivalent for Kate]), no more Royal yachts/train/planes - just cut it all right back. Nobody is going to

MM was absolutely right to call attention to the BLM movement, and she’s married into the RF. These two things don’t sit together easily. She’s done something which I think history will look back on as a turning point. Harry’s marriage to MM, William’s to middle-class Kate - this is the modernization of the RF that the country needs.

Times are changing, but please, no more scandal and emotion. Can they please just change quietly, professionally, unsensationally. No more high emotion and drama this decade.

Nobody is going to

Logically, there’s just no justification for any of the RF any more

As a committed republican I thoroughly agree, though I respect the views of those who don't

I wouldn't get your hopes up about funding cuts during Charles's possibly "slimmed down" monarchy though ... not if the handling of the Duchy, the latest Sovereign Grant arrangements, his all-too-convenient exemption from the FoI Act and his obscenely lavish lifestyle are anything to go by. I'll be the first to say I'm wrong if it doesn't turn out this way, but how do we know the motivation for that "slimming" isn't just to keep more of the baubles for himself?

Didn’t an MP just put in a call for the royal family to have a new royal yacht or two? Someone in the RF must have requested this, surely? So, modernising and in tune with the public they are not.

Just from a factual point of view, there is no royal yacht or plane, and the royal train consists of a couple of carriages.

Not saying they don't have an opulent lifestyle, but not to the standards of the Hollywood elite and many successful business people.

Re. the £50,000 engagement dress (which certainly grated), I remember that when Diana and Charles got engaged, she had to pop into Harrods to buy something suitable to wear.

@feesh

Didn’t an MP just put in a call for the royal family to have a new royal yacht or two? Someone in the RF must have requested this, surely? So, modernising and in tune with the public they are not.

The Tory party pulled the Royal Yacht - I think at the beginning of Major's time in office.

Recently the guy who owned NCP Car Parks (Gosling?) left a large sum (£50 million?) towards a new Royal Yacht, but it was turned down, as it would have been too significant a cost to run.

I imagine you're referring to this, feesh: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-penny-mordaunt-royal-yachts-overseas-aid-money-a9572376.html

On first seeing it I had to check it wasn't April 1st, but perhaps Charles is putting a few feelers out, hoping for another new toy when he's King?

@feesh

Didn’t an MP just put in a call for the royal family to have a new royal yacht or two? Someone in the RF must have requested this, surely? So, modernising and in tune with the public they are not.

I saw something about this recently and HMQ declining because she didn’t believe it was appropriate at this time. I think it might have been designed for Philip’s 100th birthday. I’ll try to find something on it.

You're right about the lawyers, though, and it might explain why those involved with the media suit were at pains to say in effect "it's how the client wanted it done"
Translation: we gave our best professional advice but they wouldn't have it

Once people get a reputation for this, reputable lawyers stop wanting to represent them. H&M won’t be able to get away with many more incidents of looking like they have incompetent lawyers, especially when the lawyers themselves have the self respect to make it clear their clients are not listening to advice.

It doesn’t bode well for running an international charitable foundation if you can’t remember to sign important documents!! Whether it be them or their advisors it does not engender confidence in their abilities.

Once people get a reputation for this, reputable lawyers stop wanting to represent them

I can't say I blame them - after all lawyers are human too (well, more or less )

Aren't the current lawyers, Schillings, supposed to be reputable though?

Schillings is a magic circle law firm. However I don’t think they were acting for them regarding Archewell but I could be wrong

I also think it’s a shame re the Mulroney issue although I agree Meghan made the right decision to distance herself
Her children played a big part in H&M wedding
I wonder what they make of it all now

Google says the solicitors working for Archewell are somebody called Cobblestone Lane LLC, registered in Delaware. Apparently they're "linked to the office" of another Beverley Hills lawyer, but there don't seem to be any more details than that, far less a website or even an address

Sounds a bit odd to me, but then what would I know ...