Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

Oops ignore that link (not working)

@thisenglishlife

Archewell trademark had some 'irregularities', but has not been refused. The latest Cambridge US trademark has been refused.

It hasn’t been refused but it had a number of mistakes, such as a lack of signature, and highly irregular crossings out.

What’s also bizarre is that the Sussex Royal Foundation hasn’t been wound up, so it currently shows as still trading. Usually the directors resign and the company ceases. After all, it shouldn’t be trading. Then again, their Instagram and website is still up. Perhaps it’s just petulance about being told it couldn’t be used and childish retaliation.

The comments about MM possibly not attending a family funeral are a reminder that it's usually better for families to sort their disputes. Families should be able to come together.

thisenglishlife The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was set up in September 2009.

It was but they have filed for a new patent in the US, which they were refused as they didn't use their names. They also filed in 2012, used their names and that was allowed.

The Foundations previous names were PW & PH 2009 -2012.
Then D & D of C and PH 2012 - 2018
Then D & D of C and D & D of S 2018 -2019.

Now on Companies House as The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge since Sept 2019.

Sorry, crossed post.

I think the Instagram account is still up because they want to take their followers with them to a new account but Instagram won't allow it. Computer says no versus what Meghan wants Meghan gets. So impasse.

They were still refused this US patent

I really hope they're both ok. Would love them to do well but not preach or be hypocritical to the rest of us.

@thisenglishlife It’s not a patent, it’s a trademark application.

People magazine exclusive about how they're taking their time with new Archewell foundation (didn't they explicitly say they weren't forming a foundation?) and that the rumours about them not filing the paperwork correctly are false

people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-new-archewell-foundation-trademark-pending/

And then further down the front page theres another story about a book coming out in October about the relationship between W&H
people.com/royals/prince-william-prince-harry-relationship-battle-of-brothers-book/

Isn't CDAN some naff take off of blind gossip?

Wouldn't believe anything from there.

I don’t know what CDAN is? There are so many rumours- and there is literally nothing for the papers to write on, so I am taking that with a pinch of salt.

To be honest, the whole legal side has been a car crash. First the MoS lawsuit where half their arguments were struck out as non-relevant and then whatever is going on with the foundation, trademark thing.

I am familiar with law (not this kind and not UK law). It is very rule driven, interpretation based to some extent and in court, heavily reliant on due process. It is not as easy as morally right or wrong.

I don’t know if H&M were a) given bad advice, b) if they were given good advice, but the solicitors didn’t emphasise it strongly enough c) if they didn’t listen to advice or d) if there is a plan behind it (publicity for MoS and a time delay for the foundation).

Any of point a-c would make a client furious and lose trust in their solicitors I think...

CD&N was started by an entertainment lawyer well over a decade ago. In those days it was very accurate. It was sold a number of years ago, and now is less accurate. However it does still post stories that are later proven true.

The People story would have come straight from HaM or their spokesman. It’s inaccurate as their trademark application was rejected.

Crazy Days And Nights is a crock of shit.

You know this, exactly how?

It was sold a number of years ago, and now is less accurate

Says it all.

I thought we'd stopped posting about stuff from pond life sites on H&M threads?

I thought posters were free to post what they wish. Or would you care to provide a list of what posters are entitled to post, and what’s forbidden?

Frankly, I suspect CD&N is more accurate than People.

I think the continuing references to a 'foundation' are just careless journalism, on the basis that a) foundation is the term a U.S. audience will be familiar with, and b) there is a sense of 'ah, well.. they haven't said what it's actually going to be about yet, so until they do, we'll just carry on calling it a foundation'.

There is a common factor with their paperwork being rejected for being too broad and vague, and not clarifying its main point. The common factor is the Sussexes.

I'm only quoting what was said in JustineMNHQ's post

"We will also be minded to delete bottom-feeding internet rumours (although not, to be clear, posts about stories that have appeared in mainstream outlets) - so again, please do report any you see"

I think CD&N falls into that category. Bottom feeding, and below Blind Gossip AFAIC

thought we'd stopped posting about stuff from pond life sites on H&M threads?

To be strictly accurate, MN said they might be 'minded' to delete rumours from, I think they said 'bottom-feeding' sites. So I guess anyone who thinks that's happening is free to report the relevant posts and get MN to decide. There isn't a specific Talk rule about it.

Rousette cross post! I did that from memory..

Are you encouraging me to report? Fine if you are!