Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Neyite

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

I am surprised this story did not get more attention - I seen it mentioned/linked on SM site this am:

https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/7125032/prince-harry-meghan-markle-compassion-project-profit/

Someone has also done some digging and found a corporation which registered some US IP rights back in 2019 for the name Lili, which is apparently linked/owned by H&M.. Show intent from long before she was even pregnant with their 2nd child.

Possible that they had the name in mind for the baby she miscarried? Or even for Archie before they knew they were having a boy.

I can see them trademarking potential names - the palace staff have done it for Cambridge kids as far as I know. But it was always as a way of preventing randomers from registering the domain name and then selling it off or using it for their own unauthorised association with that person. So it makes sense if you are royal to register any potential kids names you had in mind even if you don't end up using them.

Given their insistence on privacy for the children, I don't actually see that they'd put their children in the spotlight for cash. And I personally suspect that's the one thing Harry would never bend on - or maybe it's the one thing he's adamant about. It's probably one of the few things I respect them for doing.

tara73

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Women and health reported Meghan was going to launch a lifestyle brand ala GP with her goop. After this someone did some snooping and found the domain registered shopLiliwell dot com was registered in Feb 2020 then found the US Trade Mark applications from 2019.

Though they are not registered directly to H & M the link is through the company Clevr Blends which the media reported Meghan is now investor in as is Oprah.....

I think all this was uncovered and posted to Twitter.

why don't you just post the link to it ?


I like this thread because there is not much muppetry going on from the majority of posters, many with their head screwed on and great analysis that's why I don't like posts like this with a huge story, and not able to back it up, just with: I think it was on twitter...

Neyite

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Women and health reported Meghan was going to launch a lifestyle brand ala GP with her goop. After this someone did some snooping and found the domain registered shopLiliwell dot com was registered in Feb 2020 then found the US Trade Mark applications from 2019.

Though they are not registered directly to H & M the link is through the company Clevr Blends which the media reported Meghan is now investor in as is Oprah.....

I think all this was uncovered and posted to Twitter.

I've had a girl baby name since I was in my twenties. It's the only girl name I was certain of. Pretty much as soon as OH and I decided to start a family I said if we have a girl, what do you think of the name X? and he loved it too so it was decided years before I even got pregnant. As it happens, we had a boy so never used it.

Harry might have done likewise with Lilibet - and if they weren't estranged from the family and trashing them in interviews, the name would have been probably a lovely touching gesture for the Queen from close members of her family.

It's only because they've caused the Queen so much upset with all the other stuff that the use of a personal nickname is the cherry on top of everything else.

tara73

Neyite wrote: »

I can see them trademarking potential names - the palace staff have done it for Cambridge kids as far as I know. But it was always as a way of preventing randomers from registering the domain name and then selling it off or using it for their own unauthorised association with that person. So it makes sense if you are royal to register any potential kids names you had in mind even if you don't end up using them.

?? I don't get it.

Say, William 'registered' the name George and Charlotte before their children where born. Does that mean he could sue now all parents that name their child George or Charlotte??

I'm hearing about the possibility registering names for the first time..

Ms. Newbie18

Neyite wrote: »

Possible that they had the name in mind for the baby she miscarried? Or even for Archie before they knew they were having a boy.

I can see them trademarking potential names - the palace staff have done it for Cambridge kids as far as I know. But it was always as a way of preventing randomers from registering the domain name and then selling it off or using it for their own unauthorised association with that person. So it makes sense if you are royal to register any potential kids names you had in mind even if you don't end up using them.

Given their insistence on privacy for the children, I don't actually see that they'd put their children in the spotlight for cash. And I personally suspect that's the one thing Harry would never bend on - or maybe it's the one thing he's adamant about. It's probably one of the few things I respect them for doing.

You are correct it is standard practice now for celebs to register their potential names for their off spring in order to stop anyone else profiting from them.

I don't believe they will parade their children out for the world media to see (sell photos etc) but use their names to further their brand then yes I can see that happening.

Ms. Newbie18

tara73 wrote: »

why don't you just post the link to it ?


I like this thread because there is not much muppetry going on from the majority of posters, many with their head screwed on and great analysis that's why I don't like posts like this with a huge story, and not able to back it up, just with: I think it was on twitter...

Because a thread on twitter is not a new article and I do not have the time nor care to go back through post I have read to link them.

However, should YOU care, you can go to the ustpo register and the domain search to find what TMs/Domains were registered - which is where the true link is as they were registered to companies linked to H & M.

These searches are FREE for anyone to run..

Ms. Newbie18

tara73 wrote: »

?? I don't get it.

Say, William 'registered' the name George and Charlotte before their children where born. Does that mean he could sue now all parents that name their child George or Charlotte??

I'm hearing about the possibility registering names for the first time..

No that is not how IP rights work. You can not have exclusive use to a name, place or site. The issue lies within what you register your use is for. So lets say Wills registered the name George and he was going to start a football team with that name so the goods/services would be registered for football related things i.e stadium, games, merchandise. Once the registration is granted no one can use the TMs for these same goods/service unless they were licensed to do so by the TM owner.

tara73

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Because a thread on twitter is not a new article and I do not have the time nor care to go back through post I have read to link them.

However, should YOU care, you can go to the ustpo register and the domain search to find what TMs/Domains were registered - which is where the true link is as they were registered to companies linked to H & M.

These searches are FREE for anyone to run..

darling, that's not how it works here. If YOU make such an horrendous claim, YOU are the one to back it up! otherwise be prepared to be called out as muppetry!

that attitude tells everything...

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

EOTR, are Meghan and Harry infallible like the Pope ? I ask because your posts seem to follow a theme of it’s everyone’s faults and they are innocent put upon victims who have done nothing wrong.

I found it interesting that they named their daughter after an institution they said on world wide TV had cause them so much grief, yet her mother didn’t get a look in. Funny that.

nobody is infallible.
they certainly aren't guilty of a number of the claims made against them with others much a do about nothing and would be to an extent be victims of elements of the british press and it's behaviour.
they named the child after the child's great grandmother and grandmother, yes 1 heads up the very institution they have understandably got issues with but that is a separate issue.
no reason they shouldn't name the child after the child's great grandmother just because the institution she heads up happens to be problematic.
maybe meghan's mother didn't want the child named after her and is happy with the arrangement, i don't ultimately know and it's a family matter anyway.

Be right back wrote: »

How come Harry has never met Thomas Markle? They were going out for a couple of years before they got married and it was only around the time of the wedding her dad appeared in the press.

because he hasn't met him.

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

He was left with no choice but to use the media as a tool to contact his daughter after she cut contact with him while he was on hospital recovering from a heart attack. He had all receipts to show he tried and tried to contact her without success.

Very easy for her to pick up a phone and say let's work this out. It was her friends to went to the press about her father in the 1st place. Its tit for tat at this stage.

incorrect.
he had every choice but to talk to the media, he did so because he wanted money and to be in the limelight and to latch on to meghan's fame some how.
she made contact with him and he kept selling it to the media which is why she stopped contact originally.
he brought this all on himself and is not behaving how a good father should behave.
shame on him, he needs to concentrate on trying to rebuild the relationship with his daughter rather then seeking the limelight.

Tilden Katz

lazygal wrote: »

If Diana hadn't died so young I feel the narrative around her would be very different. She twice said she was stepping back from public life and didn't follow through on that. She was well able to use the media to present herself in a certain light.

Diana was no angel. She always struck me as quite manipulative.

Neyite

tara73 wrote: »

?? I don't get it.

Say, William 'registered' the name George and Charlotte before their children where born. Does that mean he could sue now all parents that name their child George or Charlotte??

I'm hearing about the possibility registering names for the first time..

You can't trademark a persons name, but you can trademark the name for products or services.

So say I trademarked tara73, it's still your name, but if you wanted to set up your website or sell stuff under a brand name tara73, you can't because I bought it first. You'd have to get me to sell you the trademark so you could use it. And if you were loaded like a royal, I'd hold out for a good wedge.

So an example might be a porn star calling herself Princess Charlotte wanting to launch her own range of adult apparel and toys, calling it the Princess Charlotte range. Whips, chains all that craic. By trademarking all the variants of Charlottes (the royal) names, they can prevent anyone from using the name as their brand. If the porn star by happy coincidence had trademarked the name first, she could pretty much name her price from the royal family to buy it off her.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they named the child after the child's great grandmother and grandmother,

They didn't though. They named their child the childhood nickname of its great grandmother. If they named her after the queen's actual name, it may have looked respectful, as it is, it looks like a badly thought out publicity stunt.

lazygal

bubblypop wrote: »

They didn't though. They named their child the childhood nickname of its great grandmother. If they named her after the queen's actual name, it may have looked respectful, as it is, it looks like a badly thought out publicity stunt.

That's exactly what it is-they're looking for attention. They even went as far as saying the child will actually be called Lili, so why name her Lilibet? Everyone knows it is a pet name, and not a usual derivative of Elizabeth.

I'm actually a fan of family names, and I'm sorry my husband didn't like one in particular when we were choosing names for our children as I would have loved to continue on the tradition, but we couldn't agree so chose a totally different name. Elizabeth would have raised fewer eyebrows than Lilibet, and they're not even planning on that being her common usage name. Absolutely silly behaviour from them.

tara73

Neyite wrote: »

You can't trademark a persons name, but you can trademark the name for products or services.

So say I trademarked tara73, it's still your name, but if you wanted to set up your website or sell stuff under a brand name tara73, you can't because I bought it first. You'd have to get me to sell you the trademark so you could use it. And if you were loaded like a royal, I'd hold out for a good wedge.

So an example might be a porn star calling herself Princess Charlotte wanting to launch her own range of adult apparel and toys, calling it the Princess Charlotte range. Whips, chains all that craic. By trademarking all the variants of Charlottes (the royal) names, they can prevent anyone from using the name as their brand. If the porn star by happy coincidence had trademarked the name first, she could pretty much name her price from the royal family to buy it off her.

thanks for explanation. yes, surely I know that it works like that with brand names, it just sounded like registering a name and nobody would kind of allowed to name their kids with that name anymore:p

lazygal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Diana was no angel. She always struck me as quite manipulative.

She definitely was, and the media liked her because she shifted units. I remember one tabloid editor saying they knew they'd never ever sell as many papers ever again after she died. Even to this day the likes of HELLO! have her on the cover fairly regularly because she'll sell. Her legacy is weird, I think the Royals learned a lot from how you can write a narrative and have it supported once you play your cards right.

Leg End Reject

I've said it before on this thread but there was a public and media backlash against Diana. "The Queen of Tarts" was used instead of her own version "The Queen of Hearts".

The hysteria after her death ironically changed her image back to that of a near saint.

Sardonicat

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've said it before on this thread but there was a public and media backlash against Diana. "The Queen of Tarts" was used instead of her own version "The Queen of Hearts".

The hysteria after her death ironically changed her image back to that of a near saint.

She was a laughing stock. And now she's some kind of symbol of goodness. Baffling.

HildaOgdenx

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've said it before on this thread but there was a public and media backlash against Diana. "The Queen of Tarts" was used instead of her own version "The Queen of Hearts".

The hysteria after her death ironically changed her image back to that of a near saint.

And Tony Blair with the 'people's princess' title. It was all such crackers stuff really.

Be right back

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is infallible.
they certainly aren't guilty of a number of the claims made against them with others much a do about nothing and would be to an extent be victims of elements of the british press and it's behaviour.
they named the child after the child's great grandmother and grandmother, yes 1 heads up the very institution they have understandably got issues with but that is a separate issue.
no reason they shouldn't name the child after the child's great grandmother just because the institution she heads up happens to be problematic.
maybe meghan's mother didn't want the child named after her and is happy with the arrangement, i don't ultimately know and it's a family matter anyway.



because he hasn't met him.




incorrect.
he had every choice but to talk to the media, he did so because he wanted money and to be in the limelight and to latch on to meghan's fame some how.
she made contact with him and he kept selling it to the media which is why she stopped contact originally.
he brought this all on himself and is not behaving how a good father should behave.
shame on him, he needs to concentrate on trying to rebuild the relationship with his daughter rather then seeking the limelight.

Why wouldn't he meet her dad? Very strange to be fair. Was he really only going to meet him for the first time just before the wedding? Or was it down to her who stopped them from meeting? After all, she had met his entire family and he only met her mother from her whole family!

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

They didn't though. They named their child the childhood nickname of its great grandmother. If they named her after the queen's actual name, it may have looked respectful, as it is, it looks like a badly thought out publicity stunt.

for most i would wager it just looks like exactly what it is, parents naming their child and nothing more.
really this is a much ado over nothing as i have said a plenty and they are unlikely to change the name now.

lazygal

HildaOgdenx wrote: »

And Tony Blair with the 'people's princess' title. It was all such crackers stuff really.

My mam is a terribly sensible, don't be moaning, keep going sort of person but even she was a melt the week Diana died. I remember her buying an extra box of tissues because she said we'd all be crying so much at the funeral. :rolleyes:

She happened to be visiting her mother along with her sister the morning the news broke and she told me my granny came into the room crying to tell them Diana was dead and they all had a weep. I've never seen the three of them crying ever.
I'm sure a lot of people cringe at themselves carrying on that whole week.

iamwhoiam

lazygal wrote: »

My mam is a terribly sensible, don't be moaning, keep going sort of person but even she was a melt the week Diana died. I remember her buying an extra box of tissues because she said we'd all be crying so much at the funeral. :rolleyes:

She happened to be visiting her mother along with her sister the morning the news broke and she told me my granny came into the room crying to tell them Diana was dead and they all had a weep. I've never seen the three of them crying ever.
I'm sure a lot of people cringe at themselves carrying on that whole week.

A genuine case of mass hysteria . It fascinated me to watch it spread and people get caught up in it . It spread like wildfire in the UK and people lost complete control of their emotions . I am sure it makes for very good thesis material

lazygal

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A genuine case of mass hysteria . It fascinated me to watch it spread and people get caught up in it . It spread like wildfire in the UK and people lost complete control of their emotions . I am sure it makes for very good thesis material

I'm sure someone got a PhD out of it!
Even the teachers in school were caught up in it. I don't think we did a tap that week. 12 hour queues to sign books of condolences and people getting apoplectic that Liz Windsor didn't have a flag at half mask. Mad times.

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

Why wouldn't he meet her dad? Very strange to be fair. Was he really only going to meet him for the first time just before the wedding? Or was it down to her who stopped them from meeting? After all, she had met his entire family and he only met her mother from her whole family!

i don't know, ultimately you would have to find some way of asking him that question as that is the only way you will get the answer.



generally most people would probably get to meet both parents before the marriage but whether only meeting one is strange or not is not for me to decide given there can be many reasons why that may not be possible and not everyone is going to be the same as each other.
so it's not for me to judge.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

for most i would wager it just looks like exactly what it is, parents naming their child and nothing more.
really this is a much ado over nothing as i have said a plenty and they are unlikely to change the name now.

They got what they wanted by using The Queens pet name - plenty of publicity. Mightn’t need hire a consultant now!
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-want-24320638

Addle

end of the road wrote: »

generally most people would probably get to meet both parents before the marriage but whether only meeting one is strange or not is not for me to decide given there can be many reasons why that may not be possible and not everyone is going to be the same as each other.
so it's not for me to judge.

I have found that when someone isn’t allowing me to meet people in their lives, they’re hiding something about themselves rather than the people I’m not meeting.

end of the road

Addle wrote: »

I have found that when someone isn’t allowing me to meet people in their lives, they’re hiding something about themselves rather than the people I’m not meeting.

both are possible, each case will be different.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

both are possible, each case will be different.

Meh. These are people who travel a lot. She popped to New York for a baby shower IIRC. It beggars belief that in all the time they were in a serious relationship there was no opportunity for him to meet her father. It's obvious that she didn't want it to happen. For whatever reason.

HildaOgdenx

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A genuine case of mass hysteria . It fascinated me to watch it spread and people get caught up in it . It spread like wildfire in the UK and people lost complete control of their emotions . I am sure it makes for very good thesis material

I imagine people looking back possibly even at footage of themselves, sobbing and wailing, and wondering what the hell they were thinking. Especially as there is such a thing about having a 'stiff upper lip' in England.

Ms. Newbie18

tara73 wrote: »

darling, that's not how it works here. If YOU make such an horrendous claim, YOU are the one to back it up! otherwise be prepared to be called out as muppetry!

that attitude tells everything...

It is up to no one to do the work for you! In the error of fake news it is up to each person to fact check whatever they read. News papers are not always fact checked...

And I literally told you where you can find the information re the TMs and Domains.

Muppertry indeed.