Jump to content
Kath

British Royals

Recommended Posts

I would totally agree that Harry was raised as a pretty spoiled & insulated kid. But I do *not* think he's as naive & stupid & innocent as all the blinds that are so massively against Meghan would have us believe.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I find all of this really insulting to Harry. Is he so unlovable that Meghan is only with him b/c of his name/fortune??? 

The man is charming, sophisticated, I'm sure he is quite witty and has a great sense of humor, don't know his personality but I'm sure he's very likable, he seems like he would be kind...he's handsome...

I mean people are acting like he's some sort of leper that Meghan deigned to spend time with. Not saying his name/wealth didn't make him perhaps *more* attractive, but let's not act like there's NO POSSIBILITY she might actually love him for him!

No wonder Harry was eager to leave them behind if this is the type of bullshit that goes on.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hoyaheel said:

The dam has broken....(was Margaret the first divorce in this nuclear family?)

Princess Margaret’s divorce was the first divorce in the royal family since Henry VIII. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I thought it was something like that, but given "fidelity" has never really been important to royals, I couldn't remember about actual divorce....Though I thought there was something with one of the Georges? Or did he just abandon (was it the George & Charlotte marriage?) I get VERY confused with the Georges & Regency history....TBH, I'm not really good post-Elizabeth up to Victoria - apparently in those mid-centuries, I was studying French & Russian history instead of English ? [as an undergrad, I was a European history & diplomacy major]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brands-logos.png

WTF Branding

February 18, 2020

[Blind Gossip] In the most refined, educated, cultured, polished, and modern way, this celebrity couple reacted to a proposed change to their branding.

The reaction was basically, “What the f*ck? What the actual f*ck?!”

So if you read something about how they have accepted the change, roll your eyes.

They have definitively NOT accepted this change. They are furious beyond belief!!! This will cost them millions of dollars. They have sunk a lot of money into two-word branding, websites, trademarks, logos, etc. They are asking their attorneys if they have legal standing to fight.

Their rationale for fighting?

The word [redacted] is already being used on towels, on liquor, and on soda brands! They think they should be able to use the word the way they want to.

Maybe. However, fighting the husband’s family on this could potentially make a bad situation even worse!

It is possible that if they even signal that they are going to fight for that one word, the family could withdraw permission for the second word as well.

Meaning… they could have certain titles taken away from them and have both words of the trademark challenged.

Since the titles are pretty much all they have left, they might want to quit while they are behind. Better to settle for half than none?

Perhaps their time would be better spent coming up with a new brand.

In between all that yoga, of course.

Did the family do the right thing? What should the couple do?

Similar: The Big Plan

Couple:

[Optional] Give them a new brand name! Creativity encouraged!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hoyaheel said:

That is one of the best things I've seen in forever - AND Randy Rainbow had a new video yesterday!!! 

 

Horrible Histories is brilliant, it’s a kids show based on a series of books to explain history and it’s smart humour. 
 

Have a look on you tube and you’ll see they also have a rap about Charles II and a song about Henry VIII and his wives. Oh and there’s good RAF and Dick Turpin songs too. ?
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hoyaheel said:

I just discovered Drunk History in the US - it's so good. Will definitely look up the Horrible Histories online!!!

We have a U.K. version of drunk history, it’s v entertaining! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dixiedoodah said:

As a totally separate question, do they have yellow school busses in England?

Nope! No yellow buses here. I did a two week school exchange to the USA when I was in high school and the yellow buses were frankly less glamorous than I’d imagined. ?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Announce They Will Not Use 'Sussex Royal' Brand After Official Exit

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-announce-they-will-not-use-sussex-royal-brand-after-official-exit/

 

Meghan and Harry insist Queen Elizabeth doesn’t own the word ‘royal’

Hours after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Friday they would not go ahead with their planned “Sussex Royal” brand after The Queen put a stop to it, they posted an extraordinary statement on their website insisting they still had the right to the word “royal.”

The statement reads: “While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.”

https://pagesix.com/2020/02/21/meghan-and-harry-insist-queen-elizabeth-doesnt-own-the-word-royal/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does everyone feel about H&M not being allowed to use the word royal in their charity work?  I have to say, I agree with the Queen.  If you want to walk away from the royal family, then you don't get use that royal status in your company name either.  In addition, charity organization tax returns are typically looked at more closely.  I wonder if they know that??  When tax returns get published and a huge % of that $ goes into their pockets, people are going to notice...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wordsworth said:

Nope! No yellow buses here. I did a two week school exchange to the USA when I was in high school and the yellow buses were frankly less glamorous than I’d imagined. ?

As Molly Ringwald and my 16 year old daughter would say: There has to be a more dignified mode of transportation.5a9538d1-ba35-4d17-9ed5-61b25e43127e_tex

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, princess said:

Meghan and Harry insist Queen Elizabeth doesn’t own the word ‘royal’

Hours after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Friday they would not go ahead with their planned “Sussex Royal” brand after The Queen put a stop to it, they posted an extraordinary statement on their website insisting they still had the right to the word “royal.”

The statement reads: “While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.”

https://pagesix.com/2020/02/21/meghan-and-harry-insist-queen-elizabeth-doesnt-own-the-word-royal/

 

Do they really believe that sour grape public statements like these are helping their image?

Between this and the immediate move to talk to financial institutions, I’m actually starting to think it is about wanting money over wanting privacy. It’s not a good look. 

 

edit: meant to say this, to me, isn’t about the word “royal”, it’s about combining it with Sussex to refer to them specifically - in which case I agree you can’t do that while also claiming you don’t want to be a senior member of the royals.

Edited by Wordsworth
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Wordsworth - I am prone to giving them the benefit of the doubt but the past few months have been full of rookie mistakes. I mean, common sense would dictate if you don't want to be royal, then you can't be "Royal." ?‍♀️

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “I mean, common sense would dictate if you don't want to be royal, then you can't be "Royal." ?‍♀️“

 

I think this all goes back to the story of their very first statement - the one that they put out without talking to anyone else. I don’t think they ever wanted to not be royal. I think they had every intention of having the cake and eating it. I don’t think they expected the family to take the hardline  

 

"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen," they said.”

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×