Meghan and Harry 3: Working Towards Financial Independence

[omilona]

Does anyone here doubt that M had a hand in those paps being 'coincidentally there' with that giant grin looking directly  at them in every single pic?   The timing is damn suspicious so that it hit the internet while Harry's airborne.  Watch what is next. Canada's mean too. I'm going to California....3...2...1...

[Screamapillar]

I don’t think so, because I think she would have made sure to have the baby tightly and properly strapped in his ErgoBaby carrier if she knew she was going to be photographed, after all the grief she got about the way she was photographed holding him at that Polo match last summer. 

But you would have to be awfully naive to assume that there just wouldn’t be paps lurking in the bushes, in what I think was not private property? I would be so damn paranoid if I was a celebrity.

[hoipolloi]

9 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

I know this happened a couple of weeks ago, but have we talked about how Meghan got "randomly" spotted by a hiker in the middle of a forest in Victoria and offered to help them with their selfie stick?  It was reported on CTV news.  So totally random that the hiker was  a reporter for CTV.  Who used to work at CTV Toronto at the same time that Ben Mulroney worked there.  Who also worked with World Vision.  Who covered entertainment while Meghan lived in Toronto.  Much coincidence, much random!  

I missed all that but also don't regularly check in on CTV. 

Re: the Mulroneys. In my book, the Mulroney kids are on a par with Javanka & the other tRump spawn, Eric & Don Jr. Have to say that this is one of the things that makes me roll my eyes over Meghan, especially. If we are known by the company we keep, well, keeping company with a Mulroney is NOT a plus. 

 

7 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

there's plenty of appellate jurisprudence that upholds the media's right to take photos in public, with certain limits. 

As someone who loves to take pictures (won't call myself a photographer), this was my understanding of the law with regards to photography in general. If you are on public property (e.g., a city sidewalk or in a public park), you are protected when taking pictures. Out of courtesy -- and because it's what *I* would like for myself -- I do my best to avoid people's faces or other recognizable features, and I absolutely avoid including children. 

ETA: Some discussion in this CBC news article on privacy issues in general and in Canada or BC.

Edited January 22, 2020 by hoipolloi
More information

[acheronbeach]

@hoipolloi I agree about the Mulroneys.   They're awful.  Mila and Brian were notorious grifters at 24 Sussex.   Bureaucrats still talk about their attempt to sell their furniture to the government for inflated prices.   Jessica is a thirsty Instagram mess (that Swiss Miss outfit........) who makes her kids into props.   Ben never saw a camera, celeb, or self tanner he didn't like.  And Carolyn is the ultimate example of nepotism and entitlement triumphing over ability. 

That said, Ben has connections to big US and Canadian political types.  And Jessica has the fashion merching connections from her family and work at HBC.   They're useful in certain ways. 

[hoipolloi]

23 minutes ago, acheronbeach said:

They're useful in certain ways. 

And I can see exactly why Meghan, in particular, still cultivates them

[Blahblah]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/its-not-going-to-end-1-million-price-of-harry-and-meghans-escape/news-story/098b39ec227b23dad68c85d57e37287f
 

Celebrity photographer’s perspective on the whole paparazzi/privacy issue. 

[viii]

17 hours ago, Blahblah said:

What did they think would happen though? There is no “royal rota” to keep the press nice outside of the UK. The more I read about these two the less sure I am about whether they are being strategic, or whether they are a pair of dimwits.

I think this line of thinking is a dangerous slope. It's putting blame on them for having their privacy invaded, and I don't think that's fair. 

12 hours ago, omilona said:

Does anyone here doubt that M had a hand in those paps being 'coincidentally there' with that giant grin looking directly  at them in every single pic?   The timing is damn suspicious so that it hit the internet while Harry's airborne.  Watch what is next. Canada's mean too. I'm going to California....3...2...1...

You don't know how many photos were taken where she wasn't looking at the camera, though. Perhaps they selected the best handful where she's looking forward and not off to the side. Considering how loose Archie seemed in that carrier, I would be very surprised if they were staged. I imagine there's a lot of comments shaming her for how he was being carried. 

[Coconut Flan]

7 hours ago, Blahblah said:

Celebrity photographer’s perspective on the whole paparazzi/privacy issue. 

I was taken by the photographer's statement that if she hadn't wanted the photo taken, then security would have walked in front of her to block the shot.  

 

[viii]

Quote

“She could’ve lived a quiet life, opening shops and gladhanding old ladies at hospital (as a member of the royal family) and they would have been able to have a tighter control on the press and the press coverage than they do now.”

I hate this quote in that article. Why should she have to live a life she doesn't want to in order to have privacy? That's a garbage line of thinking. 

People need to leave them alone. 

[tabitha2]

Well Meghan obviously does not truly want to be left alone!

[viii]

4 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Well Meghan obviously does not truly want to be left alone!

What makes you believe that? I mean, unless I've missed her statement where she's released that information, I'm not sure that's something you can really gauge. 

[just_ordinary]

14 hours ago, Screamapillar said:

I don’t think so, because I think she would have made sure to have the baby tightly and properly strapped in his ErgoBaby carrier if she knew she was going to be photographed, after all the grief she got about the way she was photographed holding him at that Polo match last summer. 

But you would have to be awfully naive to assume that there just wouldn’t be paps lurking in the bushes, in what I think was not private property? I would be so damn paranoid if I was a celebrity.

Exactly. My biggest takeaway was that Meghan needs to double check her carrier or get a baby wearing consultation. Because no matter how bumpy the way abc how much baby wiggles it would never hang that lopsided in a correctly adjusted carrier....

[bea]

A lot has been made of the “Sussex Royal” trademark and how it indicates that Harry and Meghan plan to profit from their own brand. Which may be true, I’ve got no idea. But I poked around a bit because I remembered something about a celebrity registering their own name as a trademark.

Anyway. Harry and Meghan registered a trademark for the foundation name, “Sussex Royal The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.” And, as an extension, the trademark to “Sussex Royal.”

They did this to avoid the situation Meghan found herself in after their relationship became public, when no less than five companies tried to trademark her own damn name. She filed her own trademark application one and got it on the basis of it being her name. Go figure. So selfish, right?

 

As part of the foundation’s application, they had to list the classes, goods, and services to which the trademark applies. That’s done to avoid someone coming in after you and trying to trademark the name/term on anything you didn’t specifically mention. There’s only been a few dozen attempts to do that with Sussex Royal since the original paperwork was filed, all over the world.

Nobody has attempted to trademark the name in the US, because an enterprising American IP lawyer ALREADY REGISTERED “Sussex Royal” as a trademark in the US to “teach the couple a lesson about planning.” However, since the Royal family has smart lawyers, they had already applied to the World Intellectual Property Organisaton. The up to a hundred other cases all over the world are pending, but it’s likely Harry and Meghan’s claim will quash the others.

 

“But nobody has ever DONE THIS BEFORE, it is certainly only because the Ugly American™ is planning on monetizing their titles and selling things with the name on it!”

 

Harry, Kate and William registered their names and titles as trademarks way back in 2013, complete with much the same list of goods, services, etc. that they reserved the right to use their name and/or title on. “The Royal Foundation of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge” is also trademarked, meaning “Royal Foundation” is trademarked as well. Same list of goods and services, too.

 

In short (too late): the breathless coverage of “Royal Sussex” being trademarked is absurd. Harry and Meghan are doing exactly the same thing as other members of the royal family, for the same reason: they don’t want companies slapping their personal names, titles, faces, etc on anything handy and cashing in on it. This is something that public figures do so routinely that there’s lawyers who specialize in that area of law.

 

 

link to an article in “World Trademark Review” on the various attempts around the world to swipe the “Sussex Royal” name and trademark it. The IP and trademark community seems very sympathetic to H&M, presumably because they know EXACTLY what a pain in the ass this is for them.

(I keep trying to do the link right and screwing it up, I’m sorry.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blahblah]

35 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Exactly. My biggest takeaway was that Meghan needs to double check her carrier or get a baby wearing consultation. Because no matter how bumpy the way abc how much baby wiggles it would never hang that lopsided in a correctly adjusted carrier....

Yet there are “baby experts” all over the place arguing that Archie is secure because she is cradling his head in her arm, and he isn’t crying or wriggling. 

My recollection of these carriers is that the shoulder straps are connected together at the back so they can’t slip off your shoulders. The baby carrying pouch can be opened at one side, so you put the carrier on like a jacket then pick up the baby and slide them in and secure them. 

One strap is falling off Meghan’s shoulder - so it looks like the straps aren’t secured together and she has possibly popped the carrier on like a reverse backpack by just sliding her arms through the straps.

Personally, I’d want that thing as tight as possible given that she is also controlling two leashed dogs who could lurch or run unpredictably, as dogs do.

And meanwhile, back at the palace, another grandchild is cashing in....

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/chinese-milk-ad-fuels-debate-over-harry-and-meghans-sussex-royal-brand/news-story/d7b5d438a3a5547f09c09716ed87a87d

[tabitha2]

Peter Phillips is not Royal just a Royal relation so the Crown can’t stop him from making bank with his image.

[Blahblah]

1 minute ago, tabitha2 said:

Peter Phillips is not Royal just a Royal relation so the Crown can’t stop him from making bank with his image.

It’s his reference to his royal connections that is the issue, not the use of his image.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

15 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

It’s his reference to his royal connections that is the issue, not the use of his image.

Exactly.  In that as his image is only revelant, and therefore valuable, due to his status as a member of the royal family.  I don’t understand the hairsplitting.

[bird]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:18 PM, AmazonGrace said:

I am woefully undereducated as to which charities the royals patronize but sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper and more effective to forget the galas and the security and the castles and the dersses and the flying around to attend events, and just donate all that money to the worthy cause. Do they really help raise more money to the charities than it costs to keep up the royal family?

I think along the same lines every time I bake for a charity cake sale...

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, bird said:

I think along the same lines every time I bake for a charity cake sale...

Homemade chocolate eclairs...definitely.  

[bird]

12 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Homemade chocolate eclairs...definitely.  

When they sell them for 50p each despite the ingredients costing around £1 each...

[GreyhoundFan]

If this was already posted and I missed it, my apologies. Dad is talking to the press again: "Estranged dad Thomas Markle calls Meghan and Harry ‘lost souls’ who are ‘cheapening’ the royal family to make money"

Quote

LONDON — Thomas Markle, the estranged father of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, appeared on a British television documentary Wednesday night and said he thinks Prince Harry and his daughter are "cheapening" the royal family for money to make money.

The interview made for uncomfortable watching, and comes as Harry and Meghan surrender their “royal highness” titles and end their roles as “senior working royals,” to seek “financial independence” in new lives split between Canada — where they are now — and Britain.

The 1½ -hour-long documentary, “Thomas Markle: My Story,” aired on Britain’s Channel 5. It showcased Meghan’s 75-year-old father venting about his daughter, alternately saying quite harsh and quite needful things.

“I can’t see her reaching out to me, especially now,” Markle said. “I think both of them are turning into lost souls at this point.”

He said, “I don’t know what they’re looking for. I don’t think they know what they are looking for.”

On camera, Markle says he was paid to tell his story to the Chanel 5 broadcaster — and threatens to keep selling his story. “I’m going to defend myself and I’m going to be paid for it,” he said. “I don’t care. At this point they owe me. The royals owe me. Harry owes me. Meghan owes me. For what I’ve been through, I should be rewarded.”

Markle was speaking of being tricked by paparazzi and being portrayed as a “big fat slob” and an alcoholic. He suffered a heart attack from the stress, he says, and never heard from Meghan or Harry when he was in the hospital. Not a card. No flowers, he says.

In the documentary, Markle trashes his daughter while proclaiming his love. Many might find it must-see but sad TV, on a channel that features “Dogs Behaving (Very) Badly” and “Bad Girls Behind Bars.”

Markle, a retired TV lighting director living in Mexico, imagines his own death. “The last time they might see me is being lowered into the ground,” said Meghan’s father, who has struggled with multiple health issues.

He said that Meghan long ago promised him she would look after him in his senior years. “I’m 75 years old,” Markle said. “It’s time to look after daddy.”

The retiree said he lives off $5,600 a month, though he said he did receive $20,000 from Meghan. He said he paid for her university and apartment rentals when she was getting started.

Markle says he has been cast aside by the couple and the palace: “I don’t think at this point they’re thrilled to see me or want to talk to me.”

He confesses that he sold photos of himself to the paparazzi before his daughter’s wedding — and is still making money off the images. “Absolutely. Because those pictures will sell forever,” he told the broadcaster. He posed for the photographs to better control his image, Markle said.

For many, Markle plays the villain. Others think he has been treated shabbily.

He is, for sure, the dad who won’t shut up — despite Meghan’s pleas. In a letter leaked to the British tabloids last year, Meghan begged her father to stop talking to the press, saying, “your actions have broken my heart into a million pieces.”

The Duchess of Sussex is now suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing the letter. The Mail has responded in court that Meghan assumed her letter would be widely distributed and that her personal life, as a senior royal, was newsworthy.

In the days before his daughter’s wedding, which garnered an estimated 1.9 billion viewers, Markle played an offstage but dramatic role, saying he both wanted to come to the celebration but was either too sick to travel to England or not really wanted.

In the end, only Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, attended. Meghan walked solo partway down the aisle before being accompanied by Harry’s father, Prince Charles.

In his remarks, Markle suggests that his daughter has thrown a good thing away.

“Every young girl wants to become a princess, and she got that, and now . . . it looks like she’s tossing that away for money,” he told Channel 5.

Yet Meghan isn’t a young girl. At 38, she’s a previously divorced, successful American actress, with a new husband and an 8-month-old son.

Her husband is worth an estimated $30 million, inherited from his mother, Princess Diana, and his great-grandmother, the queen mother. Meghan is thought to have made $6 million from her years on the television show “Suits.”

What they could earn as financially independent global “influencers” is unknown. Although they will no longer be working royals, they will be expected to conduct themselves in a way that doesn’t reflect badly on the royal family.

On the Channel 5 broadcast, Markle refers to the $3 million home renovation done at taxpayer expense for the couple’s home in England, Frogmore Cottage, a five-bedroom historic mansion near Windsor Castle.

“Apparently $3 million and a 26-bedroom home isn’t enough for them. It’s kind of embarrassing to me,” said Markle, confusing the number of bedrooms at Kensington Palace, Harry and Meghan’s former abode.

In a promotional clip before the show was aired, Markle complained that Harry and Meghan were turning the royal family into “a Walmart with a crown on it.”

In remarks before a private audience on Sunday night that were promoted on the couple’s new SussexRoyal social media sites, Harry said the couple were “taking a leap of faith” in stepping away from their duties as senior royals, but added, “There really was no other option.”

Harry said that away from the palace and their royal lives, the couple hoped for “a more peaceful life.”

The 35-year-old prince called the news media “a powerful force” that needs to be countered and suggested that intrusions by the press were one of the reasons they chose to quit their royal roles and go to Canada.

This statement: “The last time they might see me is being lowered into the ground,” is curious. Wouldn't the last time most of us see a family member be when they are buried? Such a weird interview.

[Blahblah]

8 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Exactly.  In that as his image is only revelant, and therefore valuable, due to his status as a member of the royal family.  I don’t understand the hairsplitting.

Me neither but that seems to be how it works. 

[kachuu]

I've spent some time on youtube lately seeing the UK's coverage of Meghan & I have to say....it's quite nasty. She gets blamed for everything & Harry is cheapened as a man who can't speak for himself or is in charge of his own decisions. It's wild.

Clearly, they want privacy. But that isn't going to happen right now when the news is still fresh & media can get "clicks" over every-little-thing.

But i can't look away from this circus. It's insane!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

40 minutes ago, kachuu said:

I've spent some time on youtube lately seeing the UK's coverage of Meghan & I have to say....it's quite nasty. She gets blamed for everything & Harry is cheapened as a man who can't speak for himself or is in charge of his own decisions. It's wild.

Clearly, they want privacy. But that isn't going to happen right now when the news is still fresh & media can get "clicks" over every-little-thing.

But i can't look away from this circus. It's insane!

I saw one vid from British TV where there was a black woman on the panel trying to explain how racism shouldn't be softened with euphemistic terms and the other woman, expert on the royal family, kept calling the racist things in the press "inappropriate."  But she was visibly cringing at the other woman explaining how racism needs to be addressed in order to be stopped.  

[viii]

49 minutes ago, kachuu said:

I've spent some time on youtube lately seeing the UK's coverage of Meghan & I have to say....it's quite nasty. She gets blamed for everything & Harry is cheapened as a man who can't speak for himself or is in charge of his own decisions. It's wild.

Yeah, that sort of thinking extends beyond youtube to the medial in general. Hell, there's even some people commenting here who have picked up this stance, and it's beyond ridiculous.