Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Charles supposedly is considering being George VII in honor of his grandfather and great-grandfather. He’s also fond of George III, who he thinks has gotten an undeserved bad reputation.

I also remember his statement about living in BP. It had gotten into the press that he was thinking about continuing to live at Clarence House as king. My guess is that he was made to issue the statement, because the Queen was about to spend a lot of money on the Buckingham Palace renovation, and their advisors didn’t want politicians pointing out that it could be unnecessary.

[just_ordinary]

I don’t get the BP issue though. Lots of HoS don’t actually live in their assigned residence. They have the offices, it’s used for official engagements and receptions and they have a small apartment but they don’t actually live there. Which, in theory should be a good solution. If they have a private home, the public shouldn’t have to pay for redecorations for their personal taste. It’s less of a struggle with monarchies as the occupation time frame is longer (no gold wallpapers that start slipping after 6 months or so ahem).

If the UK wants to keep BP as the official residence of the HoS or even just because of its history (like Versailles or the Tower) those massive renovations have to take place anyway. Maintaining old buildings with minimal effort only works so long. There comes the time you have to go big into the structure and it’s painful, money and time consuming. People owing timbre houses can tell you the same when it’s finally time to replace certain elements (changing a structural key piece is insane), even though it has long time frames (sometimes several hundred years) to not every owner will have to face this.

Edited April 2, 2022 by just_ordinary

[MamaJunebug]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

no gold wallpapers that start slipping after 6 months or so ahem).

Backstory, please???

Signed,

Intrigued (and slightly appalled!)

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Backstory, please???

Signed,

Intrigued (and slightly appalled!)

The current PM Boris Johnson and his wife, accumulated a very high bill in renovating Downing Street No.10. There were lots of questions regarding the money spend and lots of ridicule for some decisions. The unbelievable expensive golden wallpaper peeling off the wall shortly after it was installed was just too good of a story to not make fun off.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-840-24138399.amp

Edited April 2, 2022 by just_ordinary

[MamaJunebug]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The current PM Boris Johnson and his wife, accumulated a very high bill in renovating Downing Street No.10. There were lots of questions regarding the money spend and lots of ridicule for some decisions. The unbelievable expensive golden wallpaper peeling off the wall shortly after it was installed was just too good of a story to not make fun off.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-840-24138399.amp

You have given me another 10 minutes to be spent reading and not getting to my Saturday chores,, THANK YOU!!! 

[louisa05]

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The current PM Boris Johnson and his wife, accumulated a very high bill in renovating Downing Street No.10. There were lots of questions regarding the money spend and lots of ridicule for some decisions. The unbelievable expensive golden wallpaper peeling off the wall shortly after it was installed was just too good of a story to not make fun off.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-840-24138399.amp

Was the wallpaper from Trump Interiors? 

On 3/30/2022 at 9:01 PM, just_ordinary said:

I don’t know. That’s exactly what they said about Elizabeth and Margaret and Wiliam and Harry. Just because you are publicly more open and at ease doesn’t mean you would cope better or do a better job. We also talk about children. A lot might change. Maybe there won’t be a monarchy after all when it’s his time. Maybe he steps back to pursue other things. Maybe Charlotte turns out to be a vain, silly and utterly unsuited person.
 

All I see are three children. Very different from one another. That are already victim to scrutiny about their character and suitability. Which is sad. 

And Harry would make such a fine king…..🤣🙄

[KnittingOwl]

On 3/31/2022 at 7:47 PM, viii said:

It’s unlikely Charles or William would choose a different name. It’s possible but Charles especially has been known as Charles for 73 years. It would be a huge adjustment. I just don’t see either of them doing it. 

I remember hearing that Charles would most likely choose another reveal name because of Charles I and Charles II. Charles I was executed. Charles II restored the monarchy, but was alleged to be a Catholic and left the throne to James II who was definitely a Catholic. 

[viii]

10 hours ago, louisa05 said:

And Harry would make such a fine king…..🤣🙄

Harry would be singing a different song if he was going to be king, IMO. 

[adidas]

Oh Megs. Never change! 🤣🤣🤣

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markle-files-to-trademark-word-archetypes-the-title-of-her-spotify-podcast/news-story/a8254242e75fcd179f66f3991d0c2003

Meghan Markle has filed to trademark the word ‘archetypes’, after announcing it was to be the title of her debut Spotify podcast.

The 40-year-old made the application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in March.

If approved, it would ban anyone else from using the word, which first entered into the English language in the 1540s.

[viii]

I’d really love to see who exactly is going, “Brilliant idea, Megs, keep it up!”  
 

 

[anjulibai]

Eh, this is sort of standard procedure for a lot of different businesses. Trademark is very complicated and this is likely being done at the suggestion of her business lawyers. 

[viii]

But I don’t think you can trademark an actual word, even if it’s not super common. 

[anjulibai]

1 hour ago, viii said:

But I don’t think you can trademark an actual word, even if it’s not super common. 

You might, it really depends. Often the filing of copyrights is done to find out if someone else owns the copyright and in what capacity (it may only cover a specific type of product, for example), and whether or not something rises to the level of being copyright-able. 

I am not a lawyer, of course, but I do know that lots of companies will file for copyrights for all sorts of things. Will it be granted? Maybe, maybe not, but there's long term financial value in finding that out and doing so quickly. 

It's entirely possible that a copyright for Archetypes could be granted in the limited area of podcasts, depending on the circumstances. 

I don't know if anyone knows the Youtuber Simply Nailogical. She started out doing nail art and now has her own nail polish business. She and her partner have a podcast called Simply Podlogical, and they did an episode talking about copyright and their experiences with it. They explain really well why people and companies file copyright on a lot of different things. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by anjulibai

[EmCatlyn]

On 3/24/2022 at 8:05 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Meghan is finally doing something to fulfill the Spotify/Archewell Audio contract. It’s a podcast about stereotypes about women. It’s called “Archetypes.” 🙄

That’s fine.  What isn’t fine, in my opinion, is trying to trademark the word “archetypes.”

I get it that she loves the root “arche” and all that, but the term “archetype” is part of ordinary language.  She shouldn’t be allowed to build a fence around its use.  

[EmCatlyn]

On 4/5/2022 at 7:36 PM, adidas said:

Oh Megs. Never change! 🤣🤣🤣

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markle-files-to-trademark-word-archetypes-the-title-of-her-spotify-podcast/news-story/a8254242e75fcd179f66f3991d0c2003

Meghan Markle has filed to trademark the word ‘archetypes’, after announcing it was to be the title of her debut Spotify podcast.

The 40-year-old made the application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in March.

If approved, it would ban anyone else from using the word, which first entered into the English language in the 1540s.

It can’t exactly ban people from using the word.  We can use “Coca Cola” and “Scotch Tape” in conversation all we want. We just can only use it for the products of those companies.  That is, we can’t put up a sign that says, “We have Coke,” when we only have Pepsi.

The way trademark works is you can still use the word in other contexts than the context of the trademark. 

I am sure this was advised by lawyers, but I am not sure how it would work since the word has many different uses.  It might confuse some people.  

There are already several books, card games, etc. titled “Archetype,” but trademark is not the same as copyright.  

I hope they turn her down because otherwise the word “Archetype” in connection to podcasts and similar products would be limited to their product. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Clarify

[KnittingOwl]

To get approved for a trademark, my understanding is that you have to prove there is not other usage of the word (or that your usage precedes them). A cursory search found the “Drafting Archetypes,” “The Archetypal Tarot,” and “Brand Archetypes” podcasts. Meghan really isn’t as original as she things she is 

[DalmatianCat]

10 hours ago, KnittingOwl said:

Meghan really isn’t as original as she things she is 

That describes so many of Meghan’s projects.

Sometimes it’s hard to remember if it was Harry or Meghan who was raised in a bubble. Lately it’s Harry who occasionally acknowledges that he grew up extraordinarily privileged.

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

That describes so many of Meghan’s projects.

Sometimes it’s hard to remember if it was Harry or Meghan who was raised in a bubble. Lately it’s Harry who occasionally acknowledges that he grew up extraordinarily privileged.

I am sure Meghan reminds him how privileged he was whenever they discuss how she really needs another swimming pool or a new house.  

[EmCatlyn]

15 hours ago, KnittingOwl said:

To get approved for a trademark, my understanding is that you have to prove there is not other usage of the word (or that your usage precedes them). A cursory search found the “Drafting Archetypes,” “The Archetypal Tarot,” and “Brand Archetypes” podcasts. Meghan really isn’t as original as she things she is 

Yeah, I am hoping they will turn her request down.  The way they are using the word is more important than whether it has been used before.  

“Archetypes” for a brand of coffee or ice cream would be fine.  There is no other use of “archetype” in relation to the food industry, as far as I know.

 “Archetypes” for a podcast about what archetypes are would probably not be accepted. It is too much trying to trademark a commonly used word in its regular sense.

The problem might be if (for example) they can argue that “Archetype” in their podcasts will be used as a verb to refer to the process by which people link their stories to archetypes.  They would then be using the word in a new way.

Hopefully, their argument, whatever it is, will not convince because I like talking about archetypes and I fear they will totally skew out the meaning.

Edited April 8, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Remove dangling phrase

[louisa05]

@EmCatlyn In the preview, she’s not even talking about archetypes. She’s talking about stereotypes and sexist expectations.  But leave it to the oh so very educated Megsy to have no idea what the word means. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

The trademark application seeks to prevent others from using the word “archetypes” in various entertainment services, such as podcasts, on-demand streaming media, live stage performances and webcasts, Fox News said. The trademark also would apply to services “in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women,” the Times U.K. added.  (SiliconValley.com  April 8, 2022 )

This really bothers me because “services in the fields of cultural treatment of women” is awfully broad.   I really hope she gets turned down.  If she wants to trademark “Archetype Media” that’s one thing, but any broader than that and she is encroaching on research and scholarly discourse. (Anthropology, Cognitive Psychology, Religious Studies, and Literature are some fields that deal with archetypes in one way or another. )

Further, stereotypes are not the same as archetypes, and archetypes are not primarily focused on women.  I wonder if Meghan knows this.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Date was rendered as a smiley! Had to fix.

[LilaMae]

2 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

This really bothers me because “services in the fields of cultural treatment of women” is awfully broad.   I really hope she gets turned down.  If she wants to trademark “Archetype Media” that’s one thing, but any broader than that and she is encroaching on research and scholarly discourse. (Anthropology, Cognitive Psychology, Religious Studies, and Literature are some fields that deal with archetypes in one way or another. )

Further, stereotypes are not the same as archetypes, and archetypes are not primarily focused on women.  I wonder if Meghan knows this.

I expect she wanted the Arche- prefix even if it didn't make any real sense.

Is it unusual to have a trademark just for the name of a podcast series? I can understand maybe trademarking the name "Archewell" because it's a wider production company/foundation, but just a minor Spotify series? 

[EmCatlyn]

7 minutes ago, LilaMae said:

I expect she wanted the Arche- prefix even if it didn't make any real sense.

Is it unusual to have a trademark just for the name of a podcast series? I can understand maybe trademarking the name "Archewell" because it's a wider production company/foundation, but just a minor Spotify series? 

I think she doesn’t know that “stereotype” isn’t a lesser variety of archetype.  I had a lot of trouble clearing up this misconception for my students.

She really is too fond of the “arche” prefix without fully understanding it. 

[Coconut Flan]

3 hours ago, LilaMae said:

I expect she wanted the Arche- prefix even if it didn't make any real sense.

She's of an age where twee does not look good.  She needs to get over herself and the cutesies. 

[EmCatlyn]

49 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

She's of an age where twee does not look good.  She needs to get over herself and the cutesies. 

I don’t think this is about “cutesies.”  I think she somewhere ran into the Greek root “arche” and decided it had special meaning for her.

Quote

iSource

..’Arche’—the Greek word meaning ‘source of action’” they told The Telegraph. “We connected to this concept for the charitable organization we hoped to build one day, and it became the inspiration for our son’s name. To do something of meaning, to do something that matters.”

They went on to explain how “Arche” led them to create the moniker “Archewell,” saying, “Archwell is a name that combines an ancient word for strength and action, and another that evokes the deep resources we each must draw upon.”  

Anyway, that is a very limited meaning of the root word, but that’s what they seem to be thinking.