Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

[Anonymous]

Did Meghan really "trash" the royal family during the Oprah interview? She had a lot of pointed criticisms about the "firm" and the "institution", but if anyone was lobbing direct attacks against the actual members of the family, it was Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did Meghan really "trash" the royal family during the Oprah interview? She had a lot of pointed criticisms about the "firm" and the "institution", but if anyone was lobbing direct attacks against the actual members of the family, it was Harry.

Yes, they both did. Meghan's anonymous attacks smeared everyone. As did Harry's griping.

It was quite an interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

I am genuinely asking, not a fan of anyone in case I get attacked, do you have legit sources for the claim that they wanted to monetize and not prevent unauthorized use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

I am genuinely asking, not a fan of anyone in case I get attacked, do you have legit sources for the claim that they wanted to monetize and not prevent unauthorized use?

For example:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-they-lose-sussex-royal-how-will-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-make-money-5

And

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/01/14/prospects-for-harry-and-meghans-sussex-royal-brand/

Also, their website changed before and after they got in trouble for their use of the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

It’s not so much that she shouldn’t be allowed to use it - you would think that a family she accused of being racist on national tv- one which did not help her when she claims was suicidal - one which she voluntarily left because she felt she had no “voice” - that she herself would want to shed her royal title.

It’s bizarre to me that she still holds herself out as the duchess of Sussex when she’s eschewed all the responsibilities that come with that title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A children's book with her royal title on it. It's just so tacky and ridiculous. I don't care enough to look up whether they are donating the money.

So. Ridiculous.

Which part of the royalty is not tacky, gaudy and ridiculous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

I am genuinely asking, not a fan of anyone in case I get attacked, do you have legit sources for the claim that they wanted to monetize and not prevent unauthorized use?

For example:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-they-lose-sussex-royal-how-will-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-make-money-5

And

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/01/14/prospects-for-harry-and-meghans-sussex-royal-brand/

Also, their website changed before and after they got in trouble for their use of the name.

How is that different from the "Kensington Royal" brand? Or the Royal Foundation brand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

I am genuinely asking, not a fan of anyone in case I get attacked, do you have legit sources for the claim that they wanted to monetize and not prevent unauthorized use?

For example:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-they-lose-sussex-royal-how-will-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-make-money-5

And

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/01/14/prospects-for-harry-and-meghans-sussex-royal-brand/

Also, their website changed before and after they got in trouble for their use of the name.

How is that different from the "Kensington Royal" brand? Or the Royal Foundation brand?

Using Sussex Royal to benefit themselves instead of the BRF? How is it the same?

Meghan was a influencer and wanted to be an influencer using the Sussex Royal brand. The queen said No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry could care less about the applause from all the celebrity hanger-ins (though Megan has stars in her eyes). The soldiers and the British are his true crowd and the only applause that matters. I bet he misses it keenly.

Oh, I bet that getting applause felt a lot nicer than the boos he was getting back in England before he left. Even if the applause is from American health care workers instead of British soldiers and vets.

You think he knows he's in the wrong place? I don't think he's figured that out. For his sake, it might be best if he never does.

Was he getting boos back in England before he left?

And who's to say he's in the wrong place? Why are you the arbiter of that?

There are no incidents of Harry getting booed in England.

However there are hundreds of tabloid stories about the “concern” that if he returns he will get booed from the crowds. The stories are written to make it seem as if it’s something that’s actually happening, but if you read closely it’s all about “the possibility” that it could happen. The royal Rota just can’t let it go.

The other rumor they’re encouraging is that Harry didn’t actually get a standing ovation at the VaxLive concert—despite video evidence to the contrary. There are conspiracy theories that there were no seats so everyone was standing anyways. Photos easily show this is false. Then they’re trying to claim that the audience was paid to stand and cheer. It’s really amazing how far they’re willing to go to try to control the narrative that Harry is not popular.

Sorry that reality isn't as neat as you want it to be. Before H&M left the UK, they were getting booed. Poor Harry. It must have been awful.

Would he be booed if he returned? I have no idea. Nor do I spend a lot of time listening to internet rumors speculating about it.

You literally started a post about those rumors...

Again, I’m sorry if you’re not able to read the articles, they really are written to mislead and it’s working! The only event he attended in England in the past year is his grandfather’s funeral. People were NOT booing, but to be fair the public also wasn’t invited.

Lol, I'm glad people are calling out the delusional Meghan/Harry bashers who apparently can't even keep up with their own illogic and mistruths.

Yes, in 2019 and early 2020, H&M were booed in England

Now Harry got a standing ovation in the US. That's not a mistruth.

What's the source for them getting booed? Is there footage?

And you said yourself that you don't "spend a lot of time listening to internet rumors speculating about it" while doing exactly that. So you come off as a bit of a buffoon.

Posting about what happened in the past isn't speculation about what might happen in the future...

You literally just peddled an internet rumor yourself. Again, where's the evidence that they were booed? I'm genuinely asking since I'm curious.

If I thought you were genuinely curious, I could post some links. Since I've been called several names already just posting about something previously-uncontested that happened in the past, I will leave your choice to google to you.

This isn't the Only Fans thread, I thought we were a bit more grounded here. Guess not.

You come off as awfully thin-skinned, simply for getting called out for your weird BS.

Harry got a standing ovation in England right before he left...

And another standing ovation at his first event in the United States.

Oh but this doesn't square up with what their haters want to believe so desperately. Hm.

The royals always receive a standing ovation wherever they go. I was in a little village in Cornwall when Charles and Camilla breezed through a few years ago. They walked into a local restaurant owned by a London chef and diners and the staff gave them a standing ovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A children's book with her royal title on it. It's just so tacky and ridiculous. I don't care enough to look up whether they are donating the money.

So. Ridiculous.

Incredibly tacky.

Proving the point.

The only one I might give a pass to is Charles who was born into it and didn't "flee to a California megamansion to reclaim privacy/freedom/whatever." Fergie is also ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

I must’ve missed the part where the Cambridges bolted the BRF.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with the Cambridges using the titles because they are still part of the BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A children's book with her royal title on it. It's just so tacky and ridiculous. I don't care enough to look up whether they are donating the money.

So. Ridiculous.

Incredibly tacky.

These are vanity publications. The genuine books were written by Prince Philip, particularly his ornithology books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BRF is so bad why does Meghan continue to use the royal title? Why is she allowed to? The titles should have ended when their other ties were cut.

Right? No title nothing to trade on. What happened to "Just Harry"? That was the first thing they did was try to trademark "Sussex Royal" until the Queen intervened.

Didn't the Cambridges also register a trademark for their name?

Yep. It also keeps random people from registering and using it, in addition to any plans they might have to use it themselves. It’s pretty standard.

Then it begs the question why Meghan and Harry received so. much. flak for doing the same, to the extent that it still gets referenced in online forums like these, years later.

They wanted to monetize the trademark, not prevent unauthorized use. This was all public. You don't need to pretend it didn't happen.

I am genuinely asking, not a fan of anyone in case I get attacked, do you have legit sources for the claim that they wanted to monetize and not prevent unauthorized use?

For example:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-they-lose-sussex-royal-how-will-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-make-money-5

And

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/01/14/prospects-for-harry-and-meghans-sussex-royal-brand/

Also, their website changed before and after they got in trouble for their use of the name.

How is that different from the "Kensington Royal" brand? Or the Royal Foundation brand?

Using Sussex Royal to benefit themselves instead of the BRF? How is it the same?

Meghan was a influencer and wanted to be an influencer using the Sussex Royal brand. The queen said No.

This sounds like a spin. So Will & Kate are able to trademark their brands but Meghan & Harry aren't based on some ill-defined measure of what benefits "the royal family" vs. "themselves". Gotcha.