Trying to understand Nicola Peltz Beckham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nicola Peltz is young, beautiful and obviously rich. Why did she settle for this clown? Her mother married well, she should’ve taken tips from her.

Because wealth isn't enough for these vapid young people. They want celebrity more than anything. Did anything know who she was before she married into the Beckham family? Right.


Look I'm perfectly prepared to believe the Beckham parents are narcissistic and image-obsessed, and that Victoria could not stand to be displaced by a young woman her eldest son is besotted with. But the press seems to be coming entirely from the kids, with Brooklyn parroting his wife's concerns. I guess that's what happens when you raise a weak trustfund kid with no mind of his own. Don't be surprised when the weakness of mind is manipulated by another person against you. They're probably all a-holes but I'm inclined to think Nicola is the worst of them.

The press about this estrangement for the last year + has mostly been from the Beckhams. All the articles overwhelmingly paint the Beckhams as innocent and that they have an evil DIL.

So both sides are annoying and have too much time on their hands. It’s so tacky that both sides are airing their dirty and very privileged laundry publicly. It’s entertaining but I’m embarrassed for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

Sounds like she is (rightly) worried about the Peltz family taking over the Beckham brand and doing what they want with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

That article also says that Brooklyn and Nicola went for dinner last year with Harry and Megan. Bad choice of people to take advice from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

That article also says that Brooklyn and Nicola went for dinner last year with Harry and Megan. Bad choice of people to take advice from.

Yikes, that’s a massive red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

Just going to send this. That's wrong on her part. He's 26 now and she doesn't need to be owner of it anymore

Absolutely. Having the ownership under 18 makes complete sense. He got married in his early 20s. At that point his parents should not be pressuring him to continue to allow them to own his name/brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

Just going to send this. That's wrong on her part. He's 26 now and she doesn't need to be owner of it anymore

Absolutely. Having the ownership under 18 makes complete sense. He got married in his early 20s. At that point his parents should not be pressuring him to continue to allow them to own his name/brand.

Victoria should absolutely assign ownership of the trademark to BB. It’s HIS name. At the same time, there’s no brand there… he hasn’t done anything with that trademark. And didn’t he change his name to include Peltz in his last name? So the trademark is sort of dead anyway…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

Sounds like she is (rightly) worried about the Peltz family taking over the Beckham brand and doing what they want with it.

Thems the breaks for making your brand your name. Same with why she’ll never leave David no matter how many times he cheats on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

Just going to send this. That's wrong on her part. He's 26 now and she doesn't need to be owner of it anymore

Absolutely. Having the ownership under 18 makes complete sense. He got married in his early 20s. At that point his parents should not be pressuring him to continue to allow them to own his name/brand.

Victoria should absolutely assign ownership of the trademark to BB. It’s HIS name. At the same time, there’s no brand there… he hasn’t done anything with that trademark. And didn’t he change his name to include Peltz in his last name? So the trademark is sort of dead anyway…

The signing issue seemed to have happened pre-wedding. They may not have known or believed he was changing his name. He could also return to his original name at any point.

All of it is gross because as you say, it’s his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

Just going to send this. That's wrong on her part. He's 26 now and she doesn't need to be owner of it anymore

Absolutely. Having the ownership under 18 makes complete sense. He got married in his early 20s. At that point his parents should not be pressuring him to continue to allow them to own his name/brand.

They must have known branding (legally) would get complicated once their kids started getting married, but, maybe there is just no way to easily handle it even if you know it could be difficult. The timing for this kind of discussion is terrible. Seems like if each side have attorneys looking after their best interests they could come to some agreement that made business sense and was beneficial for everyone. It's also possible that Brooklyn just didn't want "in" and that infuriated his parents. No way to know the truth at this point. Only way to find out more "real" insight will be if a messy lawsuit ever happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David and Victoria should follow the British Royal family’s approach: say nothing, carry on, let the toddlers tantrum.

Maybe the BRF was feeding info secretly to the press (?) but I think they won the PR war by publicly staying quiet.

PR firms should advise their clients to NOT do exactly what this poor kid (and Harry) did.

At least this "kid" is in his 20s. Harry is full grown man suffering from arrested development. Plenty of other chances for Brooklyn to have a few more tries at a "first dance" in his next wedding(s). How many does one need at one reception?

Please stop with this. Harry served in the British Army for ten years. He wasn't always a layabout a la Brooklyn.

https://blindgossip.com/famous-son-got-very-rough/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

Just going to send this. That's wrong on her part. He's 26 now and she doesn't need to be owner of it anymore

Absolutely. Having the ownership under 18 makes complete sense. He got married in his early 20s. At that point his parents should not be pressuring him to continue to allow them to own his name/brand.

They must have known branding (legally) would get complicated once their kids started getting married, but, maybe there is just no way to easily handle it even if you know it could be difficult. The timing for this kind of discussion is terrible. Seems like if each side have attorneys looking after their best interests they could come to some agreement that made business sense and was beneficial for everyone. It's also possible that Brooklyn just didn't want "in" and that infuriated his parents. No way to know the truth at this point. Only way to find out more "real" insight will be if a messy lawsuit ever happens.

This happened before the wedding. His statement makes it seem like some of the strife with his parents is because he wouldn’t sign over his name. That would be an interesting explanation for their fight, especially given how the Beckhams want to appear as if they are a brand and empire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

Sounds like she is (rightly) worried about the Peltz family taking over the Beckham brand and doing what they want with it.

Thems the breaks for making your brand your name. Same with why she’ll never leave David no matter how many times he cheats on her.

This is also why there isn't that much sympathy for Brooklyn. His parents built an empire he has massively benefited from. If there is any value to the Beckham name it has nothing to do with him or his own hard work and people know that. They aren't going to buy Brooklyn's beer or vodka because who is he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David and Victoria should follow the British Royal family’s approach: say nothing, carry on, let the toddlers tantrum.

Maybe the BRF was feeding info secretly to the press (?) but I think they won the PR war by publicly staying quiet.

PR firms should advise their clients to NOT do exactly what this poor kid (and Harry) did.

At least this "kid" is in his 20s. Harry is full grown man suffering from arrested development. Plenty of other chances for Brooklyn to have a few more tries at a "first dance" in his next wedding(s). How many does one need at one reception?

Please stop with this. Harry served in the British Army for ten years. He wasn't always a layabout a la Brooklyn.

https://blindgossip.com/famous-son-got-very-rough/

that blind item could be Andrew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Victoria owns the trademark to "Brooklyn Beckham" (and all her kids), and it was due to expire. It doesn't sound quite so nefarious,

"Brand and Culture expert Nick Ede added: 'Situations like this are far more common than people realise in high-profile families but they’re usually handled privately, not in the public eye or as explosively as this one

'The Beckham brand has always been both a family and a business. When a name becomes a global commercial asset, legal protections and trademarks are often put in place early on to safeguard future opportunities and avoid third-party exploitation.

Where this becomes emotionally charged is timing and perception. If a conversation around contracts or trademarks happens during a deeply personal moment like a wedding, it can understandably feel overwhelming or misinterpreted particularly if different advisers are giving different interpretations.

'What may be intended as protection can feel like pressure when trust and communication break down which this certainly feels like it is.

'It’s also important to stress that trademark ownership doesn’t equal control over someone’s life or identity it’s about commercial usage in specific categories. These arrangements are usually designed to future-proof the family rather than restrict individual freedom."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15479661/trademark-row-Beckham-feud-Victoria-Brooklyn.html

So the person on the previous page was most likely right. She wanted to be a Kris Jenner and make a nepo baby empire for her kids. She must have been trying to get him to sign an agreement that she can still have the rights and he won't apply for it himself before the wedding.

Sounds like she is (rightly) worried about the Peltz family taking over the Beckham brand and doing what they want with it.

Thems the breaks for making your brand your name. Same with why she’ll never leave David no matter how many times he cheats on her.

This is also why there isn't that much sympathy for Brooklyn. His parents built an empire he has massively benefited from. If there is any value to the Beckham name it has nothing to do with him or his own hard work and people know that. They aren't going to buy Brooklyn's beer or vodka because who is he?

Then their should be no problem letting he has his name trademark