Trying to understand Nicola Peltz Beckham

[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:I think when a man gets married he generally tends to side with his wife's side. My ds is not even married, his girlfriend is lovely but I see it already. Her side is favored. We're easy going people so it's fine, but I imagine if I were more of a dramatic, diva person who liked things my way, there'd be major clashing over things, little slights can become mountains and resentment accumulates. Now throw in billionaire tantrums and expectations, immaturity, social media and public interest and it's a perfect storm for a huge mess of a situation.

Is her side favored or is she the one who does all the planning for gifts, visits, phone calls, etc.

+1. Many men hate talking, planning, etc. And they are so conflict avoidant they would rather not raise something to their mom and skip a visit altogether than have an actual conversation about an issue (which may not even be a huge issue- something like "Hey DW is allergic to your dog and can't stay overnight there unless you board the dog.")

It's not like either of them are working. They aren't like you, living paycheck to paycheck. They have nothing else to do but hang out with their parents who foot all the bills.

Who are you replying to and what are you even talking about?

Who are you? Are you suggesting these two unemployed layabouts favored one side over the other because of all the work that goes into maintaining a relationship? As if they are too busy?

I think someone made an OT post about DILs generally favoring their own families and others chimed in saying it may look like that but the sons have agency too. I don't think anyone has compared their financial situation to the Peltz Beckhams.

Comparing them to other couples and the division of labor/mental load implies that they are somehow like normal couples. They aren't at all. Buying gifts and making phone calls are things stressed out people who have limited means and time worry about. That doesn't apply to this couple at all.

That wasn't the point. The point was daughters usually favor their own birth families and if in laws are unhappy about it, they should blame their sons for not doing more to maintain a relationship rather than blame their daughter in law.

Do you really think it is Brooklyn who has been fretting about a wedding dress for 4 years?

You still don't get it, do you?

You’re the only one pushing this weird point. Let it go.

Lol, says the person who keeps replying.

Multiple people have replied even the Op who said you missed the point.

[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:I think when a man gets married he generally tends to side with his wife's side. My ds is not even married, his girlfriend is lovely but I see it already. Her side is favored. We're easy going people so it's fine, but I imagine if I were more of a dramatic, diva person who liked things my way, there'd be major clashing over things, little slights can become mountains and resentment accumulates. Now throw in billionaire tantrums and expectations, immaturity, social media and public interest and it's a perfect storm for a huge mess of a situation.

Is her side favored or is she the one who does all the planning for gifts, visits, phone calls, etc.

+1. Many men hate talking, planning, etc. And they are so conflict avoidant they would rather not raise something to their mom and skip a visit altogether than have an actual conversation about an issue (which may not even be a huge issue- something like "Hey DW is allergic to your dog and can't stay overnight there unless you board the dog.")

It's not like either of them are working. They aren't like you, living paycheck to paycheck. They have nothing else to do but hang out with their parents who foot all the bills.

Who are you replying to and what are you even talking about?

Who are you? Are you suggesting these two unemployed layabouts favored one side over the other because of all the work that goes into maintaining a relationship? As if they are too busy?

I think someone made an OT post about DILs generally favoring their own families and others chimed in saying it may look like that but the sons have agency too. I don't think anyone has compared their financial situation to the Peltz Beckhams.

Comparing them to other couples and the division of labor/mental load implies that they are somehow like normal couples. They aren't at all. Buying gifts and making phone calls are things stressed out people who have limited means and time worry about. That doesn't apply to this couple at all.

That wasn't the point. The point was daughters usually favor their own birth families and if in laws are unhappy about it, they should blame their sons for not doing more to maintain a relationship rather than blame their daughter in law.

Do you really think it is Brooklyn who has been fretting about a wedding dress for 4 years?

You still don't get it, do you?

You’re the only one pushing this weird point. Let it go.

Lol, says the person who keeps replying.

Multiple people have replied even the Op who said you missed the point.

Who are you talking to? The person who doesn't get it or the multiple people trying to explain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, can we stop pretending that David and Victoria Beckham are some paragon of class and propriety?

Really?

They're tacky, grasping weirdos. Second only to the Kardashians in their fakeness. Valuable brand my ass. Maybe across the pond, but not in the US.

You can say what you want by they are worth $600 million dollars. That seems valuable to me.

David Beckham’s move to the MLS and parlay of his stint at LA Galaxy into a new MLS franchise practically for free and then turning that franchise into the second most valuable (worth over $1 billion) in a few years is insane. I am sure his advisors are responsible for putting a lot of it together, but he ticked the boxes to meet the conditions that were within his control, he got Mas on board for funding, he convinced Messi to come and worked with the league to craft the deal. He’s notoriously super involved with running the team and they just won the MLS Cup and had the highest revenue of any team last year (near $200 million). Like… he did not just trip into wealth from his also incredibly successful football career.

Victoria Beckham is a notorious workaholic who has also had 2 incredibly successful careers.

The are the opposite of nepo layabouts.

They are seriously impressive. And I'm not even into sports or fashion so not close to their actual careers. But a lot of former athletes and musicians wash out of their initial success rather than parlaying it into something lucrative and long-standing.

[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:I think when a man gets married he generally tends to side with his wife's side. My ds is not even married, his girlfriend is lovely but I see it already. Her side is favored. We're easy going people so it's fine, but I imagine if I were more of a dramatic, diva person who liked things my way, there'd be major clashing over things, little slights can become mountains and resentment accumulates. Now throw in billionaire tantrums and expectations, immaturity, social media and public interest and it's a perfect storm for a huge mess of a situation.

Is her side favored or is she the one who does all the planning for gifts, visits, phone calls, etc.

+1. Many men hate talking, planning, etc. And they are so conflict avoidant they would rather not raise something to their mom and skip a visit altogether than have an actual conversation about an issue (which may not even be a huge issue- something like "Hey DW is allergic to your dog and can't stay overnight there unless you board the dog.")

It's not like either of them are working. They aren't like you, living paycheck to paycheck. They have nothing else to do but hang out with their parents who foot all the bills.

Who are you replying to and what are you even talking about?

Who are you? Are you suggesting these two unemployed layabouts favored one side over the other because of all the work that goes into maintaining a relationship? As if they are too busy?

I think someone made an OT post about DILs generally favoring their own families and others chimed in saying it may look like that but the sons have agency too. I don't think anyone has compared their financial situation to the Peltz Beckhams.

Comparing them to other couples and the division of labor/mental load implies that they are somehow like normal couples. They aren't at all. Buying gifts and making phone calls are things stressed out people who have limited means and time worry about. That doesn't apply to this couple at all.

That wasn't the point. The point was daughters usually favor their own birth families and if in laws are unhappy about it, they should blame their sons for not doing more to maintain a relationship rather than blame their daughter in law.

Do you really think it is Brooklyn who has been fretting about a wedding dress for 4 years?

You still don't get it, do you?

You’re the only one pushing this weird point. Let it go.

Lol, says the person who keeps replying.

Multiple people have replied even the Op who said you missed the point.

Who are you talking to? The person who doesn't get it or the multiple people trying to explain

Maybe take a break. You seem overwhelmed.

[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:I think all celebs have their names (and probably kids names) trademarked. It it to protect them.

I don't know enough about branding or contracts related to name trademarks to have any idea what really happened but given how overdramatized and exaggerated the 'first dance' and ' 11th hour wedding dress' stories are I don't doubt this is more of the same.

I am sure David and Victoria were controlling - they are major public figures. But he didn't exactly strike out on his own. He just jumped into a different rich and famous family with controlling people who have a well documented history of treating others poorly.

Yes, when they were children. Brooklyn wasn’t a child when he married so there was no need to continue to own the trademark for his name.

As many others have said, he’s never really done anything. All of his attempts have petered out.

It sounds like from the article, it wasn't specifically about who owned the trademark. It was about contracts and Brooklyn refused to sign on. Sounds like he already had control. According to the article, the trademark was for ten years and expires in Dec 2026.

Oh even better. He doesn’t need to be part of the family contracts if he doesn’t want to.

No he doesn't and he chose not to. This according to Brooklyn upset D and V as it would have been a better, more lucrative contract if all the kids signed on. Which is fine. They can be disappointed. But to still be moaning about it...let it go. He is 27. He has been an adult for 9 years. Time to grow up.

Its really the lost of control they're mad about. Having a family brand is fine only if you realize your kids are not extensions of you.

That's the thing. Enmeshed families can get pretty peeved if one member decides they need some space.

David and Victoria were both top-notch at the height of their careers. They have spent their life carefully building a brand and supporting causes to make the world a better place. Brooklyn married into a family that seeks to burn this country and the most vulnerable people here and abroad to the ground. I can see why they are concerned for their son AND their brand/legacy.

Okay, but their son didn't choose his family. He may need to strike out on his own. He's not actually required to care one whit about their brand (which is actually his family).

Seems like Victoria and David are controlling. But you can’t control an adult (let alone one with an equally wealthy wife.)

But he does care about the brand because he wants to use it to make money for himself. I guess he’ll be hearing from their lawyers in the future.

If his brand is the actual name his parents gave him, then yes, that’s fair he uses it. Do you want him to call himself Brooklyn Smith?

This isn’t about what he calls himself.

Isn’t it? That seems to be a lot of what Brooklyn’s post was about. The kid has a right to his own name.

That is not at all what the trademark dispute is about…. Although it’s not clear from BB’s insta tantrum that he isn’t also deeply confused.

[Anonymous]

The big tell that Nicola wrote Brooklyn’s screed is the weird bit about his parents trying to insert people from his past back into their life. First, he dated these girls ages ago, not particularly seriously and mostly when he was a minor. One of them he met because she was good friends with his brother; why would it be weird she’s still in the Beckhams’ outer orbit (enough to be invited to one party, which was the alleged sin). More importantly though, there is no way that some 27 year old kid is obsessing over whether his family living in another country very occasionally socializes with his long ago exes. Like, the aren’t bringing them around him — the women in question literally live in England! On the other hand, this is textbook the sort of thing that a controlling wife would fixate on to prove his family’s conspiracy against her. Like it’s actually insane. And obviously her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, can we stop pretending that David and Victoria Beckham are some paragon of class and propriety?

Really?

They're tacky, grasping weirdos. Second only to the Kardashians in their fakeness. Valuable brand my ass. Maybe across the pond, but not in the US.

You can say what you want by they are worth $600 million dollars. That seems valuable to me.

David Beckham’s move to the MLS and parlay of his stint at LA Galaxy into a new MLS franchise practically for free and then turning that franchise into the second most valuable (worth over $1 billion) in a few years is insane. I am sure his advisors are responsible for putting a lot of it together, but he ticked the boxes to meet the conditions that were within his control, he got Mas on board for funding, he convinced Messi to come and worked with the league to craft the deal. He’s notoriously super involved with running the team and they just won the MLS Cup and had the highest revenue of any team last year (near $200 million). Like… he did not just trip into wealth from his also incredibly successful football career.

Victoria Beckham is a notorious workaholic who has also had 2 incredibly successful careers.

The are the opposite of nepo layabouts.

What a load of nonsense. Yeah yeah and Martha Stewart and Beyoncé are geniuses too. You people are so easily duped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, can we stop pretending that David and Victoria Beckham are some paragon of class and propriety?

Really?

They're tacky, grasping weirdos. Second only to the Kardashians in their fakeness. Valuable brand my ass. Maybe across the pond, but not in the US.

You can say what you want by they are worth $600 million dollars. That seems valuable to me.

David Beckham’s move to the MLS and parlay of his stint at LA Galaxy into a new MLS franchise practically for free and then turning that franchise into the second most valuable (worth over $1 billion) in a few years is insane. I am sure his advisors are responsible for putting a lot of it together, but he ticked the boxes to meet the conditions that were within his control, he got Mas on board for funding, he convinced Messi to come and worked with the league to craft the deal. He’s notoriously super involved with running the team and they just won the MLS Cup and had the highest revenue of any team last year (near $200 million). Like… he did not just trip into wealth from his also incredibly successful football career.

Victoria Beckham is a notorious workaholic who has also had 2 incredibly successful careers.

The are the opposite of nepo layabouts.

What a load of nonsense. Yeah yeah and Martha Stewart and Beyoncé are geniuses too. You people are so easily duped.

I mean, yes, Martha Stewart and Beyoncé are also examples of incredibly hard workers who have business savvy. I don’t have as good a sense of how much is them personally vs the ability to pick savvy advisers (the Beckham franchise story was the subject of a fantastic Athletic piece recently), but even the latter is typically not dumb luck.

[Anonymous]

^^ And if you don’t think Beckham personally played a role in landing Messi… well, you are absolutely dead wrong by literally all accounts of how it went down.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I think when a man gets married he generally tends to side with his wife's side. My ds is not even married, his girlfriend is lovely but I see it already. Her side is favored. We're easy going people so it's fine, but I imagine if I were more of a dramatic, diva person who liked things my way, there'd be major clashing over things, little slights can become mountains and resentment accumulates. Now throw in billionaire tantrums and expectations, immaturity, social media and public interest and it's a perfect storm for a huge mess of a situation.

Is her side favored or is she the one who does all the planning for gifts, visits, phone calls, etc.

+1. Many men hate talking, planning, etc. And they are so conflict avoidant they would rather not raise something to their mom and skip a visit altogether than have an actual conversation about an issue (which may not even be a huge issue- something like "Hey DW is allergic to your dog and can't stay overnight there unless you board the dog.")

It's not like either of them are working. They aren't like you, living paycheck to paycheck. They have nothing else to do but hang out with their parents who foot all the bills.

Who are you replying to and what are you even talking about?

Who are you? Are you suggesting these two unemployed layabouts favored one side over the other because of all the work that goes into maintaining a relationship? As if they are too busy?

I think someone made an OT post about DILs generally favoring their own families and others chimed in saying it may look like that but the sons have agency too. I don't think anyone has compared their financial situation to the Peltz Beckhams.

Comparing them to other couples and the division of labor/mental load implies that they are somehow like normal couples. They aren't at all. Buying gifts and making phone calls are things stressed out people who have limited means and time worry about. That doesn't apply to this couple at all.

That wasn't the point. The point was daughters usually favor their own birth families and if in laws are unhappy about it, they should blame their sons for not doing more to maintain a relationship rather than blame their daughter in law.

Do you really think it is Brooklyn who has been fretting about a wedding dress for 4 years?

You still don't get it, do you?

You’re the only one pushing this weird point. Let it go.

Lol, says the person who keeps replying.

Multiple people have replied even the Op who said you missed the point.

Who are you talking to? The person who doesn't get it or the multiple people trying to explain

Maybe take a break. You seem overwhelmed.

Honey put down the wine glass. You are telling at a wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, can we stop pretending that David and Victoria Beckham are some paragon of class and propriety?

Really?

They're tacky, grasping weirdos. Second only to the Kardashians in their fakeness. Valuable brand my ass. Maybe across the pond, but not in the US.

You can say what you want by they are worth $600 million dollars. That seems valuable to me.

David Beckham’s move to the MLS and parlay of his stint at LA Galaxy into a new MLS franchise practically for free and then turning that franchise into the second most valuable (worth over $1 billion) in a few years is insane. I am sure his advisors are responsible for putting a lot of it together, but he ticked the boxes to meet the conditions that were within his control, he got Mas on board for funding, he convinced Messi to come and worked with the league to craft the deal. He’s notoriously super involved with running the team and they just won the MLS Cup and had the highest revenue of any team last year (near $200 million). Like… he did not just trip into wealth from his also incredibly successful football career.

Victoria Beckham is a notorious workaholic who has also had 2 incredibly successful careers.

The are the opposite of nepo layabouts.

Unfortunately the apple fell far from the tree with their son.

[Anonymous]

Nicola dated that Hadid kid too, right? He was several years younger and became isolated from his family.

Seems like she has a script.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think when a man gets married he generally tends to side with his wife's side. My ds is not even married, his girlfriend is lovely but I see it already. Her side is favored. We're easy going people so it's fine, but I imagine if I were more of a dramatic, diva person who liked things my way, there'd be major clashing over things, little slights can become mountains and resentment accumulates. Now throw in billionaire tantrums and expectations, immaturity, social media and public interest and it's a perfect storm for a huge mess of a situation.

Is her side favored or is she the one who does all the planning for gifts, visits, phone calls, etc.

+1. Many men hate talking, planning, etc. And they are so conflict avoidant they would rather not raise something to their mom and skip a visit altogether than have an actual conversation about an issue (which may not even be a huge issue- something like "Hey DW is allergic to your dog and can't stay overnight there unless you board the dog.")

It's not like either of them are working. They aren't like you, living paycheck to paycheck. They have nothing else to do but hang out with their parents who foot all the bills.

Who are you replying to and what are you even talking about?

Who are you? Are you suggesting these two unemployed layabouts favored one side over the other because of all the work that goes into maintaining a relationship? As if they are too busy?

I think someone made an OT post about DILs generally favoring their own families and others chimed in saying it may look like that but the sons have agency too. I don't think anyone has compared their financial situation to the Peltz Beckhams.

Comparing them to other couples and the division of labor/mental load implies that they are somehow like normal couples. They aren't at all. Buying gifts and making phone calls are things stressed out people who have limited means and time worry about. That doesn't apply to this couple at all.

That wasn't the point. The point was daughters usually favor their own birth families and if in laws are unhappy about it, they should blame their sons for not doing more to maintain a relationship rather than blame their daughter in law.

Do you really think it is Brooklyn who has been fretting about a wedding dress for 4 years?

You still don't get it, do you?

You’re the only one pushing this weird point. Let it go.

Lol, says the person who keeps replying.

Multiple people have replied even the Op who said you missed the point.

Who are you talking to? The person who doesn't get it or the multiple people trying to explain

Maybe take a break. You seem overwhelmed.

Honey put down the wine glass. You are telling at a wall.

Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nicola dated that Hadid kid too, right? He was several years younger and became isolated from his family.

Seems like she has a script.

We usually consider that the script of a domestic abuser.

[Anonymous]

How many famous couples have normal kids? I give them more props than these people. Maybe the Ripa's and Wahlberg kids? Or are they not wealthy enough?