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.

Are we pretending Victoria and David care they're trump supporters

I'm not pretending anything, I am giving my opinion that they are probably embarrassed about it. I'm further stating it's less than flattering for their public image.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, cannot read the entire thread. In the a footage of Victoria’s wedding dance? I need to see it. Thanks!

Apparently all wedding guests had to surrender their phones. If there was a videographer, that would be the only footage.

Worst news of the day!

Apparently, Brooklyn and Nicole own the only footage. I think they'll release it once the fanfare from his IG post dies down and they need more attention, err, privacy!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15481859/Victoria-Beckham-nuzzled-son-Brooklyns-neck-wrapped-arms-inappropriate-dance-saw-devastated-Nicola-Peltz-run-wedding-reception-crying.html

LOL Another young couple seeking privacy by airing dirty laundry and grievances through social media?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, cannot read the entire thread. In the a footage of Victoria’s wedding dance? I need to see it. Thanks!

Apparently all wedding guests had to surrender their phones. If there was a videographer, that would be the only footage.

Worst news of the day!

Apparently, Brooklyn and Nicole own the only footage. I think they'll release it once the fanfare from his IG post dies down and they need more attention, err, privacy!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15481859/Victoria-Beckham-nuzzled-son-Brooklyns-neck-wrapped-arms-inappropriate-dance-saw-devastated-Nicola-Peltz-run-wedding-reception-crying.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if everything Brooklyn is saying it true (which I doubt - it sounds like he wrote whatever Nicola wanted him to write), I still don't get the estrangement. I've seen and heard much worse things happening at a wedding than the groom's mom "nuzzling" the groom's neck during the reception (Posh probably had too much to drink) and the singer calling the groom's mom the most beautiful woman in the room. Is this worthy of estrangement?

It's not. And if there were any real problems they would have come out by now bc this dude is airing all his dirty laundry. If this is all he has, it's a pathetic reason to disown your family. I get he's mad about the trademark issue but I still don't see why it can't be worked out. His parents made th family name famous and every opportunity he will ever have- including meeting and marrying his wife- is because of that. It seems like his parents are trying to protect the entire family and nothing he has whined about leads me to believe otherwise.

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.

Are we pretending Victoria and David care they're trump supporters

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.

Anonymous wrote:Even if everything Brooklyn is saying it true (which I doubt - it sounds like he wrote whatever Nicola wanted him to write), I still don't get the estrangement. I've seen and heard much worse things happening at a wedding than the groom's mom "nuzzling" the groom's neck during the reception (Posh probably had too much to drink) and the singer calling the groom's mom the most beautiful woman in the room. Is this worthy of estrangement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, cannot read the entire thread. In the a footage of Victoria’s wedding dance? I need to see it. Thanks!

Apparently all wedding guests had to surrender their phones. If there was a videographer, that would be the only footage.

Worst news of the day!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, cannot read the entire thread. In the a footage of Victoria’s wedding dance? I need to see it. Thanks!

Apparently all wedding guests had to surrender their phones. If there was a videographer, that would be the only footage.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Even if everything Brooklyn is saying it true (which I doubt - it sounds like he wrote whatever Nicola wanted him to write), I still don't get the estrangement. I've seen and heard much worse things happening at a wedding than the groom's mom "nuzzling" the groom's neck during the reception (Posh probably had too much to drink) and the singer calling the groom's mom the most beautiful woman in the room. Is this worthy of estrangement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Claiming closeness to family is also necessary
When you and your spouse rely on rich family

Tell that to Harry and Meghan.