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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have actual nightmares about having to live through another wedding, and I'm very happily married.

You have to be seriously bored, or have a very poor imagination on how to spend money, to plan a vow renewals after less than five years of marriage.

Anyone want to bet on how soon the separation is announced?

Probably sooner rather than later. She just had her husband completely humiliate himself to the world for no apparent reason after making sure he isolated himself with no family support. This thing has probably run its course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Beckhams are in their 50s acting like high schoolers.

They have raised a monster and are paying the price. But David has said sometimes you hae to let the kids make their mistakes. Brooklyn will come crawling back at some point.

Sure, but at their age they should be taking the high road and not taking the bait. I expect Nicola and Brooklyn to act more immature because of their relative youth and coddled spoiled brat upbringings. I expect N&B to be hypersensitive and more emotionally unstable. The Beckhams have no idea how petty and unhinged they are coming across by publicly battling those two.

Nicola is 31 and Brooklyn is 27. Tehy seem much younger because they are still acting like spoiled children. They are plenty old enough to start maturing.

And the Beckhams aren't publicly battling them - what evidence do you have of that?

But HOW would Nicola and Brooklyn mature? They can't work a 9-5 job with an hour commute each way like us. Neither of them went to college. They can't work at McDonald's full time because they don't have the stamina to do that day in and day out. They can't clean their mansion each day because they have people who do it for them. Adversity causes people to mature. Friction in your life causes maturity. They have none. Money makes all those things go away.

When I think about David saying you have to let your kids make mistakes what I heard was "Brooklyn is making a mistake now, but that's okay" as if he'll let Brooklyn find his way back to the family and will be welcomed. Of the two I think we can all agree Victoria is the colder one.

Most of the Peltz kids work. Some as executives for one of dads companies but they seem to have educations and careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Beckhams are in their 50s acting like high schoolers.

They have raised a monster and are paying the price. But David has said sometimes you hae to let the kids make their mistakes. Brooklyn will come crawling back at some point.

Sure, but at their age they should be taking the high road and not taking the bait. I expect Nicola and Brooklyn to act more immature because of their relative youth and coddled spoiled brat upbringings. I expect N&B to be hypersensitive and more emotionally unstable. The Beckhams have no idea how petty and unhinged they are coming across by publicly battling those two.

Nicola is 31 and Brooklyn is 27. Tehy seem much younger because they are still acting like spoiled children. They are plenty old enough to start maturing.

And the Beckhams aren't publicly battling them - what evidence do you have of that?

But HOW would Nicola and Brooklyn mature? They can't work a 9-5 job with an hour commute each way like us. Neither of them went to college. They can't work at McDonald's full time because they don't have the stamina to do that day in and day out. They can't clean their mansion each day because they have people who do it for them. Adversity causes people to mature. Friction in your life causes maturity. They have none. Money makes all those things go away.

When I think about David saying you have to let your kids make mistakes what I heard was "Brooklyn is making a mistake now, but that's okay" as if he'll let Brooklyn find his way back to the family and will be welcomed. Of the two I think we can all agree Victoria is the colder one.

Most of the Peltz kids work. Some as executives for one of dads companies but they seem to have educations and careers.

They could make jam like Megan Markle. They could invest in real estate and become landlords or property flippers. They could raise money for causes and volunteer. They coukd have seven kids and homeschool them on a huge farm. They could become artisinal cheesemakers. Rich people find things to do!

This might be a very DC thing to say, but if I was super wealthy like that I would go to college and pick whatever obscure major(s) interested me no matter how seemingly useless! And I would try and use my degree in a way that I enjoyed without worrying how lucrative it was. Why don't we ever hear about celeb kids doing this? Maybe the ones taking the academic path are just fully out of the spotlight.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Beckhams are in their 50s acting like high schoolers.

They have raised a monster and are paying the price. But David has said sometimes you hae to let the kids make their mistakes. Brooklyn will come crawling back at some point.

Sure, but at their age they should be taking the high road and not taking the bait. I expect Nicola and Brooklyn to act more immature because of their relative youth and coddled spoiled brat upbringings. I expect N&B to be hypersensitive and more emotionally unstable. The Beckhams have no idea how petty and unhinged they are coming across by publicly battling those two.

Nicola is 31 and Brooklyn is 27. Tehy seem much younger because they are still acting like spoiled children. They are plenty old enough to start maturing.

And the Beckhams aren't publicly battling them - what evidence do you have of that?

But HOW would Nicola and Brooklyn mature? They can't work a 9-5 job with an hour commute each way like us. Neither of them went to college. They can't work at McDonald's full time because they don't have the stamina to do that day in and day out. They can't clean their mansion each day because they have people who do it for them. Adversity causes people to mature. Friction in your life causes maturity. They have none. Money makes all those things go away.

When I think about David saying you have to let your kids make mistakes what I heard was "Brooklyn is making a mistake now, but that's okay" as if he'll let Brooklyn find his way back to the family and will be welcomed. Of the two I think we can all agree Victoria is the colder one.

Most of the Peltz kids work. Some as executives for one of dads companies but they seem to have educations and careers.

They could make jam like Megan Markle. They could invest in real estate and become landlords or property flippers. They could raise money for causes and volunteer. They coukd have seven kids and homeschool them on a huge farm. They could become artisinal cheesemakers. Rich people find things to do!