From: petertrei@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2024 10:43 AM, Tim Illingworth wrote:   
   > On 11/25/2024 9:35 AM, Michael Benveniste wrote:   
   >> On 11/24/2024 10:51 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:   
   >>  > IIRC, the clause actually specifies the 'descendants of King Charles   
   >>  > the III at the time the contract is executed'.   
   >>  >   
   >>  > Barring illegitimate offspring, that's pretty objective.   
   >>   
   >> Well, you've just listed one of the problem -- the grant is too vague.   
   >> Another is that the group has to be "easily identifiable."  Good luck   
   >> trying to do so.   
   >>   
   >> It's somewhat common to name "the legitimate surviving issue" of   
   >> Joseph P. Kennedy.   
   >>   
   > Why a problem? The set consists of Charles, William, Harry, George,   
   > Charlotte, Louis, Archie and Lilibet. Should be easy enough to find when   
   > the last of them dies, and they have 21 years to notice it.   
   >   
   > Mind you, none of the reports seem to include the actual language used,   
   > so picking for loopholes is kinda pointless.   
      
   Agreed. These kind of contracts aren't as rare as you think, and   
   I expect there's loophole-free boilerplate language for them.   
      
   The thing that makes them interesting is Disney leaning on the   
   British Royal Family for the test. But that's simply because   
   none of these people are likely to drop out of the public eye.   
   Their lives and deaths will be well documented, and indisputable.   
      
   pt   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)