Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.
Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?
Really, it invokes King Charles?
/smh
LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.
I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.
Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.
But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...
