Who wears a white dress right after giving birth to a baby?
Every woman who has given birth knows how incredibly messy it is, not just during birth itself (sweat, blood, urine, poo), but afterwards.
The first few days after a routine vaginal delivery, most women experience a bright red flow that gradually turns pinkish to brownish, as the body rids itself of uterine tissue that is no longer needed. Diarrhoea and urinary leakage are common too. Most women wear thick speciality garments when they leave the hospital.
Caesarian deliveries are also bloody: a C-section is major surgery, which is why many doctors avoid them unless medically necessary. Bleeding or discharge around the wound is always a risk.
Up top, leakage of breast milk is a worry, as a new mother's milk comes in so she can nourish her child.
A white dress?
Men, if you find this hard to wrap your head around, picture yourself in white trousers two days after hernia or prostate surgery.
In white trousers on television.
.
A few more oddities
Of course, this wasn't the only odd aspect of Archie's delivery. A few other notes:
- No place of birth was disclosed, and there were contradictory reports about where and when the baby might have been born.
- No one was seen leaving Harry and Meghan's home at Frogmore Cottage in the hours before the birth, even though press was camped out waiting for the overdue baby.
- No members of the medical team were named on the birth announcement placed on an easel outside Buckingham Palace. Traditionally, the announcement includes the name and signature of all of the doctors who helped deliver the baby.
- The announcement stated that the Queen and the Royal Family were "delighted at the news" that Meghan had given birth. It suggests that they had been told about a birth, but could not confirm that it had happened. When the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth in the Royal-approved Lindo Wing, the announcement said simply that "The Duchess of Cambridge has been safely delivered" of a son and daughter, followed by a specific time of birth.
- The baby received no title, not even the "Earl" title he could not be denied as the son of a Duke.
- Archie was not given the 21-gun salute customary for newborn Royal babies, and bells were not run at Westminster Abbey.
- No official merchandise was issued to commemorate Archie's birth, as it was for all three Cambridge babies.
- The press arrangements around the birth were chaotic; the press was told the duchess had gone into labor about 8 hours after she had supposedly already given birth. The first interview with Harry was given to a reporter who had run into him in a car park a few minutes earlier, and it was held, for some reason, in front of the Queen's stables.
- When Harry and Meghan gave their first joint interview at Windsor two days after the announced birth of the child, Harry made an offhand remark that "they change so much in the first two weeks." Was the baby he was holding not a newborn? The line was later cut from online versions of the video.
- During the interview, Meghan reached over to pat the baby on the top of his head. Most parents avoid touching the soft spot on the top of a newborn's head - the fontanelle, where the skull has not yet hardened.
- The child's name was unusual and unexpected. "Archie" was variously described as a tribute to Meghan's dead cat, a tribute to a military commander Harry served with in Afghanistan, and an anagram of Meghan or Charles' names. It was also the name of a character within the sad life of the first Duke of Sussex, a redhead who married against his parents' wishes. Archibald was the name of his wife's lover, the man who was probably the real father of the Duke's children.
- Six days after the reported birth, Meghan showed off what she called the baby's feet in an Instagram post. They were not the crumpled feet of a newborn, but the feet of a slightly older baby.
The rumor mill in overdrive
Understandably, the rumor mill went into overdrive. Various sources suggested that the "Archie" who Harry and Meghan had shown off on TV was a realistic doll, and that a photo taken with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip admiring the baby was a Photoshop creation.
There was also some suggestion that the pair had been forced into announcing a birth after reaching what would have been the 42nd week of pregnancy, assuming Meghan was at 12 weeks when she upstaged Eugenie's wedding in October with her pregnancy announcement.
Some theorists suggested that the surrogate had not yet delivered the baby, so a fill-in was being used; others suggested that Meghan herself was still pregnant. (Although the bump she showed during her post-baby interview veered alarmingly to the left, suggesting she had put it on incorrectly, again.
Other observers noticed that Meg was back in her high heels only a couple of days after supposedly giving birth.
On Lipstick Alley, a poster who said she was a labor and delivery nurse said that seeing Meghan in her heels was what brought her over to #TeamPillow.
The poster wrote. "That baby has a C-section head (no cone shape, not squished especially from a first-time mother, no bruising or redness) however Meghan is wearing heels. You shouldn't wear heels immediately after a C-section due to heels altering your alignment in a way that stretches your abdomen. It would potentially rupture the incision."
Some theorists suggested that the surrogate had not yet delivered the baby, so a fill-in was being used; others suggested that Meghan herself was still pregnant. (Although the bump she showed during her post-baby interview veered alarmingly to the left, suggesting she had put it on incorrectly, again.
Other observers noticed that Meg was back in her high heels only a couple of days after supposedly giving birth.
On Lipstick Alley, a poster who said she was a labor and delivery nurse said that seeing Meghan in her heels was what brought her over to #TeamPillow.
The poster wrote. "That baby has a C-section head (no cone shape, not squished especially from a first-time mother, no bruising or redness) however Meghan is wearing heels. You shouldn't wear heels immediately after a C-section due to heels altering your alignment in a way that stretches your abdomen. It would potentially rupture the incision."
Do the rumors bother the Sussexes?
Do these rumors bother Harry and Meghan? Perhaps they do, but they are the inevitable results of their constant "bending of the rules." "She likes to bend the rules," Thomas Markle recently said of his daughter.
I have no answers, but it is all very strange. And nothing is stranger than that white dress.
Comments
1) Under her white dress she had a weird bump(but not bump) thing going on. I have never given birth so i am no expert on whether this is normal? It just looked weird and like she was wearing a few extra layers.
2) She only really started fussing over the baby once the cameras started - if you notice there was a quick moment a lot may have missed when she glanced over to make sure they were starting before putting her hand on the child's head.
3) While harry seemed genuine in his emotions, hers came out forced and not believable. Maybe it is my suspicious mind but something about her whole mannerisms just seemed off.
Keep feeling the only reason the marriage happened is Harry went rogue ,insisted or he'd do it anyway and family caved.
She has Harry wrapped up. And family should be very worried about her upcoming moves.
Not only does Kate dress better than Meg does, but 54-year-old Sophie Wessex dresses better than she does. Even the 93-year-old Queen has flattering outfits. Not Meg.
Regarding the photo op, it seemed very odd to me that Harry held the baby, while Meghan looked sort of like the third wheel, idk. It looked like the baby was Harry’s, not Meghan’s, just from the body language, but yes, as yo7 graciously say, it could be post-part up depression, presuming she gave birth. I also thought she looked more pregnant afterwards, than prior, and strangely asymmetrical. I was shocked to not be back to pre-pregnancy shape, three days after delivery, but I was at least much less pregnant looking (& symmetric)... not sure what’s going on there.
Anyway, thanks again for your posts. I enjoy them here and your comments on CDAN immensely. Please continue.
The royals can't take the good without the not-so-good. Those old laws exist to benefit them, but they can't have it all ... mere mortals can use surrogacy because they are not on guaranteed public funding or office for life. It bears repeating because many seem to forget this and consider that Harry and Meg can do whatever they want. Not while they take public money they can't. If they don't like the rules, they are free to walk and live the lifestyle they so pretend to covet - using their own money.
You talked about a mandatory DNA test to certify Archie's lineage. Said DNA test would be necessary before giving an official title for the kid.
If none of this comes, as you're mentioning here, should we deduct that, indeed, that child is not theirs? Or maybe is it still early?
I'm sorry, but I don't remember writing anything about a mandatory DNA test. For centuries after the "Warming Pan Scandal" of the late 17th century, when a fake baby was supposedly smuggled into the birth chamber in a warming pan, the birth of Royal children in the line of succession have been witnessed by government officials, most recently the Home Secretary.
That stopped with the birth of Prince Charles. Instead, esteemed physicians put their reputations on the line with their signatures on the birth announcement.
The announcement of Archie's birth, of course, had no signatures.
This baby may be "theirs", either genetically or affectionately, but it seems likely that the baby was born with the assistance of a surrogate. Since royal heirs have to be born "of the body" of a royal or royal wife, this would disqualify Archie from the line of succession if it were openly acknowledged.
They have already slowly begun leaking information in a snarky, British kind of way.
That said, British tabloids' ability to maneuver has been limited since the hacking scandals of the early 2000s, in which William's phone was hacked among many others.
UK law contains a category of law called a "super-injunction" which not only bars the discussion of a subject but prohibits the mention of the injunction itself.
The Royal Family might have a super-injunction prohibiting the discussion of Meg's yachting past, for example, or about the surrogate relationship.
But foreign press isn't covered by a super-injunction. The Australian press hates Meg, for example, and they can publish what they want.
But I think her stomach was weird, because it is pretty high. After giving birth stomach goes down, because uterus goes down to it's place, and it should've happen before she went to cameras.
Also, who wants to see the disembodied foot of somebody else's baby?
Skippy's last post before her disappearance suggested that the surrogate had refused to give up the baby and there was no Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
Who knows - Skippy was wrong much more than she was right - but the fact that someone made the effort to get rid of her seems significant.
It's a public document by definition - particularly when the baby is within the line of succession - so to talk about "privacy" makes no sense.
There are roughly 2000 babies born in the UK every day and their birth certificates are public record. Why not this one?
The heels. I did not believe that she wasn't really pregnant, until I saw that famous video of Sparkles in the black&white dress, where her belly sways from side to side, like a balloon. And squatting at 8 months pregnant with your legs together and getting up with ease? Anyone who believes that this is actually doable, has never carried a baby.
Wearing high stiletto heels a couple of days after giving birth? Ludicrous.
And finally, Harry's comment about the 2 weeks. What on earth was that? And the insecure side glance she gave him immediately after his comment and his uncomfortable grin as if he knew he had messed up....it did not get lost on me. Watch it.
Diana had a premonition that Charles would never be king.
I think Diana was very spiritual but it was wishful thinking on her part that Charles would never be King and that William would be King to restore Diana's dignity. She knew William would be loyal to her.
I've given birth, right after birth your abdomen feels like a bowl of wobbly jello or mushy oatmeal. It doesn't magically shrink. It's just there and you try and hide it the best you can.
Her feet are swollen in those heels. Her bust looks well padded to protect from leaks.
I worked postpartum for a few years and the strange things women do before leaving hospital are that strange. Some go out with a full face of makeup and heels, others limp out in sweats and sneakers.
Master is a common UK form of address for young men. Technically speaking young Archie will become a Prince when Granda Charles becomes King. Why make a fuss, if you know it's going to happen.
What I find strange is there is no pap shots of Granny Doria out and about in Windsor. Is she being kept in the Cottage as some sort of house serf/nanny?
Eleven goddamn pounds (10 lbs, 11 oz?) - the baby is a butterball and none of it looks fake.
Eating lots of salt, taking sodium tablets, for one. Swollen feet can be caused from thyroid disease. I know, I've got it and my feet swell like balloons, especially when it's hot.
If she was pregnant, there would be no need for the cloak and dagger games.
I have noticed that Charles has aged horribly in the last year or two. Camilla looks far more robust than he does - and she has been a long-time smoker.
Supposedly Skippy was chased off of Tumblr by a copyright complaint, although I see she's now restarted her Tumblr blog under a new name.
Earl would have been fine, and so would Viscount, which is what the Earl of Wessex's son James uses.
But either Meg and Harry wanted to refuse all titles, á la Zara and Peter Phillips, or they wanted *to be seen to* refuse all titles because the Queen would not allow the baby to have one.
"Master" is the default for a boy with no title. It does have a bit of a Jane Austin ring to it.
I'm sure she wouldn't say no to money, but I doubt she wants to live in the UK.
From what I see, I think Doria has acted with dignity.
I don't have a Tumblr... I thought that was for dating.
I think the HM site was quite proud of offering the Forbes article, so I doubt she would want to remove it.
I have also heard conflicting info that the Harry Markle writer was going on a personal vacation and didn't want the site messed with while she was gone, so she put it on private.
Her boobs appear to be in a push-up bra. Should someone who's just given birth be squishing milk-filled breasts?
The whole unveiling wreaks of false information and cover-up.
I've referred previously to a similar mysterious pregnancy story surrounding Louis Tomlinson, one of the members of the boy band One Direction. Tomlinson - who is gay, and was at one point involved with the flamboyantly gay Harry Styles - was given a fake baby for publicity reasons. That shady baby had a "birth certificate" too.