It was about a month ago that the birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was announced in a rather strange fashion, and as of this writing, the public has seen only one photo of the child's face.
This is unusual in itself - most new parents, particularly those who love social media, err on the side of too many pictures of their newborn instead of too few.
But there are several other odd aspects about the new baby, or at least what we've been told about him.
The other Archie
First of all, Archie's name is unusual for a Royal, and makes an unfortunate historical reference.There has only been one Duke of Sussex before Harry, a man who also married an older woman against his family's wishes. The marriage was not successful, in part because the Duke's wife was in love with another man - named Archie. In fact, Archie was probably the real father of the Duke's children.
(Here's a Daily Mail piece from 2018 about Archibald Hamilton; here's a separate piece from a more reliable source plus one from the UK National Archive).
Names are important to the Royals
The two Archies are an odd coincidence, particularly since the Royal Family is so particular about first names and whom they pay tribute to.Prince Harry's full name, for example, is Henry Charles Albert David - Charles for his father, Albert for his great-grandfather ("Bertie", aka George VI), and David as a tribute to the patron saint of Wales, since his father was Prince of Wales at the time of his birth.
Princess Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Diana Elizabeth, including tributes to both her grandmother and great-grandmother; Charlotte is also the feminine version of Charles.
Even Zara Tindall, who has perhaps the least formal first name in the Royal Family, is Zara Anne Elizabeth Tindall, after her mother and grandmother. Her daughter is Lea Elizabeth Tindall.
But Archie is only Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Didn't anyone want a tribute? Why did Harry only reference himself with the weak pun "Harry's son"?
And didn't anyone think that given the earlier Archie's relationship to the earlier Duke of Sussex, the name Archie might be a slightly tasteless choice? If we know about the other Archie, I'm sure the Royals do too.
In addition, the baby has no title, in a family where titles mean a lot.
Royal jokes
There have been a number of rather unfortunate coincidences since Meghan and Harry's marriage was announced, including scheduling the wedding date on the date when Anne Boyeln had her head cut off and sending a car to pick up the bride that had once ferried Wallis Simpson, the last divorced American to marry into the Royal Family, to her husband's funeral.The choice of the name Sussex was also interesting, given that there had only been that one previous Duke of Sussex, and he was also a redhead, far down the line of succession, with a controversial marriage to an older woman who had enjoyed numerous other partners.
Granting the small, undistinguished Frogmore Cottage to Harry and Meghan as a grace-and-favor home (they do not own it, as William and Kate own Anmer Hall) could also be seen as a sly dig, since the home has primarily served as staff quarters and was the home of Queen Victoria's controversial Indian Muslim teacher, the Munshi, who was widely disliked by the other Royals.
It also looks out on a graveyard where Wallis Simpson is buried.
And now Archie is the name of their child. Somebody in the Royal inner circles has a cruel wit when it comes to the Sussexes.
It sounds a bit like Philip or Anne, or perhaps even former PR maven Sophie Wessex, who has become a devotee of royal history since joining the family. It could also be a clever staff member like Lord Geidt.
Whoever it is, they have clearly been able to get the Queen on board; the names of Royal children generally need her approval.
Some conspiracy theories
The strange appearance of the baby in its sole TV appearance - it never fidgeted or blinked or had any movement whatsoever - has some conspiracy theorists suggesting that Harry might have been holding a Realborn doll.
These highly realistic dolls were originally designed as therapy instruments for parents who had lost their children to stillbirth or miscarriages, but are now a popular collector's item. Online sleuths have suggested that "Baby Darren" may have played the role of Archie in the TV appearance.
Others noted that Baby Archie's eyebrows and ears were carefully covered for the TV appearance, so it would be easy to switch in another baby without questions about identifying marks.
This corresponds to a theory that perhaps a surrogate baby had been lined up for delivery in May but something went wrong, and that the Sussexes are currently casting a mixed-race newborn to play the part of Archie.
Sound absurd? Yeah, it does.
Is it more absurd than the idea of the 7th in line to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other Realms and Territories and Defender of the Faith being named "Archie"?
Good question.
Archie's visitors
The press has assured the public that Archie has received a steady stream of visitors, beginning with Princess Diana's sister Lady Jane Fellowes (who gave a reading at the Sussex wedding) and followed by Charles and Camilla, Will and Kate, and Duchess of Sussex's make up artist Daniel Martin and her friends Jessica Mulroney, Serena Williams, and Priyanka Chopra. (Priyanka, whose career is thriving at the moment without the Meghan connection, later denied the story and said she had never met Archie.)
It's quite impressive that none of these people photographed themselves with the baby, or the mother and baby together, to share on their active social media accounts.
One could argue that this is because the Duke and Duchess want privacy; but in that case, why bother to announce the baby visitors at all?
And there is the additional complication that no one has been seen coming or going from Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes' supposedly live.
More strange occurrences
Wherever they actually live, the Sussexes' life is never dull.
Within the past week, there were press reports that Archie's nanny had already resigned, after two weeks on the job. In addition, Heather Wong, Harry's sole remaining staff member from before his marriage, is also reportedly seeking new employment.
In the meantime, Meg continues to run the Sussex's Instagram feed, apparently without a copy-editor. Typos are frequent, and last week instead of tagging her own patronage, The National Theatre, in a post, she managed to tag Australia's national theater.
Another ham-handed Instagram post, this one for Pride month, linked to 8 US-based LGBTQ+ organizations and only three UK ones.
Harry, meanwhile, has been particularly busy with Royal duties, despite the initial suggestion that he would take paternity leave after the baby's birth.
In addition to numerous events with the Queen (Is she trying to separate him publicly from Meghan? Or is he trying to play nice with the monarch to get a bigger house?) he has also appeared in the Netherlands and at a polo match in Rome.
After the polo match ended early Friday, he chose to stay an extra night in Italy, not returning home to his wife and newborn until late Saturday afternoon.
Another ham-handed Instagram post, this one for Pride month, linked to 8 US-based LGBTQ+ organizations and only three UK ones.
Harry, meanwhile, has been particularly busy with Royal duties, despite the initial suggestion that he would take paternity leave after the baby's birth.
In addition to numerous events with the Queen (Is she trying to separate him publicly from Meghan? Or is he trying to play nice with the monarch to get a bigger house?) he has also appeared in the Netherlands and at a polo match in Rome.
After the polo match ended early Friday, he chose to stay an extra night in Italy, not returning home to his wife and newborn until late Saturday afternoon.
Meg and the Trumps
Finally, Meg and Donald Trump - certainly two of the most controversial Americans on the worldwide stage - had a minor beef after Trump called Meghan "nasty" in response to Meg's comments calling Trump divisive.
Meg could be called nasty for so many other reasons (after all, we haven't seen the notorious salad-tossing porn tape yet, if it exists) but she can hardly be called an opponent of the Trump family.
She interviewed Ivanka for her blog the Tig, calling her "staggeringly beautiful, no question, but so incredibly savvy and intelligent" and was reportedly merching Ivanka Trump products as late as 2018, well after Ivanka's father's political views were well known.
What a strange story this is.
Comments
Could be extremely interesting when and if he is required to have a christening, will they want their privacy and not release any pics then?
If Archie is not biologically Harry's son, a good way to divert the question about whether he belongs in the line of succession would be to baptize him in a different church, or give him some kind of alternate ceremony more in line with Meghan's "spirituality."
I noticed today that the Daily Mail ran a story about how George likes to meet the Waitrose grocery delivery truck and carry in groceries.
Now that it's public, I suppose he won't be able to any more - too easy for a bad guy to conceal something in the groceries - or the security guys will have to vet the groceries first. Tough being a king in training.
Something is definitely happens behind close doors, I think that this marriage is highly pragmatic, especially for Harry, he wants his piece of fame, right now, when he's not too old, nor too young, perfect age, or he'd end like Prince Andrew. But who said that Harry was smart, doing all of this dumb moves.
Let's say this my conspiracy theory, and it explains overplayed public performance, with a weird "performative" privacy talks and acts, and total coldness behind the doors, like Harry spends more time away from his "lovely" wife and his! newborn! son, Frogmore cottage emptiness and etc.
Other royals definitely have a lot of fun, Harry thought he'd overplay his family, but he only overplayed himself, fool.
What is curious is if this is just a case of that - big whoop, no one expects her to have been a nun. But there has to be a reason why these things are gradually coming out. Added to that in myt thinking in order to get her out, the BRF will need to orchestrate a media campaign that has a dual purpose - 1) destroy her reputation while also 2) Not damaging Harry's.
Also for someone who is a "Besotted new dad" he seems to be spending a lot of time going to official events without her.
Hope my rambling makes sense :)
Yeah, she's a fame whore, not interested in privacy. I think they have her on lockdown, as in, no conspiracy, but just told her that for the sake of image, she needs to bond with her newborn. They don't believe in that, of course, but it was a convenient excuse to get her out of the family's way.
To continue: I was wondering if the emerald tiara Markle wanted for her wedding ended up being the one that Eugenie wore several months later for her wedding (and my guess was, if this was the case, that the Queen likely had promised it or at least intended it for Eugenie ages ago, given the emerald brings out the color of Eugenie's eyes ).
If it was the same tiara, this may explain Markle's unexpected attention-grabbing baby-announcement at the wedding. I don't know. I can't find any mention of whether or not it was indeed the same tiara. Thoughts?
I eagerly await your posts, and truly appreciate that you ground us in clearly observable/verifiable facts, to support rational conclusions, in the sea of gas-lighting that exists elsewhere.
And I agree, that someone in the BRF is having a go at the Markles, given the sheer number of overwhelming coincidences: Anne Boleyn, Frogmore Cottage (its view and its history), the bridal car, the name Archie (given its history), etc.
And yeah, what is the deal with all the disappearing staff. Without Heather Wong, who is left? How can this couple lose so many? It's really unheard of... I guess that could be another post, listing off all the staff they've lost (and all the ones who chose to stay with the Cambridges, after the split).
Anyway, THANK YOU for your posts. Please continue.)
I think there is a better chance that a baby would have Harry genes than Markle genes. Egg harvesting is a tricky matter. Sperm harvesting, not so much.
I wonder what Harry thinks of all this (re: tiara going to Eugenie).
The name "Archie" is a stumper. I had expected a non-traditional name choice from this couple, in the first name anyway . .but I expected some homages to relatives in the other names. Harry is allegedly so very close to the Duke of Edinburgh but both Philip and Charles were shunned. Archie may be one of the fastest rising male baby names in England, but over here in America, it only summons up images of 'Archie Bunker', everybody's favorite working-class white bigot from Queens, or Archie Andrews, the comic book world's most famous ginger. I can't for the life of me imagine Meghan approving 'Archie' for the first one alone. Unless, as with Eugenie's tiara, she stole a name which had already been appropriated by someone else in the family--namely, George, as a nickname for himself. Frankly, that sounds like something MM is totally capable of, even if she hated the name Archie, just as a roundabout dig at Catherine's family. Harry may have gone to school with some Archies and had good associations with the name, but I still can't believe that after 9+ months to discuss names, *this* is what they came up with.
Frankly the name selection bolsters my gut feeling that this name was never intended for a real child. It has the (faux) ring of a sort of finger-in-the-eye insider joke. The parents (or 'parents') as the case may be would have to be the architects of this one . . because how could someone else bent on humiliating them with the Archie reference *force* them to select this name for their baby? Unless someone Harry trusted (Philip? Again, this sounds so like him) put the bug in his ear that 'Archie' would be a grand name for a little fellow, and H., being ignorant of his own family history had no clue it was an insult? It's a head-scratcher, all right.
I can't come down definitively in either camp, but my gut tells me that if Harry had a new son at home (wherever that might currently be) with whom he was delighted, surely Her Maj wouldn't be working him so much as she has been in the weeks since Archie's (published) birth, had he requested more time off. Even if Archie arrived two weeks earlier than announced (again, why fudge that and pretend he's a newborn on May 8th when he may have actually arrived on Easter weekend? What difference does that make? Wouldn't have anything to do with one of the presumptive celebrity godfather's birthdays also being May 6th, would it?), and H. had been with Meg and the baby for those two weeks, surely he'd want a bit longer. Unless . . . nothing about the picture of happy families they are attempting to promote is remotely the truth. Even if Archie arrived via surrogate over Easter weekend, that fact could be acknowledged and nothing would have to be different otherwise about normal new family bonding time. By this point, a month on, with each of her babies, Catherine had released some photos taken at home. We've got one sliver of Archie's face and a Insta snap of some baby feet that do frankly look staged. So what might account for this maniacal campaign for 'privacy' and press blackout? I've had a few thoughts: 1. Archie was a trafficked baby . .or at least, an unofficial, possibly illegal adoption. 2. There was a surrogacy arrangement, and MM simulated her pregnancy, only to have things go sideways when the surrogate (who is the legal mother under British law) decided to keep the baby. Even if she willingly gave up the child as agreed, the biological parents (presumably H. and M.) must wait 42 days before applying for an adoption order through family court. A surrogacy agreement means nothing legally in the U.K. Essentially they would be the adoptive parents of their own biological issue since the birth mother by law is the surrogate. We are coming up on the 42 days pretty soon; maybe after that, we will be seeing more photos of Archie because they will actually have custody of him as perhaps? they do not now. Maybe they were able to borrow him for an hour for the photo call/meet with HMTQ. (Thanks to Nutty, from whom I got this info from earlier postings . . I think?) 3. Meghan did actually give birth, for all her bizarre Pregnancy Show shenanigans leading up to the blessed day, and her appearance at the photo call was real 'new mum post delivery', puffiness and all, complete with a white dress and a post-baby tummy that appeared to the observer to be rather . . .sideways, highly unusual. BUT it's not Harry's baby, nor was he conceived via surrogate using a donor, but he's rather the product of infidelity, which can be proven and that's why LG has the new mum under lock and key somewhere while the Palace builds a case for annulment application. Maybe? Because 4. Archie is the biological and birth child of Harry and Meghan, who was conceived a month or two after his parents' wedding entirely naturally and Meghan breezed through a geriatric first-time pregnancy in high heels thoughout and popped Archie out after a nominal 4-hour labor--and the ecstatic new parents, more deeply in love than ever, just want to be left alone to enjoy their new baby . . . well, it's seeming more and more like science fiction, isn't it? Were I a creative writing teacher and this story were submitted to me, I'd say "Go back to the drawing board, please. This scenario is so unrealistic, it just does not fly. Nobody will buy this!"
Nutty, thank you for your work in creating this community. Otherwise I might feel like I was losing my 'nut', as they say. So glad other sane people have the same wonderments I have, plus a few I hadn't thought of.
1. *Why* could the provenance of the Vladimir tiara not be sufficiently established by now? Presumably it's been in the Crown jewels collection at minimum a century? A friend of mine is a true Anglophile, having English relatives and spending a lot of her childhood summers there. The history of the Royal family is one of her dedicated hobbies. She thinks it unlikely in the extreme that there could be pieces in the Crown collection that do not have extensive, exhaustive documentation regarding their provenance and every particular. There is no doubt a staff of courtiers whose full-time occupation it is to oversee the care and cataloging of this priceless national resource.
2. If the first were somehow quizzically true, then why would Meghan have ever been allowed to even view it or form the impression that it would be available to her? Rather than letting her view *everything* like her own personal Tiffany's catalog, a small selection of approved tiaras (perhaps 5 or 6) should have been shown to her and she told, "You can choose from these." 'What the eye does not see, the heart cannot grieve over', as the saying goes. I suppose there is some sort of online catalog that perhaps shows everything and MM helped herself to that and made a wish list.
In any event, regardless of the *reason* she was denied her first-choice tiara, it would have been classless and rude to do anything other than graciously accept the tiara she was given--a lovely one--as a privilege for her wedding day, and not a second-best anything.
I don't think MM needs any additional cause to be nasty, really. If anyone else appears to getting favorable attention, she seems threatened by that.
Take David Bowie's daughter: she was born quite fair but turned darker as would be expected since her mother is African.
People said horrible things about Catherine, too, at first. She was 'Waity Katie', scheming with her mother to trap William. She was lazy; no career, just hanging around waiting for a ring. Once she was part of the BRF, she didn't take on enough. She was even, incredibly, accused of faking her pregnancy with George, even though it had been two full years since her marriage. Catherine persevered and now has earned the respect of everyone, but even in the early, rockier days, we never heard tales of her abusing her staff or demanding ostentatious jewels and clothing. Whatever else Meghan wants to perpetrate about her feminist humanitarianism, those extravagant clothing expenditures do not lie. Will MM be able to rehabilitate her reputation like Kate has? Short answer: No, I don't think so. She's burnt too many bridges in her first year. Incessant drama is another mark of the narcissist.
Camilla too, for that matter. They finally seem to appreciate her too.
If one of my proposed scenarios is true, and 'Archie' was sired by another man while being passed off (or attempted to be passed off) as his, then the moniker 'Archie' is historically appropriate. And it's not a compliment to either he or Meghan. It gets even more meta . . recall Hazza's seemingly jovial exchange with his wife in Morocco: "Wait, you're pregnant? . . .Are you sure it's mine?"
At the time, I went "Whoa." While jokes like this have been flying around barrooms for generations, if a man indeed had reason to suspect that he himself was the victim of such a deception, that would be too sensitive to joke about. Especially if he is a royal. And most especially if he is on an official tour and his remarks are being recorded and filmed for the world to see. The timing and circumstances of that 'joshing around' suddenly take on a sinister cast, don't they? As I recall, the room was full of children when he said it, making that joke even more tasteless and inappropriate. That's a joke friends at the pub bandy around--not the time and place and circumstances where Harry was when he said it.
I understand that prenatal paternity testing is possible. One wonders if Harry hadn't received some shocking news around that time and his upset slipped out as a (barely) coded jibe to his wife. Of course, we have no proof of anything of the sort. I just thought it was a really weird, squicky making comment from him.
The Queen can approve or deny a choice (Beatrice was supposed to be called 'Annabel' but the Queen put the kibosh on that because 'Annabel's' was the name of a very well-known gentleman's club in London.) So she can 'force' someone away from a name, but I doubt she ever forces anyone to 'choose' a name, or declares outright, "This child shall be called . . .End of." I can't think of a name she would be less likely to force anyone to call a child than Archie. There are tons of other wonderful names H. and M. could have chosen instead. If it turns out that the child's name just happens to be a sort of family in-joke, I'd call that a bonus. Not, alas, for the poor kid.
People can make all the excuses that they want. I'm guessing they are not British. Kate didn't marry a normal man and it was not acceptable for them to be on the taxpayers' purse doing very little. They don't have that luxury, as was borne out. Kate can not be a "stay-at-home" mother. That she takes extensive maternity leave does not sit well with many British taxpayers. They have a lot of staff (essentially paid for by the public) - so those excuses don't wash.
I thought Kate looked dull, I've seen her look better. She doesn't appear to enjoy these banquets. But I suppose she doesn't like to be surrounded by food she won't eat and of course, she has nothing to say of any consequence to people who are educated and work in real jobs. I'm not saying she's dumb, like Harry, but she's no intellectual and her intelligence was stunted from years of doing nothing but shopping and being at Will's beck and call.
QUOTE: "I would have been very surprised if Megs had turned up at the state dinner, it was almost 5years before Kate made an appearance at one and on average there are two a year so that would be about 8 she missed after her marriage. You have to prove yourself good at non committal small talk, keep your opinions to yourself and listen carefully to what your dinner companions are saying (there will be questions later).
"It is a diplomatic minefield so the palace makes sure that everyone understands the rules and can be trusted to stick to them before an invite is issued. It's basically mouth shut, ears open and act cluless for the younger royals.
"Harry himself has only been to one State Banquet for the Spanish King and Queen in 2017 and they sat him next to Rose Hanbury (you can't make this stuff up) and a British civil servant so he couldn't make an ass of himself and say the wrong thing. He obviously didn't distinguish himself at the last one so he too was left off the invite list as they probably couldn't trust him not to spout some of Meghan's self serving rubbish." /ENDQUOTE
In saying that - i think this is how both Kate and Wills have Meg's number - and the queen is no pushover either - we are talking about a woman who lived through a world war, handled being queen in a world that usually only accepted kings and navigated her way around the continual embarassments of the members of her family. Just my thoughts :)
However, I disagree slightly with the last. First, the Queen is very old. Secondly, royals are cosseted and not They couldn't even contain Fergie and Diana - and they were in their circles. Thirdly, Harry was throwing tantrums - that has been confirmed. Harry went rogue and that's what threw them off-guard.
The fact that William and Kate are on to Meg is merely because to not do so would make them incredibly stupid and ignorant to what is right in front of them. They have slightly more real life experience than say, Charles or the Queen. Plus, in William's case, it's more organic - he just doesn't like flash celebrities as a rule. He's a snob in that sense.
In addition, there was also a the leak of a story about Prince George, who was an unruly toddler, and his "usual morning destruction." That sounds like a family joke that made it into the public sphere, and it's tempting to assume that Meg was the conduit. Not the sort of thing staff would leak.
I'd be paranoid too if I were the parent of several children who faced constant kidnapping threats and death threats. Ordinary parents worry about their kids; can you imagine how much worse it must be to get the daily MI6 reports about all the baddies out there?
Her boyfriend Edo seems to have weathered the initial storms and continues to be invited to Royal events. They are living together in St. James Palace. At least he's a born toff so he knows what he's getting into by joining The Firm.
I just don't know about him. He seems as reckless and selfish as she does.
I don't agree about the necessary worry for their kids over and above ordinary parents. These kids are the most guarded in the world. Nothing will ever happen to them. It never has (to royal children). Anne's bodyguard took a bullet for her at BP. I have more fear for children of ordinary parents.
I always assumed that Harry hated the press intrusion into their lives, and the ever-present risk that anyone who tries to get close to them is only posing as a friend in order to profit off of them in some way. But what does he do but introduce a fame-hungry self-promoter with extensive media contacts right into the bosom of his family? I do not, and probably never will, understand this quizzical action of his. To William, it must feel like the most personal betrayal possible, because it's so very close to him and his family. I suspect that Harry is not playing with a full deck, to either have been manipulated into this marriage by a master manipulator or, worse--that he was fully aware of what Meghan's motives were for joining the family, and the negative effect she would have, and did it anyway. To William, his little brother is now sleeping with the enemy. Is there any wonder there is a rift? One day not terribly distant from now, William is going to be Harry's sovereign as well as his brother, and I don't think Harry is going to make it easy on him, either, based on what we've seen thus far. It's really the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson all over again . . .or will be, if the Crown is forced to exile the Sussexes. I think William is looking ahead and fearing what is to come on his watch.
The blogosphere has been discussing the 'Woman in the Brown Dress'--a young, brown-haired, white, visibly pregnant woman in a brown velour dress who appeared to ambush Meghan by waiting just outside the church doors at the Commonwealth Day service. She was not part of the security detail. She may have been a staffer, but that seems unlikely. She was standing very close to the building, in close range to the Royal family as they exited the service, so she was not a random member of the public, or she never would have been permitted so near. This person appears to have been seen and recognized by Meghan, though not acknowledged. Is this the surrogate? It's a scintillating possibility, but of course, there's no proof (as yet) that the Sussexes hired a surrogate. Something appears to have gone awry for them in some manner relating to this baby when on April 11th, some two weeks in advance of Meghan's supposed due date, and three weeks after she'd been last seen in public, there was a sudden flurry of press releases from the Sussexes outlining their plans to keep every and anything relating to the birth of their child 'private'. Then another three weeks of feverish speculation passed before the world received word (in a bizarre fashion) that she had had a boy. After proclaiming for 5-6 weeks 'how sorry' Meg felt for Catherine doing the baby photo call mere hours after giving birth and insisting that they would take a picture when they were good and ready . . . in the end, their elaborately staged photo call at Windsor Castle came 48 hours after the supposed birth. Or at most a day and a half longer than Catherine waited to debut her babies. 'Taking our sweet time' translated to about 40 hours, give or take . .or two weeks, depending on one's thoughts about the actual birth date of "Archie".
Had everything gone smoothly according to whatever plan they had in place, it doesn't seem like the PR around the baby announcement would have been so shambolic, or their requests for 'privacy' so last-minute. If they well and truly desired privacy, they could have made that known earlier in the pregnancy, or at the time MM went on maternity leave, instead of waiting nearly a month to plead for privacy around the birth. So either there is a legal or physical hitch of some kind that was not at all desirable to their plans, or else Meg is just pulling a Taylor Swift by 'disappearing' in order to whet the appetite (and demand) for the photos of baby Archie when they eventually arrive.
Their worst-case scenario must be: they have a surrogate and she won't give them custody. If that happens, it would be impossible to sustain the illusion that they are actually parenting "Archie". Everything they are doing now feels like playing for time, but eventually their time will run out. When they released the statement that: 1. Archie would have no royal titles--not even the bare minimum one, and 2. that as a 'private citizen', the public would have no right to photos or updates of his progress . . what does that suggest, other than they do not have a baby to raise and no access/rights to any pictures of him? A month on, we haven't seen any.
The next month or two will reveal more, I imagine. If there is no publicly released christening date or photos, or any pictures or information at all . . or if Meghan's maternity leave drags on past the summer with no further information, I'd say something is seriously awry with them. That photo call last month convinced me that something already is awry. How badly remains to be seen. This will be the entertainment of the summer.
If the couple had decided to conceive via surrogate for whatever reason, and been frank about it, they could have done much good, as they are always clap-trapping on that they care about. Maybe instead of playing 'musical chari-ities' on their Instagram account, they might have gone on record as using a surrogate and opened a dialogue about fertility issues and alternative ways to becoming a family. They might have forced an (overdue) change in royal statutes that state a child must be 'born of the body'. When those documents were written, no one could have imagined IVF. In those days, a woman had to be witnessed as giving birth because it was the only way to ascertain it was hers. Now science has elevated what is possible. A child with royal DNA should be considered 'of the body' just as much, however he/she is delivered. Even if honesty would have cost Archie a title, hence all the subterfuge over these many long months with Meghan's Magic Belly . . how's it different than now? If they have both colluded in lies and deceptions, it was all for naught, because he still won't have a title. And they would have done us all the courtesy of being truthful and retaining their dignity, never mind not insulted the intelligence of the world with increasingly desperate porkies and plots. If they have gone to such lengths to obfuscate if Archie did not arrive in this world via the normal fashion, they will have to excuse me if I do not buy for a second that 'No Title/private citizen' business was all H. and M.'s idea. I believe the Queen has declined definitively to extend a title to Archie because something is profoundly unacceptable to her about this situation and H. and M. are still trying to spin it.
William understands the royal protocols but also remembers how the media affected his beloved mother. Harry was a little boy, was treated as such and given too much free reign to act out since he was only “the spare”.
All this has come to the forefront as they enter into a time when QE2 may not be around much longer and some serious changes in the monarchy will be taking place.
I’m sure Prince William is not happy that his brother has chosen someone like Markle as his mate to move into the next chapter of the Windsor story.
Predators are not always so obvious ... to point, the Queen has kept the Middletons at an arms' length. The fact that Kate is now valued does not extend to the Middletons. It's all history now, but there are some people who don't forget and abide by the saying that the "means doesn't justify the end" - as far as their irrelevant opinions go. And by 'irrelevant' I include my own.
I'm not one who thinks the marriage is perfect. I believe the cheating story and it's obvious Kate has issues with eating/weight. Whatever, I still think she's representing the Crown well, as I previously posted. She has her own quiet charisma. I think the marriage will go the distance because, by their own admissions, it was friendship first. But I don't buy the whole "deep love" fairytale. I also think that William has got a lot more respect for Kate since they have matured and had kids. She's a wonderful mother, by all accounts. But again, harking back to an old royal reporter, I think William loves and trusts Kate, but whether or not he's in love with her, we will never know.
Louis wasn't seen much between the the birth and the baptism, but that could have also been because of a desire not to distract from the Sussex wedding.
As I recall, there were some photos of George and Charlotte, taken by Kate, issued before Charlotte's baptism.
Just a thought on tiara-gate
PE had to delay her wedding because of PH and smirkle, she had already chosen the colours etc and being close to her grandma had discussed it. So when smirkles came along and said she wanted the emeralds (what megan wants megan gets) she waas told "no" by HM as it was the colour scheme of her beloved granddaughter PE had already given up a lot by being the second wedding that year and having to alter dates her grandma was not going to see her loose her colours too.
People intent on doing harm are oftentimes just lucky, rather than criminal masterminds. That homemade bomb the IRA used to kill Lord Mountbatten was in no way sophisticated, and I think the perpetrators were as surprised as the rest of the world that they actually succeeded. I always think the walkabouts are a security nightmare for the protection squad. With so many throngs of people on the streets pressing up to the barricades, it's impossible to pat them all down for weapons. Gun crime in the U.K. is very low compared to the U.S. since guns are illegal, but there could still be some floating around.
The 'story' is ongoing . .so you cannot possibly assert that no Royal kids are ever going to get hurt just because there haven't been any recent cases of royal children getting hurt which we know about. Before President Lincoln got shot, no American president had ever been shot, either. Since him, look how many attempts and successes there have been. What would you suggest William do--scale down his security on his kids and get complacent because nothing has happened . . (yet)? That's frankly asking for something *to* happen.
William is coming under fire from a lot of quarters for being a range of negative things: uptight, judgmental, a snob, not as fun as his little brother, paranoid, divisive, unforgiving . . . I don't think this is fair at all. Considering the burden of state which he will have to assume eventually, taking over a monarchy in flux, he is dealing with instability from within his own ranks, as introduced by Harry, who should be his right hand, perhaps not in rank, but as an emotional support and ally. William was right to expect that his own brother would be loyal to the Family. Harry has demonstrated that his judgement is compromised and William can't rely on him. The people that Meghan has cultivated around herself could inadvertently pose a risk to William's family all in the guise of getting publicity. William is entitled to concern on that score.
No surprise! When Prince William and Kate went to visit Mee-Gain and Archie, Kate wasn't allowed to hold Archie and was told she would not be allowed to have anything to do with him. Kate left after a few minutes in floods of tears.....Of course, now Me-Gain's PR team (Clinton's old one) is denying everything....as usual. The best they can do is run around erasing things and spreading their blanket lies.
I have to take with a grain of salt any of these reports about anyone, royal or not, visiting Archie at Frogmore Cottage. The conflicting reports that FC is uninhabitable and uninhabited--no extensive renovations; the place is deserted--feel much more reliable, because they contradict Harkle's agenda. I don't have a lot to bet with, but I'd lay everything I could spare with Ladbrokes that in actuality the Cambridges have not held, seen or even been within a mile radius of Baby Archie since his birth was announced. It's shocking to think that . . but I have come to this conclusion. If there is a baby, Meg and Harry do not have him and thus arranging visits from Harry's family is impossible. Also the Daily Express is akin to our National Enquirer and is not a reliable source.
Between this blog and harrymarkle, I am totally fascinated
Note, however, that when Meg finally appeared on the balcony, the Cambridges had placed themselves way down at the far end. Any further away from her and they would have gone over the the side. Well out of range for her to try and engage them in chat or attempt to paw Kate with the Claw as she did at the Christmas services.
To say something nice (before I resume with Other) . . she was certainly demure-looking, and for once, her hair and makeup were faultless. She looked very subdued, actually . . smiling but not overdoing it and not obnoxiously searching out cameras for her camera-ready face. Perhaps the LG deprogramming campaign is working . .?
Today Meg once again displayed the knack which is particular to her of being sartorially out of step with the occasion. For all that the dress was Givenchy, I found it unflattering and too heavy and dark a color. For a woman with access to top designers and stylists, she gets it wrong nearly every time--wearing a white cotton summer garden party dress fit for an 18 year old in December; funeral black for Christmas (a huge no-no); a gold and silver brocade evening dress to an afternoon family event (to which she may not have even been invited); but when she has an opportunity to dress to the nines, as would be appropriate at an evening gala for one of her husband's primary patronages, she turns out dressed like a waiter from the Olive Garden. Meg favors navy quite a bit, as we've seen several outfits in this color. How odd, then, that at a formal portrait taking last summer when the dress code was 'navy and white', she appeared in a wool knit dress in loden green--a ghastly color on her, completely out of season, and in blatant defiance of what she'd been asked to wear. At the Commonwealth Day service, just prior to disappearing from our sight for 2 months, she wore a white dress in a whimsical print . . for a sober church service in raw early March. She was the *only* person wearing white.
Just as she was the only person wearing dark navy (as close to black as she could get, probably having been expressly forbidden to wear black.) Lady Louise Windsor had on a blue dress--a cheerier blue, in a lightweight style as befit a young girl. All the other adult female royals were in 'springy' colors. Meghan's ensemble would have been very appropriate to the ANZAC service . . for the Queen's summer birthday parade and 'the' event to kick off the summer, it was a misjudgment. Or perhaps it, and all her style 'missteps' are actually on purpose.
She looked nice, not really like herself, which is what I think they are after. Less 'her' is a good thing for the family. I'd just like to know what she's got against colors. It is 'Troooping the COLOUR' after all and is supposed to be festive. Harry was in black again. She's got him avoiding all his colorful uniforms as well. Wills always wears his red one.
Did anyone notice that Meg's hat was a replica of the one Doria wore to her wedding, only in blue? Meg really looks more and more like her mother in the more restrained styles.
It goes without saying that Catherine looked lovely as always in pale yellow. These prissy formal fashions really suit her. She looks like she could be straight out of the 18th century, really.
a clip of the row they had on the balcony yesterday.
This article shows prince phillip with a 2 yr old prince Charles. My has he changed! And looks do much like Harry
I am intrigued by all the theories. I'm not sure what to believe any more; she DOES look like a lot of post-birth moms I've known. Seeing the video from the TOC, showing her trying to speak to Harry, and looking like she's going to cry....I ALMOST feel sorry for her. She very well could be suffering from postpartum depression. It may have been a very innocent thing between them, but she's very emotional? I just don't know!!!
As a Briton and a media professional, Piers should be well aware of the etiquette surrounding state dinners with the Queen, and he's just stirring the pot again.
Meghan did not 'refuse to meet Trump' because that decision was never hers to make. The Queen decides who is invited to her state banquets, and they are going to be people of loyalty to herself and to the Family, who can be trusted to smile and make courteous, if inane chit-chat to foreign dignitaries, no matter how boorish or dull or politically divisive they may be. The idea is to never show up the Queen and never make the family look bad. Meghan cannot be trusted to do anything of the sort--and particularly would not, with Trump.
Meghan's grievous error is in thinking that she can practice her politics and burnish her own celebrity star from within the Royal family. Nyet, nada, no way.
The Queen did not invite Harry to this 'do either, despite erroneous reports to the contrary. He got a private lunch with Trump, but not the dinner.
Piers must have memory problems, if he's forgotten already that Catherine was not invited to a state dinner until 5 years into her marriage. There were 8 state occasions during that time that the future Queen Consort of the United Kingdom was not invited to. Catherine had to prove herself first, and have time to season, and so she did.
Piers has an axe to grind and loves to make Meg look as bad as he can (not that she needs help in this area) . . but he's got it flat wrong. MM had no power to decide to boycott this dinner. She wasn't allowed within 30 miles of it. End of.
Her prolonged absence from the public eye might have been just the opportunity to have a little work done . . though so many of us are convinced that she didn't actually carry 'Archie'. Given her current status in the RF . . (favor: low), and also her reckless financial extravagance during her first year of marriage, I doubt very much that Charles would approve expenses for cosmetic surgery for a woman who is supposed to be bonding with a newborn. One supposes that the Queen frowns upon such a self-absorbed display/use of Crown funds. If she were a proponent of cosmetic procedures, a number of the members of her family could have certainly benefited from some. (Not naming names . . but she and Philip considered, and rejected, having Charles's ears pinned back when he was a child.) Even if Meg somehow finagled her Bestie Amal Clooney to pony up for some procedures . . that would not go over well in the family at all. Though . . if she's been laid up recuperating from plastic surgery rather than tending to a newborn, that would be one explanation for why her husband, 'the beaming new father', has been so often absent from home, often attending multiple events in the same day and taking numerous meetings at KP, where he 'used to' live, and a slightly inconvenient distance from his 'new home' for the purpose of daily engagements.
Who can ever say with these two what's really going on? They bring a special meaning to the word 'chaos.'
I always had a feeling that Meg would want to have at least two children within two years because: a) she has always known her tenure in the RF would be brief, and b) anything she can do to show up Catherine, she will do . .including naked arms at the TOC and having a second baby within a year, George and Charlotte being 18 months apart.
*If* she is pregnant now, for real this time . . . they sure would have been better off to wait for this first year and see what developed naturally before they rused into any sort of off-the-reservation (illegal, technically) surrogacy contract and all its attendant drama within the first two months of their marriage. If rumors that she was seeking fertility treatments in Toronto even before the marriage are true, they hardly gave natural events time to transpire. Couples who adopt often find themselves naturally conceiving within the same year . . is this what has happened here?
Another thought: She and Harry did conceive around the time of the wedding, either just before or just after . . but she suffered a very early miscarriage, and then panicked that she'd never be able to have Harry's child, hence rushing into a surrogacy thing. Or, more sinisterly, the 9 months of fake pregnancy just past, with ever-changing baby Bump in defiance of both logic and biology were due to a miscarriage-related psychosis she was experiencing . . in which the family allowed her to simulate a pregnancy as a form of therapy? This is a whoo-whoo scenario, along with the plastic baby scenario. Either of these would point to a woman with serious psychological issues being aided and abetted by her husband and his entire family.
Most of us think that Meg does have some psychological issues, but probably not post-partum/pregnancy loss psychosis-related. Though that would be the most sympathetic explanation for her.
Her dress choice this year was more conservative than the Carolina Herrera number from last year, though the short sleeves still violated the dress code and the color was too dark, violating the spirit of the occasion, which called for light, summery colors and styles. It would have been suitable for a remembrance service for D-Day veterans, perhaps. The purpose of the boxy, horrid matching cape in the carriage was later revealed when she removed it prior to the balcony, when the white cap sleeves were then on display, drawing one's eye to her in the back row. Alternatively, she could have just opted for a lighter overall color for the same effect, but this one is always about the dramatic entrance. Also, the cape was cover on the way to the balcony to camouflage momentarily that she had once again violated the directive to not show bare arms. She showed less skin than last year, but still managed to be more uncovered than any other lady once the cape was off.
Just don't know anything for sure. But it sure is fun to speculate about. Meghan has provided a vicarious hobby for so many people, I guess that is a form of public service, isn't it? :)
She did get some Botox as her forehead is very smooth and has no lines. She may have put on some weight because her neck is thicker but it's hard to see the rest of her body in the clothing she chose to wear.
By the way, I saw her life line in her left hand during TOC and she isn't going to live very long. Mind you, the right hand could be quite different, but chances are, she's not going to make it past 50, and I'm being generous here. My brother had the same length line and he died at 42.
Meghan was pregnant when they announced in Australia but miscarried so lined up a surrogate, who had Archie. But then she fell pregnant again soon after and she's almost due.
If true, maybe they'll lock one away in secret or rotate their appearances just to trick everyone.
Got to hand it to Farkle; she keeps us all entertained. Now that the Belly Show and the Windsor Baby Reveal is over with, she's got to spin another plan to keep the mystery going. Though I have just read that she is slated to guest-edit the September issue of Vogue, giving an interview and publishing photos of the newly-renovated-at-great-taxpayer-expense Frogmore.
Let's play along with this for a second and assume that the cottage has been renovated and is actually the current full-time residence of the Sussexes and their new baby. The project was set to commence in the next week. Those pictures should be interesting, if they appear. I can't really believe even 5% of what's published about Farkle these days.
Also, presumably, Archie and any siblings could be granted titles sometime in the future, by the next king, or whomever - it's possibly they're counting on (hoping for) that? I don't know.
Clooney recently outed as a groomed political tool, E. Degeneres also, Oprah linked to H. Clinton and now M. Obama, they all chose well in the empty and greedy MM and depressed vulnerable Harry. Just the types they prey upon. I'm sure HM know this and why the RF are treading carefully. Who knows what's at stake.
I don't want to get a whole of political here (as it has created some ripples in the Nutty universe) but I was intrigued by comments of the idea that H&M may have some sort of different agenda we have not picked up on yet based on their new near and dear friends, perhaps she is thinking of USA politics and our long time question of just who is the real target audience.
There are beginning rumors that HRC may run yet again.
I don't know if M would run but Hollywood does have a long standing support of wanting to tell us who to vote for. From that, if HRC won, M could parley that into some sort of thank you would like to be an ambassador deal?
"Markle is meeting with lawyers to help manage her turbulent and sudden rise to international fame. Insiders say Markle, who has starred on 'Suits' for six years, may be struggling to come to terms with the overwhelming attention."
Congratulations! That's the funniest thing I've read in days! "Sudden rise to international fame?" "Struggling to come to terms with the overwhelming attention?" Spare me. What a load of BS. I am an American who watches a fair amount of television, and I had never heard of the B until Go Fug Yourself mentioned that Prince Harry was rumored to be dating her in 2017 and both she and her PR firm were very coy about it. Gratingly so. That made me dislike her right then, and I gradually disliked her the more I got to know her. Her behavior at Eugenie's wedding sealed my loathing for her.
So thank you for finding that article, Cookie. It gave me a great laugh!
(MM) wanting to wear the "emerald tiara" that Princess Eugenie chose, I am annoyed all over again. We should each do the appropriate research before insisting that our "opinion" beats facts.
FACT: The Queen is a kind woman who would NEVER treat Harry's prospective wife badly; neither would she so obviously favor a natural grandchild. If Eugenie had asked the Queen if she could wear the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik tiara for her wedding (that WAS planned prior to MM hooking Harry), the Queen would merely have informed MM of the fact and asked her to select a different one. MM would NEVER have expected Eugenie to wear something that MM would wear first, would she? (Maybe she would!)
FACT: Meghan Markle (MM) demanded to wear the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara with emeralds. If you look up pictures of both tiaras, they are nothing alike. The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik has not been seen in years, while the Grand Duchess Vladimir is often worn by the Queen.
The Grand Duchess Vladimir (GDV) tiara has three (3) separate looks; either with 15 hanging pearls, or with 15 hanging emeralds, and with NO hanging gems, in the "open windows" style (which is my favorite). The Queen wears the GDV in all three styles; it is one of her favorite tiaras. The Queen wore the GDV with pearls to meet the Pope, she wore the GDV with emeralds to a state dinner with the President of Ireland, and she has worn the GDV "open windows" design for an official portrait.
The Queen prefers that young (ahem) Royal brides wear a simple bandeau style of tiara for their weddings (since it is the first wearing of a tiara which is limited to married women). The Queen also cares about comfort; some larger tiaras can become heavy and the bride might become very uncomfortable since she is wearing it for the first time, and there can be many events on a wedding day, and an aching head or neck would be miserable and not give the best affect. Also, a bandeau is more manageable with a veil. The Queen would NEVER put forward one of her favorite, and most worn, grand tiaras for a young (ahem) bride. The notion is ludicrous.
For Meghan Markle to DEMAND to wear one of the Queen's favorite and most grand tiaras is impudent, vulgar, arrogant, and low-class. The Queen allowed her to wear Queen Mary's diamond bandeau and it was just perfect. (MM would have looked like a child playing dress-up in the GDV.) Just more proof that the Queen is smarter about Royal protocol than a silly social climber.