Just a few quick thoughts on the photos from today's baptism of Archie Harrison.
- This baby looks older than 8 weeks. He holds his head up well, a bit like a 3 or 4 month old would.
- If the baby does indeed have Meghan's and Harry's DNA, Doria's DNA is not particularly visible at this point. That can certainly change; many babies with African heritage become darker as they turn into toddlers and older children. Right now, however, the baby appears to have European coloring.
- William looks over it. Kate's smile is forced. Doria looks elegant, as always. The two Spencer sisters look happy to be included, including the one who looks like she got her Panama hat from a tourist shop along with some sunblock while sightseeing. Where was their brother, the head of the Spencer family?
- Otherwise, these are standard-issue baptism photos. Why was there so much drama about keeping everything private?
- I see the second photo was black and white with the parents' back to the cameras. Classic Meghan style. I guess when baby is older she'll teach him how to pose with his back to the camera too.
UPDATE:
Some thoughts on the day after the Christening.
- The Sussex Royal Instagram account supposedly has 8.9 million followers, but there are only 2.3 million likes on the christening photos, some of them no doubt from non-followers.
That suggests that a huge number of the Sussex Royal followers are fake.
- Upon closer inspection of the christening photo, Harry looks like hell. His grey trousers are wrinkled and he is wearing the same beaten-up brown suede shoes he wears everywhere.
It reminds me of a rebellious teenager who refuses to take off his favorite rock band T-shirt, except that Harry is 34 years old. If Charles or the Queen could force William and Kate to attend the christening, as seems obvious, couldn't they force Harry to dress properly for the photo?
- Meg supposedly wore a 12,000 pound bespoke Dior dress for the ceremony, but only released two photos, neither of which offered a full-length view of the dress. Kind of silly to spend so much on a dress that no one will see, particularly one that can't be worn again - unless the surrogate is up for another round.
- The re-arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on Saturday may have some significance for the Royal Family. Epstein is a known associate of Prince Andrew.
- The Daily Mail is suggesting that Markus Anderson, Meghan's reputed pimp, was one of Archie's grandparents. If true, that would have been a very good reason to keep the list of grandparents secret.
- This baby looks older than 8 weeks. He holds his head up well, a bit like a 3 or 4 month old would.
- If the baby does indeed have Meghan's and Harry's DNA, Doria's DNA is not particularly visible at this point. That can certainly change; many babies with African heritage become darker as they turn into toddlers and older children. Right now, however, the baby appears to have European coloring.
- William looks over it. Kate's smile is forced. Doria looks elegant, as always. The two Spencer sisters look happy to be included, including the one who looks like she got her Panama hat from a tourist shop along with some sunblock while sightseeing. Where was their brother, the head of the Spencer family?
- Otherwise, these are standard-issue baptism photos. Why was there so much drama about keeping everything private?
- I see the second photo was black and white with the parents' back to the cameras. Classic Meghan style. I guess when baby is older she'll teach him how to pose with his back to the camera too.
UPDATE:
Some thoughts on the day after the Christening.
- The Sussex Royal Instagram account supposedly has 8.9 million followers, but there are only 2.3 million likes on the christening photos, some of them no doubt from non-followers.
That suggests that a huge number of the Sussex Royal followers are fake.
- Upon closer inspection of the christening photo, Harry looks like hell. His grey trousers are wrinkled and he is wearing the same beaten-up brown suede shoes he wears everywhere.
It reminds me of a rebellious teenager who refuses to take off his favorite rock band T-shirt, except that Harry is 34 years old. If Charles or the Queen could force William and Kate to attend the christening, as seems obvious, couldn't they force Harry to dress properly for the photo?
- Meg supposedly wore a 12,000 pound bespoke Dior dress for the ceremony, but only released two photos, neither of which offered a full-length view of the dress. Kind of silly to spend so much on a dress that no one will see, particularly one that can't be worn again - unless the surrogate is up for another round.
- The re-arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on Saturday may have some significance for the Royal Family. Epstein is a known associate of Prince Andrew.
- The Daily Mail is suggesting that Markus Anderson, Meghan's reputed pimp, was one of Archie's grandparents. If true, that would have been a very good reason to keep the list of grandparents secret.
Comments
The ability for a baby to hold its head up is around 4 months. This could be why they are not showing the baptism certificate - true date of birth.
Such a cute baby, no matter where he came from or how old he is :)
Too bad Bill Shakespeare kicked off four hundred years ago, because he could have definitely gotten another play or two out of William's situation.
And yes, I am looking forward to watching William clean it all up. Although I'm not British, I enjoy the tradition, and I especially like watching William and Kate reach out to the public in genuine fashion. I think it comes as a comfort that there is civility and grace left in a crazy world. So opposite the tacky merching and me-ness of MM who is the quality equivalent of a QVC mail-order escort.
Gotta say that her loving gaze is getting a little old and someone should gift her some spanx. Also, Harry's feet in the photo - notice how the one leg is pointed over and away from MM instead of resting against her with feet pointed in same direction. Interesting body language. And it's hard to tell, but it looks like Kate's left eyebrow is arched.
Baby Archie is cute and innocent of all of this. I feel sorry for this child.
I’m just stuck at why they’re allowed to keep the show going. They’re very selfish people and their son will hopefully be spared their nuttiness. Maybe that’s why William is staying close - there’s a child involved so his own conscience won’t let him wash his hands?
"Also, that baby is older than two months unless he is supermans kid." and more like that.
I also thought it humorous that someone thought Kate looks nervous, like she's expecting a throwdown at any minute. If Archie is older than his two months, then this is the beginning of the unraveling...
She is flaunting and it’s ugly. She’s no better than any of us but in her head I bet she thinks the Queen is crazy for not declaring She will be handing her the crown next.
Also, I wish someone would get Harry some new shoes. He wears those beat-up brown suede ones everywhere he goes.
It's like a rebellious teenager who insists on wearing his tattered Guns n' Roses T-shirt to school every day.
I really wish all the lies came to the surface so we can be rid of this charade of nonsense.
Anyone can see that they have lied about the baby.
Poor little child.
First time poster, longtime lurker. I've enjoyed reading your blog postings, Nutty, and the insightful input on the Harkle mess from commenters. They are a confounding pair.
Baby is cute. Not sure I see Harry yet. Check out his christening photos....
Surrogate - Harry's DNA, at the very least (I hope one of MMs, TBH)
MM & PH didn't announce for the 42 plus days because you just never know
May 6 was the day they actually "got" Archie
That would make Archie a month and a third older than 2 months
It would also be the reason for the secrecy
and the reason for a private Christening today b/c birth date
HMTQ knows this, but didn't know until later because it's not like she could hold MM down and give her a look and MM only used her own doctors
And that would mean PH was def part of this
And, of course, this would mean the whole family would know and explain William and Kate's WTF I cannot believe this farce! expressions of contempt and wry (that should be the new BRF cocktail "I'll have a contempt and rye on the rocks with a twist")
And on that note: her handholding + clutching his arm at EVERY engagement is inappropriate. Those are "work" events, not dates.
Will and Kate do look like they were forced to be there. The Spencer sisters are there as a proxy for Diana, of course, but Thomas Markle's absence is notable. As is the Queen's.
I think all that clutching is a sign of insecurity, not love.
In the black and white Christening photo, Meghan is looking at her husband, not her child.
Kate's left eyebrow was arched (I'll have a Contempt and Rye with a twist please... oh, make it a double...) and William's new scarf-without-a-scarf look.
Funnier to me: MM approved these photos, so perhaps she missed the body language entirely?
It's always tricky to take a photo of so many people and have them all looking good. Perhaps there was another photo where Will and Kate looked more comfortable but was less flattering to one of the Harkles.
My girl was walking at 8 months, she was sitting up at 5, and photos are showing good head control at 2ish months. Not bragging, just sharing. My lazy son didn’t walk until 15 months, and sitting was delayed as he recovered from a couple surgeries for his cleft repair and one for Sleep apnea (massive tonsils & adenoids) all before he was one.
I can easily believe a 8 week old has control. But I don’t believe their baby is as young as they claim.
And remember the suggestion that Harry might be sterile due to a childhood operation. Apparently he told previous girlfriends he could not have children.
He did want to be a father, however. Maybe he's just so happy to have ANY baby that he is eager to keep this child and raise it, even if it isn't genetically his or "of the body" as required.
That might be why he is so keen on "privacy".
I find it incredibly sad, really.
I thought the same when they presented the swaddled babe.
If you look at the Cambridge christening photos, you can see Kate gazing lovingly at her babe, as it should be.
Megs did not carry or have that baby.
Charles and Camilla look like they have been drinking slow gin all morning. Gloria looks lovely and poised albeit tired. William looks like he wants to throttle someone (or at least take a shot gun to Balmoral and let of steam) Kate looks as though she is about to witness a public assault and counting the minutes. The Spencer sisters are a nice touch and finally Harry, please buy new shoes....just go to NEXT or Topman if you are worried about money...please, invest in new shoes.
Quelle suprise. There's an actual baby here!
Camilla must have had a few stiff belts before the ceremony to look that relaxed. Everyone else looks like they need a good laxative.
Why is Lady Jane wearing Meghan's Wimbledon hat?
William and Kate look one shutter click away from bolting for the door.
Wow. MeAgain looks properly dressed with her hair combed. Doria must have done that for her.
And........still no godparents. Is the big godparent secret that there were never going to be any?
Even my own mother who has no clue on gossip (60 years of age, likes her chickens and dog walks) watched the baby reveal and raised an eyebrow and then sniffed "Harrison...hmm...OK. Her bump looks a little..odd" Now we don't judge people for appearance in my family and never will but her crouching down in heels at 8 months made her shake her head as well. My mums an honest woman who used to be a medical professional for the NHS and now has retired, take this as you want but one look at her and she said 'Is she on amphetamines, she's not blinking?'
I agree that a cream-white would have been nice.
Interesting if true. Archie only needs one female godparent, so if Tiggy got the nod, perhaps none of Meg's friends did.
Of course, he could have multiple female godparents, but as a male baby he's only required to have one.
If she didn't have a close connection to her mom, perhaps it's natural for her not to be particularly connected to her own child.
I was just looking back at the Cambridge and Harry and Wills own christening and my own newborn pics with my ninos and no she has a strange disconnect to the baby, like it is not hers.
Hence the dopey foot picture, and than the jigsaw hand one, it’s not ART, Megs it’s tiresome and utterly boring.
For someone so lauded for being a social media whiz, I think it was as fake as everything else about her.
I can tell you as someone who has my own large following of over 150k followers, she has no connection to people, she cannot read people, their energy or their feelings and I am going to say her famous SM savvy comes from others more skilled in PR and social media than herself.
She is bombing and fast taking the formerly beloved Harry with her.
I also think she dresses very well in an age-appropriate manner. If I were her age, I'd be very pleased if I could dress as nicely as she does.
How they arrive/arrived is anyone's guess. The whole secrecy of birth, questionable birth certificate and now the god parent stuff is very strange. It was ill managed and somewhere below stairs a royal servant is laughing their heads off.
This little baby is the same one from the IG but not the same one from the debut in swaddling clothes on May 6th. I'm myopic as hell but my eyes are not that bad to believe otherwise. Frankly, the baby-that-never-moved was quite a bit cuter, at least what we could see. He also seemed somewhat older than 2 days old. Is it possible that H. and M. rented another baby for that photo op, if they didn't have custody of this one yet?
I think this baby does look like Harry as an infant. Guess we will have to see if he develops a more African appearance as he gets older.
If the Sussexes had decided early on, even before they were married, to have children via surrogate, as they obviously did . . . how different it would be now if they'd been honest about it from the beginning. It would have been a large adjustment for the family to make viz. succession/titles, etc. but since there is no possibility of Archie getting anywhere near the Crown, his manner of conception never would have affected the succession. They could have opened a dialogue about fertility issues and the many means of becoming a family . . they talked about adoption even while they were engaged, but didn't follow through with that candor, since this disgusting Pregnancy Show commenced soon after. Why go through that charade unless getting a title for Archie was so GD important that they were willing to adhere to a lie of this magnitude?
That's why the family is all disgusted--with the pretense and the lies. Surrogacy is unconventional and there was no precedent for it, but I think everyone would have been happy for Harry to be a dad--had he been honest.
Meghan could have still had a baby shower and done up her baby nursery . . and certainly been going around looking more attractive these last 10 months.
I can't imagine that Harry has any peace of mind over the situation; Farkle is not troubled by a lack of peace of mind. To feel anxiety or doubts or shame over one's actions necessitates having a conscience, which she lacks.
I'm just marveling that they managed to pull it off. So far . . .
Best case for Archie is that Harry and the Queen retain full custody of him after the inevitable divorce. If the baby has none of Meg's DNA, that should be easier to arrange, particularly if she can be shown to be an unfit mother.
A note on Kate's dress: Very nice, love it on her, but a lot more modern-looking than we see from her usually. She normally goes formal/matronly for these types of things . . probably she decided to dress to please herself in something bright and shorter since this event was most definitely not High Church.
So . . . my take is, "Archie Harrison" is something they concocted while they were high and/or as a little in-joke amongst themselves. 'Archie" may be the pet name for Harry's mighty scepter or their favorite drug they do together--it does not have the authentic ring of a name lovely selected with care for a firstborn royal baby. It sounds like a character in a movie or maybe something you'd name a pet. I have a ginger cat I have called 'Archie.' After 'Archie Andrews', not this one.
I have to agree with Nutty though there does seem to be a lack of affection between mother and daughter when it comes to Meghan and her mother. I'm not asking for kissing/hugging pictures but their doesn't seem to be any protection either. Neither was there any presence of her on Meghan's blog and she seemed to enjoy being vocal. There is no way my mum would want me to walk down the aisle alone (nervous and worried, she'd hold my hand the entire way and give me away...fuck tradition), let alone let her sit on her on her own in a pew under the glare of cameras. Absolutely disgraceful.
On another site, someone mentioned that it looked as if PW was wearing a different colored tie while driving in for the Christening. With tinted windows, I don't know. Maybe?
However, beside him is supposed to be Kate and she clearly is wearing a different outfit (it has a neckline) than what she is wearing in the official picture. Unless, somehow they mistook Carole for Kate (or someone else). Photographs are in the DM.
How odd. Very few things make any sense. It's like Through the Looking Glass.
At some point, Meg may begin to resent the child because the child gets more attention. Heaven help the child if he is more intelligent, more successful, more famous.....
I don't know what the truth is about Meg/Harry's relationship/pregnancy. In my opinion they should have been honest. If it an adoption, surrogacy, etc. Fine. If the baby has a health problem, fine. At some point someone near the line of succession may have fertility challenges or decide to adopt. If that person is honest from the start, they will gain the public's support and respect.
The Harkle debacle is doing the contrary.
2) In the B&w shot sparkles isn't looking at her "child" which is a habit she is showing
3) You can actually see the tension of William and Kate
The whole thing just reeks of being off
"Camilla must have had a few stiff belts before the ceremony to look that relaxed. Everyone else looks like they need a good laxative."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The group picture is interestingly awkward in so many, many ways. It's almost like everyone is getting ready to cut and run at the first opportunity. Or they smell something and can't figure out what it is. Kate is lovely, Camilla cracks me up. I think she could be a blast or a complete pain in the a$$, either way, I'll bet she's like dynamite. I do think the baby is adorable and I hope that Archie has all the love and support that a child needs and deserves, but I'm not sure why there has to be a continuous circus going on around these two....
Actually, I guess I do. As long as people are talking about her, she doesn't seem to care WHAT they are saying. She and the Red Menace both just want attention, good or bad.
I can't speak for the entirety of the theory re an older child, but I can tell you why I believe it is a viable explanation for all of the mystery: it's the simplest explanation for so many missing and incongruent pieces of the puzzle. In one fell swoop it explains length of pregnancy, changing bump, MMs amazing physical feats while pregnant, the "privacy" surrounding the birth and unwillingness to show the baby, the need for privacy re the Christening, and the shunning of MM by the BRF. If the baby was born of a surrogate, then there are 42 days between birth and signing the baby over, and the mother could change her mind during that time. Also, she had the baby, so she was probably with the baby, and MM and PH couldn't be sporting a real Archie. So, IMO, surrogate is the simplest explanation that explains all of the insanity. As for the earliest photos, it could've been an expensive Darren. I have not seen "reborns" (shudder), but I have read that they are often mistaken for real babies because they're so lifelike. Beats me.
Also, if there were a surrogate, it is possible that the BRF suspected but did not know for quite some time. As I've said before, I do think that Charles and William are probably two of the few men on planet earth who've not seen the megster sunny side up, so they might have suspected surrogate, but they wouldn't have been privy to the ins and outs of the process (pun intended). It may have only been much later that they were able to confirm their suspicions and by then, too late. It's hard for me to believe that they would throw PH under the bus and publicly out this if there were another way. However, the looks on William's and Kate's faces speak volumes. I am not British, so I'm not quite sure what the exact phrasing is there, but here in America it's something along the lines of GMAFB.
This is only my current theory. As more info comes to light, it may morph. As @Bubbles reminded me, Archie can already cry in French, so all magnificent feats re the pregnancy may have occurred and we must wait for more miracles or for someone to lose it and spill the story. (I'd like to see Philip have a go at it, that would be good.)
LMAO @Bubbles
Meghan’s outfit to Archie’s christening was mostly bespoke pieces. Her dress would have cost around £12000 (bespoke Dior), her shoes around £960 (customised Dior, repeated from last year), and her Cartier earrings are about £13000. Her hat remains unidentified as yet.
Catherine wore a Stella McCartney costing £1425, that was a repeat from Christmas 2018, and possibly from Prince Phillip’s birthday in 2011. Her shoes were probably the Gianvito Rossi 100 Pump (£550, reworn), and her hat was a customised version of the Juliette Botterill Pleated Pillbox Hat (£500)."
I agree with poster SDJ above who noted how MM was clearly seated more against the pillow but moved at the last second to be closer to Harry and further from Kate; you can tell from her left shoe which is at an awkward angle had she actually originally been sitting the way the photo portrays. She scooched to create visual distance from herself and the Cambridges and perceived closeness with PH and by extension Charles et al.
The only thing missing from this picture is a literal eyeroll from the Cambridges. But the rest of us looking at the pic certainly feel the inclination.
Forced by whom? How is it that William has to follow orders but Harry does not?
William being forced to attend implies that there is actually someone in control at the Palace, yet Harry and $mirkle are allowed to run amok.
I must say that I am totally confused. If Canada didn't require that the entire Canadian constitution be reopened in order to do so, I would be happy to cut the Monarchy loose at this point.
However, as a citizen of a Commonwealth country that still has a Governor General and ten lieutenant generals (I.e., a representatives of the Queen) for whom we have to pay a salary and provide regal residences, I am fed up with the lot of them for allowing this "Carry on Duchess" farce to continue.
Is he trying to bring down the monarchy himself?
William is now my favorite royal (although Kate and Louis are tied for close 2nd).
"Kate and that green couch unintentionally stole the show. Honourable mention goes to William's face.'
I believe that because Archie has finally made a physical appearance into the world and it's quite likely he is older than two months, the truth will begin to unravel. William's "knowing smile" tells me that there really is much more to know.
I just want to say how much I enjoy your well-written blog and your insights about the Sparkle Farkle soap opera! Also, I 100% agree with your theories about the possibility she could have some damaging information or evidence either about PH or another RFM that she is using as insurance to keep her status intact within the Firm.
I have been watching the RF for over 40 years (not that I am necessarily an Anglophile, but more from a social and historical perspective), and from the very beginning I knew this woman was completely unsuited to be accepted into British royalty. When I would go on certain forums and comment respectfully about this, people would immediately play the race card and accuse me of being an outright racist--which I find highly amusing since I am most definitely a product of the American Melting Pot (as is MM) through 3 separate races and several ethnic backgrounds. So, I can most definitely say that I am NOT a racist or bigot, and like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I judge people by their character and not their color.
This is what I really like about your blog, Nutty: The people who come her regularly to comment feel free to say (respectfully, of course) what they think or believe could be going on with this whole Sparkle Farkle debacle. All without the knee-jerk, reactionary tactics of those who are either working on behalf of MM, or are just blind or in complete denial to what is occurring before their eyes.
Keep up the good work!
What makes the story so fascinating is how an unknown actress who is not particularly bright and not particularly beautiful - or even smartly-dressed - seems to have one of the world's oldest and most powerful families in her thrall. Her main weapon is pure shamelessness. You couldn't make it up, although I have no doubt many people will produce a fictionalized version once the outcome is known.
I'm not sure Markle's PR tactics are working. Her Instagram followers appear to be mostly purchased - if she really does have 8.9 million followers, why does she only have 2.3 million likes on the first good photo of Archie? Ratings on Gayle King's specials about her were not good. Magazines don't put her on the cover because she doesn't sell.
She claims to be a social media shark, but didn't even trend on US Twitter for the Christening - people were too busy discussing the girl with the flu who licked a carton of ice cream and put it back in the freezer at WalMart.
I think the most interesting thing now is what Jeffrey Epstein's arrest will mean for the Royal Family. No secret that Andrew was one of his buddies, but does he have a connection to Meghan as well?
I don't think info about Andrew is enough for her at this point. Everybody knows Andrew is decadent and creepy; it's why he's one of the least popular royals, although he's trying to redeem himself with a lot of work with young businesspeople and by acting as his mother's escort now that Philip is retired.
I think Meg would have to have some info on some other family member - Philip? Charles? William? Harry himself? - to make a strong case for blackmail.
It could be they wanted to get Archie baptized first, get all the ceremonies out of the way, before everything begins tumbling down.
Particularly when it's a dress that really can't be worn a second time, unless the surrogate is up for another round.
I wonder which one it was.
eller in TX (Howdy, Y'all!)
Catherine has learned to smile through gross situations. She’s a trooper. I just wish she had had the balls to have worn a tiara. Meghan would have killed herself before the day was through.
Does Harry even own another suit? Or have the Givenchys his wife goes through in a week taken up his budget for decent clothing? I swear you can get a better suit at Target. All he wears is this grey, polyester garbage that wrinkles with every of his moves. And his dirty and old, suede brown shoes are something to behold up close.
Humanitarians, you guys!
eller in TX
Also my pregnancy was a State/Province/ Hours away from family and friends. No support, no familiar ground , different culture , everything was foreign, so my mothering and survival instincts kicked in massively. I can identify with having a baby away from where you are originally from. That is Imposter Syndrome . No way that is her baby. If it is, she does not love this baby.
Supposedly he and Meg have no staff now except for a personal assistant each.
Whomever is in charge of Harry doesn't have ELF's sartorial flair. If I were Charles, I would insist on him finding someone who did - even a part-timer, or an employee of some high-end store who could sell Harry a couple of better suits.
I'm surprised the Queen doesn't insist, as well. She was clearly not pleased when William visited Kate's garden exhibit in a casual plaid shirt. When she joined the Cambridges at the garden the next day, the first thing Willam said was, "I've smartened up a bit."
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzlHhZylvwT/
vs.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjCrNe8AXBq/
Here are two reasonable-seeming posts on the whole photoshop matter:
https://fabfoxly.tumblr.com/post/186109623972
&
https://fullbananabouquet-posts.tumblr.com/post/186106930697
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/D5Eqynr
https://www.rct.uk/collection/30013/mantel-clock
But, the rest of those two posts seem worth a look.)
Making your pimp the godfather of your child? When it comes to Christian ceremonies, I'm all for following Christ's example, but that's pushing the Mary Madgalene theme a bit too far. What's next, a fisherman? A tax collector?
At any rate, if you're a conspiracy theorist that might have been something Markus demanded as payback. No wonder they wanted the godparents to be secret, though. The press would have been all over Markus' past and present.
First he said, "That's two different babies, look at the shape of the head, ears and jowls. But the first baby (color photo) is at least 3-4 months."
I was kind of shocked, I asked are you sure it's not the black and white.....he gave me the "I'm a professional" look.....now I don't know what to think!!
The amounts spent on their house, as well as her jewelry and clothing is obscene.
Like everything else in this saga, it doesn't add up.
Libel law strongly favors the complainant in the UK, so I guess the British press will keep calling Markus "a very close friend" of Meghan unless he identifies himself otherwise or gets charged with something, which isn't likely given his clientele. Probably some judges and politicians among them!
And just think, someone on a blog somewhere far into the future will make the remark that MM was a duchess, and someone will respond and say: "I don't want to push a false narrative, but Markle was a prostitute and no one could cast even seven of her demons out of her...."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1097753/meghan-markle-news-latest-update-royal-family-twitter-bots-russian-conspiracy-theories
Also, this: "I really can’t get behind the ad hominem attacks on Harry’s intelligence - he is not the first male to be bamboozled by a narcissistic opportunist and he won’t be the last." So true, and I've said that as well. He may not be the sharpest tack in all the boxes in the kingdom, but he was played by MM, and masterfully, and it's not the first time it has happened to a male or female (Anne Hathaway, for ex.). I pity him, actually. It can happen to any one of us, it just take the right person and circumstances. Those who believe they're immune to it are probably more at risk.
England is known for impeccable tailors. Having a member of the royal family looking so disheveled in official photos is bad for business.
Apart from the diabolical duo, they all seem to get that.
So it always comes back to the same question: Why does the Queen and/or Prince Charles and/or the palace courtiers allow this deviant behaviour by Harry and $mirkle?
That said, wouldn't a christening photo be kind of a Super Bowl, a World Cup, for Sussex fans? If you don't get a lot of likes for that one - particularly since it was the first clear image of Archie - then when are you going to get a lot of likes?
You can certainly see from the DM comments that there is a "theme of the day" they follow. (Yesterday's was "William always looks like that in photos.")
There just doesn't seem to be a market for her - she doesn't generate interest, unless it is negative interest.
Also, her follower counts grew very, very quickly, in the absence of any corroborating evidence that the Harkles are popular.
I would be very surprised if Meg didn't have at least a million fakes, or more.
HM would not let herself be perceived as giving one family member preferential treatment over others.
I did cynically entertain the fact that it was released as proof they are not racist when THAT inevitable bomb gets thrown, but HM has many people of color in positions of importance around her, she doesn’t need to throw all her in-laws under the bus to prove she’s not racist.
I think that photo, more than anything since the wedding, shocked the H out of me.
You are right Elle, Harry grew up in a bubble, he has been protected his whole life and would not have any experience with Grifters, he would have been protected but with MM he thought he knew better. An analogy would be Diana. She refused Royal Protection Officers after her divorce, thinking they would spy on her - dismissing their expertise in keeping her safe. This paved the way for her to be killed by inexperienced security and a drunk driver who thought trying to outrun the paparazzi was protecting her.
It actually reminds me a bit of the Jussie Smollett case, in that when it first came out I thought, "That sounds pretty fishy." And then it got fishier and fishier as more evidence emerged. Of course, it all turned out to be a big fraud.
The same with the Meghan case. It's sooooo obvious that Meg is trying to pull off a scam. When people say no, no, you're crazy, you're racist, I think.....nah.
Since the "birth" I think a lot more people are sensing that something is off.
Her skill is shamelessness and imperviousness to rejection. She just keeps going.
Nutty do you mean Godparents?
Maybe i am too tired and not reading correctly
https://fabfoxly.tumblr.com/post/186109623972/fun-with-photos-the-gangs-not-all-here
Her hair also seems to have been coloured in with a Sharpie type pen.
Nutty - had to delete the first one cause there were some typos and we can't edit. Sorry about that.
Nutty will have to make a new page soon