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
And everyone who is mentioning PH's appearance is dead on. This was a formal photo - he's been a Royal since birth, surely he knows protocol for each occasion. Nutty is right, it's a defiance at this point, or, sadly something more nefarious. Can't he at least hand his clothes over to staff for ironing? Oh, that's right, the staff keeps quitting.
I see a little of both of them in Archie (Although, to be fair, I"m trying to see it - because I DO want Archie to be theirs in spite of my belief that she didn't carry him), however, I'm also on the genetics train. School taught us early on the odds of genes and recessive vs dominant ones. Certainly doesn't look like original 'baby' to me though.
PW definitely looks over the whole shite show. Then again, maybe it was a bad picture? Then AGAIN, why choose that one? lol.
ARG!!!! Too much.
With all of the news breaking re Epstein, I've seen mention of markle and Soho. I'm not big on conspiracy theory in general, but it's not a leap to imagine her as so a ho, so maybe there is a link? It would explain Harry's recent turn to contempt and Andrew's loathing of her...
PW's face says it all. And, maybe it was just a bad shot, but then, why select it as the official photo? Perhaps that was as good as it got. I'd love to see the one's that didn't make the cut. LOL!
I do hope this baby has their DNA, although, I learned very early in school about recessive and dominant genes and it seems strange that Archie is so very pale.
I too wish they had just been upfront about surrogacy and broken some stereotypes at the same time. Could have really done some good and missed the opportunity. Or, perhaps they were forbidden. That didn't work out too well did it? The ridiculous pillow. The bonkers crouching and bending.
I’m not certain that there was a Christening. Supposedly the Archbishop of Cambridge performed the ceremony, but he was out of town that day. Can’t be 2 places at one time. Supposedly W&K only spent 1 hr. there, which would not be enough time to change clothes, have the ceremony, and do the photo shoot. Something is rotten in Denmark.
And yes, the baby in the group photo & the one in the b/w are 2 different babies. Totally different head shapes. Neither is the one in the Father’s Day photo. So far, one doll & 3 different babies.
HM & PP both had those outfits on at another event, and everything is strange about that photo, even the differences in height between MM & Doria. I don’t believe that ‘introduction’ ever happened. It was a figment of MM’s imagination. Do you really think HM would allow that photo? And do you really think they’d introduce HM & PP to a doll?
I posted that I didn’t think that this was taken on the ‘Christening Day’ & could’ve been taken anytime prior. Someone more tech savvy than me found the details, believe it or not on Meghan’s Mirror. The details are Original Photo: May 18, 10:56 pm.
I wrote a more lengthy explanation on the comments of the current topic—it’s near the top so easier to access than here.