Supposedly Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born on May 6, 2019.
Maybe someone was born on that day, but it's not this kid that Meghan is toting around today at a polo match, just 8 weeks later.
This kid is least 4 months old, and possibly as old as 6 months.
More photos here in The Sun, including some awkward-looking ones where Meghan tries to kiss the baby.
She looks like a newly-hired babysitter or a single, happily child-free aunt meeting the kid for the first time. Zero parental connection.
That would suggest, of course, a massive lie by the British Royal Family. The birth announcement! On the easel! And the Christening! And the photos!
But more sadly, it suggests that after 6 months his 'mom' has not bonded with him. That's really concerning.
It's just gossip for us, but for this kid, it's one of the most important times of his life. I hope he has some kind of adult figure caring for him and making him a priority. Every child deserves that.
EDIT:
Looks like the Daily Mail has noticed the age discrepancy too. They're just begging their commenters to point it out.
Maybe someone was born on that day, but it's not this kid that Meghan is toting around today at a polo match, just 8 weeks later.
This kid is least 4 months old, and possibly as old as 6 months.
More photos here in The Sun, including some awkward-looking ones where Meghan tries to kiss the baby.
She looks like a newly-hired babysitter or a single, happily child-free aunt meeting the kid for the first time. Zero parental connection.
Born in January?
Anyway, it all lends more credence to the theory that not only was Archie born via surrogate, but that he was born in January, not May.That would suggest, of course, a massive lie by the British Royal Family. The birth announcement! On the easel! And the Christening! And the photos!
But more sadly, it suggests that after 6 months his 'mom' has not bonded with him. That's really concerning.
It's just gossip for us, but for this kid, it's one of the most important times of his life. I hope he has some kind of adult figure caring for him and making him a priority. Every child deserves that.
EDIT:
Looks like the Daily Mail has noticed the age discrepancy too. They're just begging their commenters to point it out.
Comments
The press are irritating - I'm hating seeing the 'besotted & devoted' stuff too. I guess they have to play it carefully, otherwise access to the royals will be denied if they go too far. They also get tons more clicks and comments on MM related articles, so the 'D&D' stuff might be to get on our rags and incite us to comment. Might that be more appealing to advertisers? Meaning more money for the DM?
I personally can't wait until they spill their guts good and proper. I want to pick up the paper one Sunday and see surrogates, yachting, the missing 1st husband, drugs, the real set up with MA, the pathological Diana obsession, the merching, clothing expenditure accounts. I want it all! Did I miss anything?
Seriously, though, her appearance at the polo is the sight of a narc unraveling. She's no longer even making the barest effort to put herself together for public view. That 'dress' . . I just can't. She really likes that color, and it might have been suitable for the day if it had been fitted, belted, with a pair of cute sandals. She looks like she threw on a rain poncho to take the trash out. And then the lurking by the parked cars, refusing to sit, to engage with Kate or the kids. It had to be a doll she was holding so badly, otherwise she would have showed his face or had him in a pram . . . Where's that super-expensive mod-Yuppie baby stroller they 'received' in January? This outing could have gone a ways toward repairing the 'catfight' rumors, if she could have sat with Kate's family and smiled like a normal person . . and let people get a glimpse of Master Archie.
This woman is dangling by a last thread and it's going to snap any time. Rumor has it (again) that Meg showed up unannounced to the polo (again--gatecrashing is her MO because she refuses to accept that she's not wanted anywhere), giving her hubby a nasty surprise since (again rumor) his ex Chelsy was in the crowd.
Divorce announcement or pregnancy announcement by Labor Day? Shall we start a pool?
I hope Rut returns - challenge the argument, not the poster ...
I doubt Smeaghan has ever legit cried over anything since she was a child. She makes *other* people cry and she delights in doing it. Malignant narcissist and a sadist. All the way. I wonder if Hazza is a secretly abused man? We know he is emotionally, but I wonder if she hurts him physically, too? Her rages are legendary. Melissa Toubti, if you are out there reading this, we'd love to hear the truth about that spilled tea incident . . .
I've been looking at what squashed side views of "Archie's face were available from the polo outing. 'The child' she's holding does not look like the baby in the formal christening photo, but based on the eyelids, it is the same 'baby' from the presentation picture, where he was all swaddled.
I have to use quotes around 'the baby' because even at this late date, I can't be sure. We have never actually seen footage of this child moving. The infant used in the christening photos was real, but I also believe that was two months ago that they were taken.
The resemblance to the first picture of Archie would lend credence to him being the same, real, albeit preternaturally still baby on both occasions. Or, equally, that it was the same Darren reborn doll used on both occasions. Either they've got the same doll in graduated sizes (newborn, 2, 4, 6, 12 mos,) . . or Harry was holding 'him' and he was swaddled tightly so he would appear smaller than he was. Hazza is much bigger-framed than Meghan, so a 2 mo old might appear a newborn relative to Harry. Megs could barely hold the armful she had the other day. I see infants several times a week of all ages in the course of my job . . the child at the polo was not 8 weeks. Closer to 6 months. 4, 5 months, at least. I'm not a professional doctor, just around a lot of kids all day long. Saw an 8-week old baby in with his mother just a couple of days ago and I asked the age. An 8 week old is still a little peanut, especially if 'Archie' was born 2 months ago at 7.3 pounds . . he would not be over 10 pounds now, probably somewhat less, as they lose weight after birth. Megs looked like she was handling a 16 pound bowling ball. What got to me was the way the legs dangled limply in every shot, with the feet at 90 degree angles. A real baby squirms; he'd move his legs and feet so that they wouldn't appear static across one or two dozen different photos and angles.
If that had been a real baby, she'd have brought the pram and been showing him off to Kate and the Cambridge children. She didn't, so I'm thinking . . he wasn't.
There may be a real Archie, but I hope he's not with this woman.
I don't know what their game is, the whole family's in fact, but it's sick. I don't understand why admitted that he was a surrogate's baby would be so bad. The only thing I can think of is that the baby is, and will remain with his natural mother, who is keeping custody of him. She may have initially agreed to act as surrogate for the Sussex couple until it became clear to her the extent of Megs' mental and moral depravity. Any woman who does this wants to help someone become a mother, but no one thinks Farkle is mother material. Haz might be the paternal donor, though, which is why they are going to such lengths to maintain the charade. A child who is not tied to either of them by genetics would not rate this level of cloak and dagger BS.