In today's People Magazine, we learn that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is a "happy baby."
This comes from an unnamed royal source; anonymity is of course required when communicating such sensitive, high-level national security information.
In addition, the secret source reveals, Archie has "lovely, puffy little legs and tufts of reddish hair. He's really adorable."
But there aren't any photos to confirm this. In fact, there are no new photos of Archie at all.
The lack of pictures gives me pause, however. Why didn't People insist on a new photo of Archie before running the story?
The public hasn't seen Archie since July 10 - and that's if you believe that whoever or whatever Meghan was carrying during her surprise polo match appearance was indeed Archie. It appeared to be much larger than an 8-week-old child, and was surprisingly immobile for nearly 30 minutes.
If you don't count the polo match, Archie hasn't been seen since his Christening photos released July 6, one of which carried metadata saying it had been taken in May. Since Archie was supposedly born May 6, that would suggest that Archie is not the baby in the photo.
The other photo released that day, a black and white shot, may have been of a different child, with a different head shape and bone structure.
(And both images showed a child holding his head up independently while sitting, which is ambitious for a baby only two months old. This is usually a four-month milestone.)
Before the Christening photos, the only images released of Archie have been the odd, partially-concealed face in the Instagram post for Father's Day, and the photos and video from Archie's presentation to the public shortly after his birth. He was surprisingly immobile during that event, as well.
Is there really an Archie?
Maybe there really is an Archie, a lovely red-haired moppet who has been growing up in blissful privacy with his parents in Frogmore Cottage, a child we'll all get to meet when his parents tour Southern Africa beginning with Cape Town next month.
Or maybe there isn't an Archie, and what we've been seeing so far is a combination of props and babies borrowed for photo opportunities.
In that case, who are the Sussexes going to take to Africa?
It's another thing to find parents willing to bring their child to Africa to pose. (Or to source a baby of the right age locally - Cape Town's population is 16% white.)
And it's yet another level of difficulty to find a baby of the correct age with compliant parents, local presence/an interest in inter-continental travel AND "tufts of reddish hair".
If I were as smart as Lord Geidt is said to be, this is the exact sort of thing I'd come up with to back the Sussexes into a corner.
It's tempting to wonder if they'd settled upon a dark-haired baby actor for the trip and the People story suddenly sent them back to square one.
Why do you think there are so few photos of Archie, aka Archificial?
And did the "tufts of reddish hair" story come from the Sussexes, or Lord Geidt, or maybe even Christian Jones and the Cambridge team?
This comes from an unnamed royal source; anonymity is of course required when communicating such sensitive, high-level national security information.
In addition, the secret source reveals, Archie has "lovely, puffy little legs and tufts of reddish hair. He's really adorable."
But there aren't any photos to confirm this. In fact, there are no new photos of Archie at all.
More than a month with no photos
My first thought: this is more of Meg's PR drivel, perhaps an extension of the contract she reportedly had with People to print five positive stories per month.The lack of pictures gives me pause, however. Why didn't People insist on a new photo of Archie before running the story?
The public hasn't seen Archie since July 10 - and that's if you believe that whoever or whatever Meghan was carrying during her surprise polo match appearance was indeed Archie. It appeared to be much larger than an 8-week-old child, and was surprisingly immobile for nearly 30 minutes.
If you don't count the polo match, Archie hasn't been seen since his Christening photos released July 6, one of which carried metadata saying it had been taken in May. Since Archie was supposedly born May 6, that would suggest that Archie is not the baby in the photo.
The other photo released that day, a black and white shot, may have been of a different child, with a different head shape and bone structure.
(And both images showed a child holding his head up independently while sitting, which is ambitious for a baby only two months old. This is usually a four-month milestone.)
Before the Christening photos, the only images released of Archie have been the odd, partially-concealed face in the Instagram post for Father's Day, and the photos and video from Archie's presentation to the public shortly after his birth. He was surprisingly immobile during that event, as well.
Is there really an Archie?
The Southern Africa trip
Today's People story could point in one of two directions.Maybe there really is an Archie, a lovely red-haired moppet who has been growing up in blissful privacy with his parents in Frogmore Cottage, a child we'll all get to meet when his parents tour Southern Africa beginning with Cape Town next month.
Or maybe there isn't an Archie, and what we've been seeing so far is a combination of props and babies borrowed for photo opportunities.
In that case, who are the Sussexes going to take to Africa?
Casting a baby actor
It's one thing to find a baby actor whose parents will hover in the background as Meg is photographed with their child.It's another thing to find parents willing to bring their child to Africa to pose. (Or to source a baby of the right age locally - Cape Town's population is 16% white.)
And it's yet another level of difficulty to find a baby of the correct age with compliant parents, local presence/an interest in inter-continental travel AND "tufts of reddish hair".
If I were as smart as Lord Geidt is said to be, this is the exact sort of thing I'd come up with to back the Sussexes into a corner.
It's tempting to wonder if they'd settled upon a dark-haired baby actor for the trip and the People story suddenly sent them back to square one.
What do you think?
Why do you think there are so few photos of Archie, aka Archificial?
And did the "tufts of reddish hair" story come from the Sussexes, or Lord Geidt, or maybe even Christian Jones and the Cambridge team?
Comments
The Africa trip will be very telling as everyone knows they're going. There are BOUND to be photogs who will be successful. As to whom they're actually photographing - who knows. Farchie.
Honestly, I don't what to believe anymore. My "conspiracy theory" is, the surrogate gave birth early, held on to the baby and just now released him to his "adoptive" but biological parents. Hence the no pictures of Archie and the claims of privacy and no title and the possible use of a doll until the real thing showed up.
If he was born of the body then S'Meagol had him early and not when she said her due date was. And his legal title is Earl of Dumbarton. There's no "not taking a title" tripe because we want him to grow up normal and private. He may not be HRH at this time but he is Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. He'll get to be an HRH when his grandfather, Prince Charles ascends the throne.
I don't know why there aren't any pictures. The way Harry talked about having kids when he was single, you'd think he'd be all over Archie just showing him off and having fun with him. Sadly that hasn't materialized. I'm not sure what to think and to be honest, I've practically written them off as non entities.
Timeline is shady, and I think she just padded like crazy to have all of the cute photos with a bump, that's why there are all situations with bump size and etc.
I think she's doing all these shenanigans with kid because she is mad at press. They criticize her, make fun of her, overanalyze every her step and her dress. She wants to be adored and loved, but she doesn't get it, so, like any other rebeling teen, she, well, rebels, avenges, and plays "look what you made me do" victim. She just uses kid for that, and that's all. It proves one thing - she cares only about me myself and I, and she will weaponize anything and anyone in her little "game".
So, this theory that the reigning monarch's grandchildren get to be princes isn't true.
I don't think even Harry knew what was going on at the time the announcement was made.
Markle has been known to lie in the past - if you haven't seen her video where she exclaims "I am such a fraud!", it's on YouTube.
What is the truth and what is a lie
I would say she faked that pregnancy
All of the coat flicking was enough proof for me
Also if you look at the link below, you will see an interesting post
on the 6th May from the Cambridges
There is no Archie
No tuft of fuzzy red hair#
No fat little legs
It's a hoax
If there is an Archie, then he is sitting on a shelf at Fraudmore cottage gathering dust while his human mommy and daddy are having a well deserved holiday from all of the stress & British riff raff who indirectly pay for the private jets
The Sussex' have hoodwinked everybody with the claim to privacy, when in fact they want secrecy
Privacy Vs Secrecy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UDytgyrpNY
check it out at 4.36 min
Neither the Queen nor Charles have proactive personalities, and they'd never dealt with anything like this before.
I think this is why Lord Geidt was brought back - to handle Meghan.
Poor little bloke would be exhausted from all of mommy's merching
That said, it would have to be the Queen that decided not to give Archie a title, and therefore Charles could also change that when he becomes King.
Though perhaps one day, when William is in charge, there may be more transparency about what goes on behind Palace walls. Until then, the heir presumptive to the heir apparent has to zip it and fall on his sword like a good boy. After W. and K. said their strained and nervous-laughing faux remarks to the media, it's hilarious how quickly they vamoose. William is practically dragging his wife by the arm in his haste to run to the privacy of the car.
People of integrity are made very uncomfortable by lying, especially systematic lies, filmed for posterity.
The Princesses of Windsor storm the gates of Fraudmore to find out the truth about Archie once and for all. Megsie, they're comin' for you, b***h! Fun gets going at 1:05.
But studying them in side-by-side comparisons, it is apparent they are the same baby. His nose and distinctive mouth are the same, as is the cleft between his upper lip and nose (the philtrum--thank you, Google.) The baby in the indoor color shot appears ginger and with a smaller head, but I think it's a trick of the lighting and the distance. In the extreme close-up B&W shot, 'Archie''s 'tufty' hair and eyebrows are so pale as to be nearly invisible.
The baby at the presentation was oddly, disturbingly still for the entire length of the photo call, but the distinctive nose and lips are visible . . it's the same baby. The photo call was only 3 minutes long and he was tightly swaddled. Even so his complete lack of even miniscule movements is strange. Still, I'm satisfied that we have seen a real baby three times. As for the polo . . the gigantic '2-month old' that remained inert for a full half hour despite being outside in a noisy environment with sun and bugs and people . . I'm leaning 99.9998% to 'doll' . . unless she drugged him. No baby sleeps that hard to never stir at all in that length of time while being held in such a precarious position.
Megsie crashed the polo and didn't have access to the same baby at the last minute; hence the need in her deranged mind for a prop to signal to Harry, lest he be getting any ideas of breaking cover whilst with his brother of the pact with the Devil he has made. The Archie Fiction must be maintained at all costs.
Harry completely ignored the 'baby' that day. One would have thought that he'd relieve Megs of her burden and take the 'baby' since she was very obviously struggling to hold him properly. Had 'he' been a real baby on that occasion, it'd have been negligent in the extreme to let a high, deranged attention-seeker to hold him that long without support or chair or pram. She looked like she was going to drop 'him' on his large melon head at any moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-reveal-new-photo-of-archie-to-mark-christening-11757904
I believe the laws of physics and the testimony of my own eyes that scream that Meg was never pregnant. If she had delivered this baby, we wouldn't be dealing with this FUBAR situation and there wouldn't be such confusion about where and when Archie was born, or how old he was when we saw him.
Argument for surrogacy is compelling, since the baby seems to resemble both his alleged parents . . Meghan most, but there's a bit of Harry in there too. I think the baby's eyes are brown, but he's got Harry's coloring.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/why-royal-watchers-are-divided-over-archies-christening-photos/news-story/03b84c234495545e28f32aa1ae6ae214
Harry was a very homely infant, but he turned into a very cute toddler:
http://omotundealata.com/royal-fans-divided-over-who-archie-looks-like-his-dad-or-mum-meghan/
***************
They can't come clean about the charade and the true whereabouts of Archie, though, because can you imagine the public outrage that would arise from finding out that Harry and the blessed Markle Mother were being kept from their own child?
It's FUBAR all right. Is everyone going to carry on this hoax forever? Because people *are* going to be asking with increasing frequency after MM gets back from her 'maternity leave' (like she really ever disappeared) . . "Where's Archie?" and "How's the little blighter?" Every birthday and occasion where the Cambridge children are present but Archie is notable by his absence is going to raise fresh questions.
Over on Charlatan Duchess, she's got a mocked up Spanish Vogue cover featuring Meg's face pasted on the cover model's face, riding a scooter. On the back of the scooter . . a red headed Cabbage Patch Kid doll. It's worth looking for the best laugh you'll have all week.
Furthermore, once kids get to the age where they can talk, it makes role play more difficult. They're not going to call someone Mum who isn't their mum.
Before then, the Sussexes might be able to share still photos, but in videos it would be obvious that a borrowed child has little connection with them.
If I were the Cambridges/Geidt/Prince Andrew's team, I'd get some obscure but vaguely credible foreign publication to spill all the beans, preferably one not domiciled in the Commonwealth. A French or German magazine, for example.
Spill the beans with lots of detail that's difficult to dispute.
Then the palace can vigorously deny the story, just like they denied the Chuck and Di divorce rumors, before eventually admitting the story is true.
Otherwise I agree with Avery - some paparazzi would have snapped a picture, with a long lens from a boat if nothing else.
TCD is on Tumblr.
Vastly entertaining reading and updated daily while we are between Nutty postings.
She really, really has it in for Smeaghan and has compiled such damning evidence. That motorcycle photo with the Cabbage Patch Kid is pretty far down the page.
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/
Or perhaps Geidt or Christian Jones knew that a story about a private plane trip was a sure way to get the public annoyed (given Harry's environmental stance) and take a bit of attention away from Andrew's troubles.
I don't think "borrowing" sperm would be too difficult once she and Harry were physically involved. Particularly if she had technical support (transport, freezing) from her Soho House team.
I am very sad that Princess Eugenie was overshadowed and pushed aside for this gluttonous grifter. if you really meant what you said about the magazine covers being taken away from her, too, I am doubly saddened. It was a beautiful, joyous wedding. That, MM cannot take away from her.
Also, have a theory that once MM got close to PH, she was taken up by monsters of the deep for their own purposes. Always the BRF have symbolized the normalcy and stability of British life. Potentially, a plan was devised to wreck the BRF and demoralize the British people to undermine Brexit. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Now that PH has been recruited on his own merits, lets see how long MM is allowed to remain on the stage.
I don't believe for one minute our gal Megs was pregnant, whether earlier or later than she claimed. For one, the timing. While it wasn't impossible that she got pregnant immediately after marrying Harry, for a woman of her age, kinda unlikely. For another, the ever-changing, ever-flexible bump. It wasn't just the New York baby shower miraculous bump pictures on Harry Markle, it was all nine months of big bumps, little bumps, square bumps, missing bumps. I believe there was a surrogate, or possibly a baby they were adopting, and that something went wrong, as in the birth mother or even Meghan herself changed her mind, or asked for a trial period before finalizing the deal. I think this is why we haven't seen Archie since the polo. Telling the world she was pregnant at Eugenie's wedding was just a mean little attention getting move.
I don't believe there was any Archie doll, as amusing as the speculation is, because I don't think the Queen, who has built a lifetime reputation for integrity, would for one minute pose for or allow to be released a photo of her smiling over a doll. I do think that there was no real christening, that Meg borrowed that baby for photos. That's why the Queen was not in the photos, why Will and Kate look so tense and angry at being forced to go along with it, and why it looks oddly photoshopped. As for her subsequent weight gain that makes her look postpartum, she's either taking hormone shots to try and have a natural baby because she still hasn't Archie, or she's given up whatever it is she used to use to stay so thin, and we're seeing her natural form returning.
Because believe me, dear readers, if she had full legal and physical custody of that baby, we'd never be able to go a day without seeing Archie in designer babywear, his designer nursery and accessories, or hearing about Meg's thoughts and tips on woke, Goop-style parenting. Merching to Meg's us like breathing.
I think most of us are by now familiar with the pregnant Lady in Brown that ambushed Meghan outside of the church on Commonwealth Day. Meghan initially smiles at her . . it probably didn't compute instantly that she, Smegs, was busted. Shortly after this day, Meghan would disappear from public view for nearly 8 weeks 'to prepare for the impending birth & draw up her home birthing plan', as we were told. Perhaps at this time the family was still trying to hash out the best way forward with this mess Meg had gotten them embroiled in? Showing off the surrogate publicly was so Meg knew that *they* knew of her scheme . . .but perhaps it hadn't yet been decided what was going to be done about the baby. If H. and M.'s drug abuse is as regular as we think it is, based on their behavior, that would be reason enough to deny them custody. I'm sure the Queen has sought top legal advice for this unprecedented situation. It would be symptomatic of MM's narcissism if she pursued an unsanctioned surrogacy arrangement without studying up on the ramifications of having a British surrogate. In the United States, the genetic donor(s) are the acknowledged legal parents of a child that is theirs by DNA, but not so in Britain, where the 'of the body' rule takes precedence even for non-Royals. The birth mother IS his mother and H. and M. would have to formally adopt their own genetic issue. Any number of worms in this can for the RF to cope with.
Maybe it's not the surrogacy itself, but rather the systematic deceit, not just to the immediate family but to the entire world watching Meghan's Pregnancy Show. Also, as with the Vogue issue, MM probably lied and lied and lied about her intentions until it was too late to do anything about it . . Meg's MO: when denied permission, or likely to be denied permission, just do it anyway and then lie about it until discovered and say, "Well, too late now, nyah, nyah (tongue out, of course.) Had the Harkles approached the family with a serious discussion of their intentions to try for a surrogacy and behaved appropriately and with decorum in public while the surrogate was expecting, perhaps everything would be different now. Meg's greed got the better of her, and we will never know what might have been.
But if the current state of affairs is the 'solution' the Lord G. pow-wow came up with . . .ie., 'We allow Meg and Harry to pretend that they had a baby, and will allow them access enough to pose with pictures with him and accept gifts on his behalf, and spin complete fictions in print about how he's growing up . . "? How is this a solution? They probably realized though, to make an announcement in March or April that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had conceived via surrogate but would NOT be raising the child themselves . . . the hew and cry from the public would have been extreme. But now they have the unsavory and extreme task of fudging a baby for the near and distant future. I just don't see how this is going to be tenable in the long term. Especially if Megs and Hairy get divorced . . as they most certainly will.
Anne's children have no titles because titles typically follows the male line. HM could have given Mark Phillips a title or issued a letter patent, but as we've heard Anne didn't want that.
I think it's weird that Archie is styled just plain Mr. And Penny Junor said he'll never get a title - which means Charles intends to write a new letter patent to change the current rule.
Meghan loves being "the Duchess" and I'm not seeing Harry rushing to call himself Captain Wales. Or Captain Windsor. Or Captain Markle (ho hum). So why not style their child something other than plain mister?
Megs thought she could get away with it b/c of her great acting skills. Anyone who's ever had children knows she was telling porkies about not having a due date and so many other things. She knew the Queen wouldn't have her physically carted off for an exam with the royal physicians against her will, and what other way would she have been caught out? It's possible Harry went along because there would be a huge scandal if he admitted they weren't living together (and besides, he's said for years that he wants children).
Something went wrong with the surrogate, probably shortly before the baby was supposed to arrive. That's why we saw all the craziness around the "birth." I bet a box of biscuits some of the royal reporters know much more than they're letting on.
The lack of pics to go with the dribble of Meg-crafted, paid PR should make us all suspicious. If they had the baby, we'd be seeing it. Megs would've sold rights to the first images for a load of money and then Insta-merched the hell out of every baby item she could get her paws on. The bit about "tufts of red hair" is a load of tosh, by the way. Red hair is recessive; both parents must have the gene for it to be expressed. That's why it's said red hair "skips" a generation. Biracial Megs doesn't have it, Thomas and Doria don't, and from the photos online, it looks like none of the grandparents did either. The odds are vanishingly slim that M and H's genetic offspring would be a ginger.
Going forward, I predict we'll hear less and less about Farchie, with few/no images. The news cycle goes fast, and people will forget quickly. We won't have to worry about it for too long, though, because the divorce will happen well before he starts pre-school. M will go back to the US and live a very secluded, glam life that includes witness-protection levels of secrecy for him. It will be said that he's attending Swiss boarding school or some such nonsense, until he fades from public memory and M becomes completely irrelevant (should take about 3-5 years, tops). Hopefully the actual child (if there is one) gets to live a lovely life with his birth mum, free of any contact with the barking madwoman who pretended to carry him.
If PH is as much like his grandfather, the DE, as I think he is, the contempt he feels will rise up, and one day, he will throw caution to the wind and say what he really thinks about this farce.
"Red hair is associated with the gene MC1R, a recessive and somewhat rare gene that occurs in only about 2 percent of the world's population, according to the National Institutes of Health. That means both parents must carry a copy of the gene to produce a red-haired child and often the trait skips generations."
Specifically to @Mary above and others who may think that both parents must have red hair to produce a red-headed child:
It is not true that both parents need to be gingers. It is true that both parents must carry the recessive gene. In PHs case, it means that he got a ginger from his mom and his dad. That is the only way he could have red hair. Red hair is even recessive to blond hair. SO, PH has two reds, and markle would then have to also have the red that met up with PHs red. It is possible she could have a dark hair gene and a red hair gene and the dark hair would be the one to prevail in her case, and she still could have given little Fauxrchie a gene for red hair.
While it is *possible* Fauxrchie has tufts of red hair from the recessive genes he received from his proud papa and merde-of-the-bat-bonkers earthmother markle, it's only a little likely. Like 2%ish. And 98%ish unlikely.
If I were playing the odds, I'd not play the red-haired-gene odds.
I believe that it was a Lord G move to back the Dumbartons into an even smaller corner. Eventually, there will be no more corners, and the BRF can publicly be as shocked and appalled as the rest of us. After all, markle refused royal doctors, and that story just ran again the other day. How would the BRF officially know that Fauxrchie was a faux bébé? They wouldn't. And even for those who suspected the BRF did know, the BRF have plausible deniability and that is everything.
Unless PH put in writing that he and the markle was scamming the fam, how would they know?
I think it is entirely possible that markle lied about Fauxrchie and even PH didn't know at the beginning. First, she's a liar. She tells whoppers with aplomb. Remember the standing ovation and not knowing anything about the BRF and her poor dog was too old to fly and ... well, you know the lies she's told and continues to tell. She's a liar, and the only thing we know to be true about liars is that they lie. Markle could easily have lied about this. By the time PH knew, he had to go along or out his wife and end his marriage. So, he went along (fool).
As for the rest of the BRF, Andrew is likely the only one who has had her knees and bottoms up, and I do believe that either he or Skippy got to bounce markle's yacht. Still, that bounce was some time ago. Without physical examination or a confession from the Dumbartons, the BRF would not know. And unless there is incontrovertible proof that the BRF knew that Archie wasn't of markle's body, the BRF have plausible deniability, and they can drag this spectacle de merde out until they force the truth out of markle and that fool of a man-child. And that is why they would wait, and remain silent, and that is why Fauxrchie now has little tufts of red hair.
Lord G, brilliant move.
from wikipedia: She is styled as "Lady Louise Windsor",[24] although letters patent issued in 1917, and still in force, assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all children of a monarch's sons.[25] Consequently Lady Louise would have been entitled to be styled as "Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex". However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as prince or princess.[26] Thus, court communications refer to her as Lady Louise Windsor.[27]
By the way, Archie's title is Esquire. Which is what landed gentry used to be called.
When I read the story, I had a mental image of Sparkles up at midnight, snipping red hairs from Harry's face or head while he was sleeping, and desperately gluing the little tufts of hair onto a little plastic doll's head.
My big question now is; if the birth mother has her child, how is she handling being a parent to a child she didn’t want? If she agreed to act as a surrogate for these two she did it out of generosity or for the money. Having to raise a child wasn’t part of the deal.
Although the whole DNA thing is quite complicated, esp when one wanders into the mitochondrial DNA, etc., the overall breakdown is pretty easy. Every one of us gets 23 chromosomes from each parent, 46 total. The genes are packed into the chromosomes (the number of genes per chromosome varies greatly). Again, this is very simplistic explanation of a complicated subject, but very generally speaking, the dominant gene wins. So both parents give you a hair color gene. If one gives a dominant gene and one a recessive, then the child will have the hair color of the dominant gene but the recessive gene will still be there and that child can pass on the recessive gene. If both parents gave a dominant gene, then that child would only have dominant genes. If both parents gave a recessive gene, then the recessive coloring would be what we'd see. Recessive genes only manifest when they're the only ones.
While it *is* possible that markle had a red-haired gene, we know PH only has red-haired genes (most recessive, so he has to have two of them for it to show up), so PH can only give red. Markle can give black or, if she had a recessive gene, then she could give that one (blond or red, for ex.), and in theory, their child could have red hair if she gave the red recessive. But since that gene only occurs in about 2% of the world's population and markle never had a real family anyway, hard to imagine that red-hair gene showing up.
On my mother's side, one grandparent had dark hair, the other blonde. They had four children, three brunettes, one blond (my mother). My parents both had blond hair as do my sibs and I. However, one parent had blue eyes and one green. I am their only green-eyed child. Both hair and eye color genes are now thought to be more complicated than science once thought (from what I've read, I'm not a scientist), but the basics still apply. I have had my DNA tests done and I can trace my family back approximately 36 generations, so it is an area of interest for me.
I can't see how PA having sex with a trollop would be enough to blackmail PH into marriage, however. I mean, Andy is single and markle sure wouldn't be the worst thing he'd done. I do believe she probably felt the motion of the ocean with both PA and Skippy, however.
Master is the child version of mister. It's pretty old fashioned, so hardly in use anymore but any young male child can by called master, it's not an exclusive title.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kerykn/status/1161316073486147587
The lines of the shoulders are off. This looks more like markle than macklin but it could also be
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301399/Prince-Andrew-jets-model-friend-Alexandra-Escat.html
Of course, I'm sure that the BRF had their suspicions and had those suspicions investigated from the likes of Lord G. and the results of the investigation known only to a few senior royals. But unless they turned markle upside down and had-at or had the doctors' examine her or had written physical proof, they can't know for fact and that is what will protect the BRF when the merde hits the fan.
The BRF can use the information to their benefit and still have plausible deniability, and that is a beautiful thing to have. They can trap markle in a corner and not have to do any dastardly public outing. They can let markle do the harikari instead of the pauvre bebe act. That's my point, and that is what I would do if I were in this situation. Act from behind the scenes. Let markle destroy herself. Revenge is a dish best served cold and knowledge is power. So that is what I meant. But of course they knew, just like we know that something is way, way funkadelic on this spectacle de merde.
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com/post/159721104186/meghan-markles-ivory-soap-controversy-is-totes
Oh, the way her stories change. She is just such a skeezy, sleazy and very bad liar. Lots of info in there.
The US authorities would presumably have to investigate the death of any US citizen who expired abroad, particularly if there was an accidental death scenario.
I also think her citizenship will help protect Markle from a Diana-type situation. Nobody wants the FBI looking into whatever the Royals might cook up to get rid of her.
If the Sussexes used a surrogate, the rules are less clear: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Assisted-Reproductive-Technology-ART-Surrogacy-Abroad.html#Will
Apparently the American citizen must either be the biological parent (donor egg or sperm) or the gestational parent.
"Even if local law recognizes a surrogacy agreement and finds that U.S. parents are the legal parents of a child conceived and born abroad through ART, if the child does not have a biological connection to a U.S. citizen parent, the child will not be a U.S. citizen at birth."
I would assume Meg would want Archificial (if he exists) to have US citizenship as part of her eventual escape plan.
Confirming citizenship, however, requires the baby to be taken in person to a US consulate (in the Sussexes' case, the consular officer would probably do a house call) and a legal birth certificate to be produced.
Bottom line: whether or not Archie has gone through the US citizenship process would be an interesting clue to whether or not he exists, and if he does exist, whether or not he is the Sussexes' biological child.
I would be surprised if W and K had staff who were careless enough to post something so potentially scandalous. Did they have any staff quit shortly after that post? If so, maybe there is some validity?
With that said, it would be oh SO JUICY if it were a legit tweet and the account had not been hacked.
Do you have a link to the video of the pregnant lady in brown that ambushed MM? I'd love to see it. Thanks!
I suppose the BRF could have insisted that she be fitted for some formal outfit or uniform and sent in an undercover M15 lady disguised as a tailor or dressmaker.
That type of person also wouldn't be subject to medical privacy laws, the way a doctor, nurse, or midwife would be.
What I find interesting is the Gucci dress she wore to the Fashion Awards in December 2018. That fit perfectly, so someone at Givenchy must have measured her for that. Maybe they brought in one of her Soho house chums to do it.
As I recall, there was a similar trip to Lake Como to visit the Clooneys - also with no on-the-scene photos.
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02018082046800/prince-harry-meghan-markle-visit-george-amal-clooney-lake-como
Like Ibiza, the information was also released through the local media, plus a local hairdresser.
Yes, someone was willing to take credit for doing Meghan's hair.
Prince Charles is supposed to be Meg's big supporter in the family. So where are the shots of Archificial with "Grandpa Wales"?
As for something untoward happening to markle, I would imagine that there are ways so say goodbye that would not cause too much stress. This is just me and too many movies typing, however, as I've never actually offed an international nuisance.
Let's say someone you know is doing something truly deceitful and heinous (a soon-to-be ex SO or an employee or a financial client or a suspect, a "new" bride pretending to be pregnant but using a surrogate and lying her ass off about it, etc.)
Also, that person has the integrity of Bernie Madoff and the heart and soul of a hyena (they rip their own siblings apart at birth). They cannot be trusted and they have access to things you care about (a child, a family member, a business, etc.)
Let's also say that the risks are very high and that person can make a lot of trouble if the situation isn't handled correctly. Either because of their high profile or access to funds or ability to lie and create sympathy and destroy your case, you cannot act publicly or prematurely. You also have to maintain a shiny public profile and cannot be seen to be in league with this person, but you also cannot attack them directly. You must wait in relative silence.
It is imperative that the person be caught full on, no chance for escape, no chance to explain it away -- you need them completely culpable for despicable actions.
What do you do?
Well, you do a lot of things to document the situation, block potential escape routes (financial, physical, and otherwise), and all the while move to corner them without letting them know your plan. They may suspect that you have an inkling, but they cannot know you know. You do not confront them. You remain as silent as possible and wait.
You set the trap.
You do not then warn them away from the trap. You want them to be well and truly done, so public confrontation or legal ramifications about what they're doing or you think they might be doing will only spoil your case and give them a chance to refrain from or "explain".
You need them red-handed and full-on guilty.
So, you let them cheat or steal or contact the witness or use a surrogate and pretend to have a baby. If you stop them before they do it, you got nothing, and you will be called suspicious or mean or crazy or whatever the hell else they could fling your way. So, you must let them do it.
Then, once they've done it, you can start to set up the endgame and box them in so that they are caught publicly. And there is no proof that you knew, so you have plausible deniability and there is plenty of proof that the person did what they did, and what they did - the actual doing it and then lying about it to all the world - there is no redemption for them.
Go about it any other way and that person will slip from the trap.
I honestly don't see any other way that the BRF can proceed if markle did use a surrogate and lie and fake the whole thing. She has to be caught in the public lie through her own actions and, in the interim, everyone else has to stay clear of the blowback merde that would otherwise splatter all over. If the BRF had tried to force a physical exam on markle, think of the outrage. If the BRF had announced at the birth that Fauxrchie was a surrogate and outed markle, then they'd be mom-shaming-racists denying a couple the baby they so badly wanted. I have thought about this from all of the angles I can, but I don't see any other ways the BRF could have safely proceeded IF they want the markle gone for good and they want her to be vilified by the public for her actions. Any other way, it splashes back on them and while they may be trying to shield PH a bit, they are certainly going to protect C&C, W&K, and the monarchy.
How else do they do it?
Strap on your barf bag to read this glowing account of how Meghan flew to Toronto on August 21 while enjoying "a single glass of champagne" and sipping peppermint tea while watching the all-female drama The Book Club, staring Jane Fonda.
It reads like one of Lindsay Roth's chick fic novels. As a matter of fact, perhaps Roth wrote it.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-drank-champagne-and-watched-book-club-during-solo-journey-to-toronto/news-story/7a725b84d7b916011ac94441f85f7e6f
Don't miss the photo of Chelsy petting the elephant.
No wonder they go on rampages.
I read a headline in passing yesterday . .online, can't remember exact context now, that said "Meghan Markle will not become a British citizen anytime soon."
Quel surprise! I know there's some residency requirement/waiting period for the naturalization process to be complete . . in the U.S. I believe someone has to be a legal resident for 7 years and pass the citizenship test, but I'm not sure if the residency requirement is expedited if one is the spouse of a national. My impression was that the waiting period in the UK was 2-3 years . . but I would have assumed they'd put a rush on the spouse of a Royal family member who has just borne an heir in the line of succession.
(C'mon, pull my finger!! Bwa haha.)
Really it doesn't even make sense for Her Majesty to bestow a Duchess title on a non-subject, even if she is the spouse of her grandson. The Duchess title should only go to British citizens and could be retroactively applied once the Smeagol fulfills her citizenship requirements. That would seem fair to me. Since she's already a Duchess and seems to have unlimited access to the Duchy of Cornwall's money AND since HMTQ is withholding a title for Fauxchie . . . there seems to be no incentive remaining for MM to become a legitimate Briton.
As if anything about her is legitimate, so I for one am not surprised. Her desire to become a British subject is as genuine as her newly-discovered faith in the Anglican church . . .and her dedication to motherhood.
In considering whether the American authorities would concern themselves with the decease of an infant American abroad who may or may not exist . . it is my understanding that his American mother would have to present him in the living flesh to a representative of the United States consulate and his birth abroad to an American citizen be duly registered with a legally witnessed birth certificate. If Megs cannot present a live baby or his official birth certificate to the American officials, I suppose the American government can rest easy that we have not in fact lost one of our youngest citizens abroad.
That at least is a relief.
I hope Megs has considered that if she tries the heinous tack of claiming that Archie has succumbed to SIDS so she can play the glamorous Mourner in Chief ala Jackie Kennedy that while she has succeeded (sort of) in faking a 'pregnancy' a 'birth', a 'christening' and a 'family outing at the polo', faking an infant's death in her high profile situation is not going to fly. The Royal family and any number of governmental agencies are not going to allow her to hold a funeral for a dolly baby. If she thinks faking a birth certificate is hard, wait til she tries to fake a death certificate for an infant and releases that online.
That may be what it takes, in the end, to get her committed for mental illness. If she tries that on, she'd better hope she's committed to a nice cozy sanitarium, because if she showed herself after a stunt like that, she might be shot in the street like a rabid dog.
Celt News, a British subject and anti-Meghan vlogger has two vids. I can't seem to find a Part 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGQ9B2kRXc8&t=61s (Part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9nTc26W58c (Part 3)
After hearing about Lindsay Roth Jordan for so many months as Meg's Bestie and presumably an influencer and well-connected, talented person, or why else would Smegs be associating with her? . . I was surprised to see that both of Meg's college pals were so . . . not the type of women that I'd have thought Meg thought good enough to associate with Herself. They are both heavy-set and average in looks . .not the glamor pusses I would have thought Meg would cultivate.
Also, OT but Red Alert: @RoyalReporter says there's a bad news story on Andrew coming tomorrow and there is a link to a video of Andrew opening the door at Epstein's house to let young girls enter. Go figure he'd be that damned dumb.
If there is an Andrew/markle video or photo out there, we will definitely see it now.
Fiona somebody. I hope she owns a suit of armour.
why so many lies? Why is there so much deception?
Why so much obfuscation?
The BRF are clearly in on the scam too.
They continue to endorse everything from the
photoshopped Christening photo
to the unsigned birth certificate.
They lied about "NOT KNOWING" about Meghan's baby shower.
How did they know? Someone on MM's staff had to make arrangements
with not only the US State Department but British Security Services.
The real 'coup de gras' was learning that Buckingham Palace
denied financial transparency about the NY Baby Shower Security Costs
because it was an issue of "NATIONAL SECURITY."
Meghan is so important to the British Government,
that her $500K Baby Shower Security Costs,
funded by British and American Taxpayers,
must be protected due to National Security.
They are all in for Meghan while they've made it known the public,
whose consent and taxes fund the Monarchy, can go F themselves.
William and Kate, while lovely, are just as much into the celebrity
nonsense as Meghan and Harry. They just hide it better.
After the Queen passes, it's time to abolish the entire scam.
Seems important?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9744378/meghan-markle-prince-harry-private-jet-french-riviera-ibiza/
Looks like the same size as at the polo match. Too big for 2 months then, too big for 3.5 months now.
What do you ladies think?
At least she’s learned how to hold him now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7367511/Prince-Andrew-pictured-inside-paedophile-Jeffrey-Epsteins-63million-mansion-depravity.html
I looked it up (because, of course, I did) and average 3 mo size:
Weight 11.8 - 14.0 pounds
Length 23.0 - 24.1 inches
And South of France? I guess that's what you do when you're really never getting invited to Balmoral?
I swear, poor QEII. This kind of stress isn't good at any age, but at 93? I hope that Chas & Wills & Lord G have another Plan B.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/lord-mountbattens-lust-for-young-men-revealed-90swzmgms
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prince-harry-and-meghan-fancied-living-in-windsor-castle-d8kpc5q30
Brexit or no Brexit, if Andrew is implicated in this in a serious way, it will all kick off. The British press are brutal.
If old Megz thinks she's had it tough, she's kidding herself. Diana and Fergie were absolutely rubbished by the tabloids back in the day. Diana was getting hell in the press right up to her death for dating Dodi Fayed.
The Times is normally a bit more hands off than this.
And now I have to go find out how the Sussex Dumbartons were going to live at Windsor.
The Telegraph are the main cheerleaders for this, and their 'journalism' on this topic is utterly laughable.
I'm white inclined to now think that the People mag titbit about Archie and his red hair and puffy feet was most likely a PR plant to rile up some interest in them as a family again. We all wanted with baited breath to see what would happen after the Cambridge's regatta, and the lovely coverage that family got. And nothing happened, apart from the Diana quote on insta.
Well, looks it was busy behind the scenes, planning this! They likely planted the ibizastoryI to get the public talking about them holidaying as a family, Archie's first trip abroad etc. And with no pucs or other info there was so much being said about this so called birthday trip. Queue in the Archie's had red hair article, and people are discussing like mad. And now..... Two days later, these pics are released by Sun.
Mind you, there are just these 4/5 pics of them, so likely a single photographer managed to take these long shot and subsequently sold them. Could be quite likely that he was tippedocft and this was a deliberate plant. 1. We get to see them as a family. 2. We get to see Archie. 3. She is holding him properly. 4. She send to have lost a little weight. 5. This finally puts to rest the Balmoral family holiday speculation,as now they can say they were in Nice.
Clever PR move, keep the interest in the baby, appear infazed by the rumors, and very soon we'll know what brand the baby clothes were!
A generation of young adults has moved back to live with their parents. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex tried to go a step further — they wanted to move in with the grandparents.
While Harry and Meghan have settled into family life at Frogmore Cottage with baby Archie, they initially had higher hopes. The couple are understood to have set their hearts at first on Windsor Castle, and are believed to have asked the Queen if living quarters could be made available after their marriage.
The Queen politely but firmly suggested Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate, which is said to be her favourite home. The cottage, which has five bedrooms, was then given a £2.4m makeover.
The Queen spends most weekends at Windsor and is in official residence there over Easter and in June. With about 1,000 rooms, including private and state apartments, it is the largest inhabited palace in the world.
Hugo Vickers, a royal author and a deputy lord lieutenant of Berkshire, said: “There are empty bedrooms and suites in the private apartments which the Sussexes may have had their eye on, or perhaps some former living quarters in the castle grounds converted into other things. But I can see how it might not be entirely appropriate to have a young family living there.”
Royal aides say Windsor is “a special place” for Harry and Meghan. They held a christening at the castle for Archie and were married in St George’s Chapel last year.
Queen Victoria allowed her youngest daughter, Beatrice, to remain with her after her marriage on condition she continued her duties as the Queen’s unofficial secretary.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
"The Queen spends most weekends at Windsor and is in official residence there over Easter and in June. With about 1,000 rooms, including private and state apartments, it is the largest inhabited palace in the world."
Unshaded version: The Queen doesn't want the Dumbartons near Windsor, regardless of size. The servants' quarters will do nicely for them.
And "The Queen politely but firmly suggested Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate, which is said to be her favourite home."
Unshaded version: Frogmore House may be her favorite home. Frogmore Cottage would be her favorite servants' quarters, if she actually had a favorite.
I happened to work for the EU, not as an employee but as a consultant. I can tell you that it is the most corrupt institution I have ever had the misfortune of working at. People just don't care. I happen to have several EU passports so the idea of the free migration of people helps me in my career prospects, and I still think it's a terrible thing, mostly because of how it is run.
You should be glad you are getting out.
I only saw her topless from behind, sitting on the walls. I've never seen the nip pics. OTOH, I don't want to see them. OTOH, this sounds like a good clue to why andy had contempt for her from the beginning. Do you have links?
That baby is not 3 1/2 months. Looks more like a 6 to 8 month old.
What's weird is the head is out of proportion to the body length. I'm so sick of this.
Megs and Harry are acting like Michael Jackson did with that stupid hat and Blanket baby. You all might remember how fed up we got with him over that. Enough already.
Notice nobody believed they really went to Spain, then today, photos.
I never understood how HMtQ could make her a duchess, either, since she is not a British citizen. I felt that doing so cheapened the royal mystique. Big mistake, Huge!
Did Wallace I ever become a British citizen?
This is now a while new level of merch. Riding above and beyond clothes and jewelry. We might even get to hear of the place they dine at, the celebrity chef/yoga instructor they hire, a spa for the baby etc etc.
Deliberately provocative and prove nothing. MM is off her game. Poor and puny attempt. Not wasting my time on this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10753957/Royal-tour-day-3-Prince-Georges-first-royal-engagement-in-New-Zealand.html
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02016062027269/prince-william-best-family-moments-kate-george-charlotte/7/
He was also very close to Prince Charles as Charles grew up, a mentor.
Could we kindly skip the Brexit talk here? There are so many other places to discuss it. Thanks.
Remember their "babymoon" they supposedly spent $30,00 dollars on? I'll bet they just cooked that story up for payment also.
On the other hand, that's a lot of people to fool, so maybe I'm the crazy one.
You cannot convince me that she held an infant, sleeping or awake, on her lap during her entire plane trip. Nope, he'd be in a baby carrier or held by his nanny. Maybe people that travel in private planes and private security vehicles do not need to carry their own baby carriers with them but instead depend on public baby carriers. (I've never run in those circles, so perhaps the ladies here can enlighten me.) I wouldn't trust the disinfection of such were I caring for an infant, but maybe that's just me.
My uncle (dark hair and eyes) and his wife (blonde, blue eyes) had only one dark-haired child with brown eyes and the others blonde/blue. The genes might be recessive, but they fight like hell to be seen lol.
Just when I think it can't get any more Twilight Zone, the Dumbartons take it up another notch.
I hadn't considered a kidnapping ploy as something Megs would try. She'd be short-sighted and stupid enough to try it on, I imagine, thinking of all the PR she could get appearing before cameras as the prettily-crying frantic mother beseeching for the return of her child. But that would be the very worst ploy she could try, because the scrutiny on 'Fauxchie' and the Harkle's parenting practices and routines would become intense. Meglodon has proven that you can pretend to give birth to a baby, rent a baby for photos and even carry around a fake baby in public and if you are part of a high-profile family and have your own hired security to keep gawkers at a safe distance, you can get away with it.
But to allege a kidnapping, particularly of a royal baby would kick off an intensive police investigation involving multiple agencies--Interpol, MI-5, MI-6 and probably the CIA, too, since Fauxchie is an American citizen via his mother.
Way too many questions that Smeaghan could not answer. No pictures of her baby . . . professional law enforcement wouldn't shy away from asking her the hardball questions which the world media and the Royal family have so far declined to do. She and Harry would be interviewed separately and relentlessly. How long do you suppose it would take for Hazza to crack under interrogation? He's her hapless henchman in all of this. Then both of them would be facing criminal charges for wasting police time and filing fraudulent police reports and official birth documents.
You know what? I hope she is reckless enough to try this on, after she runs out of size upgrades on the Reborns. That would swiftly put an end to all of this convoluted and self-serving nonsense, and she'd be put in jail or at the very least a secure mental health unit.
I am not sure about Wallis Simpson, but my answer would be 'No', since both of them were prohibited from living in England or even entering the U.K. Any citizenship application from Mrs. Simpson would have been summarily rejected, I imagine. They lived out their days in France.
Compared to the Lindbergh baby saga, the Fauxchie saga is small potatoes.