Day 3 of Meg and Harry's South Africa Trip was an exciting one: we were introduced to the current incarnation of Archie, who was unveiled during a meeting with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize.
Meg was apparently saving up Archie's video debut in order to use the pun headline "Arch meets Archie" - as if it was the 87-year-old anti-apartheid campaigner's great honor to meet the untitled 7th in line to the British throne.
Unfortunately, she waited too long: few people in Meg's under-40 target group have any idea who Desmond Tutu is.
If she'd wanted their attention, she could have introduced Archie to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, or maybe to UK rapper Stormzy.
Archie appeared healthy and happy in his H&M baby jumpsuit.
He spent most of his time during the meeting trying to wriggle away from Meg, who was positioning him to get the best possible photos.
Meanwhile, Archie took a special interest in Desmond Tutu's daughter Thandeka, a smiling middle-aged woman with a peaceful glow. Perhaps Thandeka resembles the Black woman thought to be Archie's nanny.
The baby had no particular interest in Harry or Meg.
He did not reach out to them or try to touch their faces, as we saw Prince Louis reach out to the Cambridges and Camilla during the Trooping of the Color ceremony this summer.
The babies never really looked at Lucy in the face, which is how scientists tell us children learn the various facial expressions we need to survive as humans.
Instead, they looked right off camera, where their real mother was waiting to take them back as soon as the director called "CUT!"
Archie was also looking into the middle distance for some adult who could be trusted to feed him, cuddle him, and make sure he was safe.
Meg was apparently saving up Archie's video debut in order to use the pun headline "Arch meets Archie" - as if it was the 87-year-old anti-apartheid campaigner's great honor to meet the untitled 7th in line to the British throne.
Unfortunately, she waited too long: few people in Meg's under-40 target group have any idea who Desmond Tutu is.
If she'd wanted their attention, she could have introduced Archie to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, or maybe to UK rapper Stormzy.
Looking good for the meeting
At any rate, at least Meg's hair looked good for the meeting: perhaps her hairdresser finally got his glam kit through South African customs. Harry looked good too, with a clean, pressed blue suit.Archie appeared healthy and happy in his H&M baby jumpsuit.
He spent most of his time during the meeting trying to wriggle away from Meg, who was positioning him to get the best possible photos.
Meanwhile, Archie took a special interest in Desmond Tutu's daughter Thandeka, a smiling middle-aged woman with a peaceful glow. Perhaps Thandeka resembles the Black woman thought to be Archie's nanny.
The baby had no particular interest in Harry or Meg.
He did not reach out to them or try to touch their faces, as we saw Prince Louis reach out to the Cambridges and Camilla during the Trooping of the Color ceremony this summer.
Sitcom-style interaction
Meg's interaction with Archie reminded me of Lucille Ball's interaction with the sucession of babies brought on to "I Love Lucy" to play the character of Little Ricky.The babies never really looked at Lucy in the face, which is how scientists tell us children learn the various facial expressions we need to survive as humans.
Instead, they looked right off camera, where their real mother was waiting to take them back as soon as the director called "CUT!"
Archie was also looking into the middle distance for some adult who could be trusted to feed him, cuddle him, and make sure he was safe.
Visiting the kindergarden
Later in the day Meg visited a local child-care center, wearing an inexplicable outfit of a black jumpsuit, high-heeled pumps and huge, gong-style golden earrings.
This would have looked great for cocktails at the Ritz. It was totally bizarre for a collection of women and their babies - babies who might be tempted to take a sharp tug on huge, gong-style golden earrings.
Meg rubbed a few of the ladies the wrong way by insisting on sitting on the floor in her cocktail outfit. Everyone was seated on chairs when Meg suddenly slid to the carpet.
"C'mon, I can't be the only one sitting down here!" she said, and the African women reluctantly followed her to the floor.
The question of chairs
Guess what, Meg: you've grown up in a prosperous society where everyone has all the chairs they want, and sitting on the floor is a fun exercise.
South Africa is a highly unequal society, where some people have fine interior decor and others have very little of anything.
If a woman has grown up in a small home with a lack of furniture, she probably wants to sit on a nice chair when it is available.
The other odd thing about the day care visit was: where was Archie? Wouldn't hanging out with other babies be just his scene?
Perhaps he was not immunized, some of yesterday's commenters pointed out, or perhaps bringing him along would have made it even more clear that he is not 4 and a half months old as advertised.
His motor skills suggest a baby who is around 6 months old.
Day 5 of the trip
On Day 5 of the trip, the Sussexes will carry out separate engagements. Harry will be visiting Botswana, and later the minefield in Angola where his mother Diana was famously photographed.
Meg has a "woman in public service" breakfast in Cape Town.
Let's hope for continued good hair and an appropriate outfit.
Let's hope for continued good hair and an appropriate outfit.
Comments
And Nutty, perfect: "It was totally bizarre for a collection of women and their babies - babies who might be tempted to take a sharp tug on huge, gong-style golden earrings." But I have to say that "gong" immediately made me think "bang the gong" which made me then think, but Rach has already BTDT, so thanks for making me laugh at the bad connection.
My nephew was born with a similar atrophy and after 4 years of medical attention his eyes are perfect now. He still wears glasses but his vision is nearly 20/20 now. Archie will be okay.
Again, I do not mean to insult a little baby. He is an innocent and beautiful little boy. But his non-biological mother’s behavior is something else. He is clearly not her child. There is no mutual affection between them. The poor baby is mostly trying to squirm away from her. He does not know her.
That’s why she didn’t bring him to that mother and child gig where she forced women who probably don’t have chairs at home, to sit on the ground just so she could sell the “I’m just like you” propaganda. Disgusting.
He looks a lot like Harry, so Harry’s sperm was used for sure, but the egg planted in the surrogate was definitely not hers. Poor little Archie keeps looking away to somewhere beyond the cameras where his nanny, his safe person is. He does not know Markle at all.
And thank God he doesn’t.
Hashtag Save Archie
BUT...
Hazza barely looked at him, Meghan still doesn't know what to do with him and TBH, I'm indifferent to the poor kid. He could have been the nation's sweetheart, like Louis had become Boss Baby. His idiotic parents removed that chance when they decided to turn his birth and first few months into a shit show of a circus. People are past it now.
Also, can I ask. Did anyone else get freaked out by Smeghead carrying a baby in those sky high heels? It made my stomach knot up, especially when she was going up the stairs. And I did note something else; when going up said stairs, in said stupidly high heels, Hazmat never ONCE put his hand behind his wife in a protective pre-emptive gesture in case she fell backwards.
My hubs does that automatically if I'm in heels, let alone holding a (supposedly) four month old child. I accept it may not be every man but Harry is out there claiming that he is so protective of his missus and son that they MUST fly via private jet etc, yet he doesn't even make the most basic and instinctual moves to ensure their safety.
A small thing to notice, I know but it struck me as very odd.
Isn't Archie technically almost 6-months old now if his birthday is May 6? Or am I missing something because everyone says stuff about how he's so advanced for a 4-month old.
That all being said, it did not surprise me a bit that the Duchess of Self-Advancement and Woke Light Shining would introduce her baby to Desmond Tutu and not bring him to an actual baby, age-appropriate event, like playing with the other kids at mother2mother. If indeed he was too young to go because of vaccinations, why would you bring him to another country at all? Is she priming him already for a life of light-shining and making friends only with powerful people? She's already got him with the cameras :)
I have two theories for this opinion of mine, which I accept others will not share. The first is the possibility that Harry's perceptible detachment when with the baby is because Meghan went ahead with this pregnancy in some underhand way without consulting him, publicly starting with the maternity coat at Eugenie's wedding, which left no way back short of a miscarriage. Remember the rumours that came out during the Australia tour. If true, they kept arguing about the pregnancy. Which would be odd. Usually when a recently married couple argue about pregnancy it's about the lack of money or care arrangements with the need to keep working, but they wouldn't need to worry about that.
When I say the pregnancy came about "in some underhand way" I'm either thinking Meghan herself became pregnant before they had agreed on this (unlikely it would work that fast given her age) or maybe using his sperm to make another (possibly white) woman pregnant. I mean informally, the old-fashioned turkey-baster way that doesn't involve fancy clinics. It's possible to do that without the man knowing of course. I'm thinking of the pregnant woman in the church photographs inexplicably positioned right next to the royal reception line.
And then Harry was trapped. The baby would be his baby but would not be entitled to the place in succession, and the implications of that would be huge. And now he's still having to go along with it.
The other possibility for his detachment is that the baby is his and Meghan's, but that he didn't want the baby because he had realised what he was married to. The NPD angle. He's been trapped since before the marriage. Sleep-walked through the wedding because he didn't know what to do. But definitely knew he didn't want a baby as that would seal their association forever.
However, his willing participation recently on the celeb side argues against this. His shameless offering of Meghan's acting services to the Disney heads at the Lion King premiere (don't mean that to sound dodgy!). There was also his sleazy smiling at the Nonoo wedding. I gave up on him then. No, I have to go back to the turkey-baster theory. After all, it wouldn't be the first time this rumour has surfaced in the royal family.
And I won't be tricked by good optics on his solo leg of the tour. We know now that a lot of that was down to ELF in the past. Obscuring the real Harry. I'm not saying Harry doesn't have a good side. Even Boris Johnson probably has a good side, although I can't find it now. However there was another Harry we didn't see then. But we can see him now.
The ring is a bit glitzier than I would choose but Beatrice looks happy, which is the main thing. I had my reservations about him, but have slowly been coming around. I had my reservations about Jack too, purely because of his job title which was a gift to the comedy TV series 'The Windsors'. But now I think he's great and I hope the Queen and Prince Charles will give him (and Eugenie of course) a much more prominent role.
So I'm happy for Beatrice. The country needs some happy news and some pretty photographs as everything else is grim. The worst it has been in my lifetime. I know we don't get into politics, but with the judiciary, parliament and the executive all being shaken before our eyes, we need to see the Queen and the royal family in their traditional roles, and we need the Queen to be strong, and to stay in the public eye.
Of course the cost to the tax-payers of another wedding may add fuel to the fire. We shall have to see. Speaking for myself, I'm so shaken by proceedings in parliament that I'm grabbing hold of the prospect of this wedding with sheer relief.
Ava C, the climax of their tour was the presentation of Archie which was yesterday and unless Meghan releases her nudes, there is no way that the tour will make headlines anymore with the announcement of Eugenes engagement. Meghan announced her pregnancy during Beatrice wedding so she shouldn't be upset that Eugene has stolen her thunder. For the queen to approve the announcement of the engagement during the Sussexes tour tells me that all is still not well between the palace and the Sussexes.
I'm still of the school of thought that she was pregnant when they married. It doesn't surprise me that Archie's teething because he probably IS 6 or 7 months old.
The visit with Archie and the Archbishop reminded me of the time my son was a newborn and we went for his 1 month checkup. In the waiting room with us was a woman reading the Wall Street Journal while her 3 year-old daughter was getting all sorts of love and attention from her nanny. I was like, "What the actual F?!" I found myself looking around so I could say to someone, anyone, "Are you seeing this sh!t?"
The woman never once interacted with her daughter and the daughter didn't seem to mind. This lady had completely outsourced her parenting. That's what I imagine happens at home (wherever that is) with Harry and Meg. For the narc, children are props, not people.
As for the sitting on the floor. I face palmed so hard I left a hand print on my forehead. How insensitive and inconsiderate can you be, FFS?!
It's not all about you boo. It's not all about you.
The pictures from the baby shower in NYC where she is holding the tote bag in front of her is the best evidence to me that she was not pregnant, or was not at the time of the photo. She does not appear pregnant in those photos, at a time when she should have been her largest according to her own timeline.
I do not know where it went off the rails so badly. When she first announced her pregnancy, I believed it. The subsequent mess around the due date, Archie's birth, and then the bizarre behavior associated with shielding him for privacy and showboating him in SA mirrors the chaos in the lead up to their May 2018 wedding.
Getting back to Occam's, I really don't know what can be whittled away and what the simplest explanation is. If MM did not court the media in so many other ways, I might believe that she is just a very private wallflower who was never comfortable in her role. But that is not how they have behaved since their engagement.
I don't think to the videos of Archie would raise any alarms to the casual observer, the baby looked happy & healthy, the parents smiled. Of course, we 'Archieologists' are looking for anything slightly amiss. The video on Prince Harry & Me of her shaking the baby while wriggling her hips was strange, & agitating a baby like that is more of a dad move than a mom move. Even loving dads have injured their own babies by moving them too roughly. Moms usually treat their babies like fragile treasures.
Skippy is bit too conspiratorial for me, but she's consistently said three things, there is a real baby, but he's not 'of the body,' & Megs & Harry aren't living together. Harry's depressed demeanor throughout the trip, & his distant, almost indifferent attitude to little Archie do raise questions about this family. My husband was a total baby bore, he thought his kids were God's gift. I had to talk him out taking our infants to places like the theatre or the USOpen. I knew others in the audience wouldn't appreciate the noise & distraction a baby would cause. As I believe Nutty has pointed out, maybe Megs kept Archie hidden because she didn't want to be upstaged by her own child. Skippy seems to be right on the baby & the marriage!
For those who were wondering about Markle's wigs and weaves, here is a photo from her Suits days sporting her real hair. You can see that it is straightened, but not stick straight and slick like her wigs and her hair line is further back than it appears when she wears her lace front wigs that always fall into her eyes.
Note also that her nose has been revised again since this Suits photo and her skin is darker.
That said, I was struck by the lack of connection between both Harry and Meghan and their baby yesterday. Your darling first-born, on his first 'official' outing, and neither of you seem interested in him? Most parents would be constantly looking at the child and engaging with him, but they barely even glanced at him at all. Meghan was jigging him around a bit as though she saw on TV that that was what mothers were 'supposed' to do with babies, but it didn't seem natural at all.
But it's not so much Meghan's behaviour that suprises me - we all suspect she's a narcissist and only had a baby to cement her ties to the royal family. But Harry supposedly had been desperate for a child for a long time. Now that he has one, he seems so disconnected from him. Poor kid.
/I'm sure it was COMPLETELY coincidental.
As for Nelo's point about the big day for H&M being yesterday, it's entirely possible the BRF shifted the announcement a tiny bit because of the Supreme Court judgement the day before, then the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday. These are momentous days in British history, happening right now. And the Queen will be more than aware of that.
It's good for the Royal Family - Edo is an aristo who has been in royal circles since birth, so he has a very good idea what he's getting himself into. Also, his passion in life is fixing up old properties and making them new and modern. If there's anything the Royal Family has plenty of, it's old properties. If I were William, soon to be the administrator of many piles of old bricks via the Duchy of Cornwall, I'd be thrilled.
It's also good for Beatrice, from what I can see. Bea is not a career-oriented person, but she does seem to be a good helpmate; she's reportedly been living with Edo for several months and caring for his young son, with the child's mother's full agreement. The child's mother is an ambitious architect who works all over the world, and I can see why a relationship between two ambitious people might not have worked out, particularly when the pregnancy occurred only after a month or so of dating. It'll be interesting to see how they include Edu's son in the wedding.
Anyway, I've heard a few people calling Edo the "male Meghan" because he's rather pretty, but I don't think the comparison holds.
I wish them good luck, and I hope Charles or William allows Bea to be a full-time Royal. Showing up, smiling, shaking hands, and cutting ribbons is something she would do well. And it's not as easy as it looks, as Meghan has shown us.
I thought the photos of Beatrice and Edo were lovely. I wish them all good things.
They're not over, of course, but he's out of the headlines for the moment, so I think they went ahead and made the announcement today.
After all, Jack had a bullet belt lined with shot glasses, from which he was constantly drinking tequila.
Must have been a little difficult for "The Windsors" , who started filming when Meg and Harry were still relatively well-liked, before the secret Christening, secret godparents, and private jet scandals.
Think they did rewrites to reflect events as they developed?
I hope Edo and his family pay for the wedding, perhaps in Italy. They can afford it, and now is not a good time for the British taxpayers to be financing yet another elaborate ceremony.
So maybe he's nervous around Archie for fear Meghan will snap at him? Perhaps in private, he's very much involved with his son. I hope so, for that cute little boy's sake.
Americans and Europeans take health and sanitation for granted. We don't realize how difficult life can be in other parts of the world.
Back to our discussion: I wonder if the announcement of Bea's engagement is further evidence that this is not an official tour? Or maybe we're reading too much into this?
Meghan has schemed since she was 15 years old to get where she is now. Harry himself is incidental; I believe she never loved him at all, but merely used sex as a hook to bag herself a Royal. Anyone in Harry's position would have done. If Uncle Edward had still been single, she probably would have thrown herself at him. She's so delusional about her own power and desirability that I really think she believes that if Catherine could somehow be removed from the picture, she could get William, the crown and the whole caboodle.
She'd have to take out Kate's children, too. This woman would do it. She's the 21st century Medea. Which is why I hope to God that however Archie came into this world, that these two are not his full-time parents, even if they are genetic donors.
Occam's Razor works best for most other situations, because most other situations to not have a malignant narcissist front and center involved. With a narc, the more byzantine explanation, no matter how bizarre, has to be entertained. It all started with the fake pregnancy bellies, of course . . and that she most definitely did engage in. I guess Archie is not actually a doll, which takes some of the grotesque fun out of our speculations. I'm not sure if I'd go the turkey baster route, though I do firmly believe that Megs arranged a clandestine surrogacy without Harry's full approval or knowledge. They may have discussed it, but the fact they argued every day about it in Australia and did not speak and never shared a room tells me that he was blindsided by the timing. So she carried on. Megs is an actress and every day in the public eye is a role-play; every outfit a costume. This is a very superficial and juvenile approach to the acting arts, but Meg is juvenile and shallow . . that's why she is such a poor actress. She really reveled in all the attention she got then . . and it didn't concern her at all that the attention was springing from a fraud. A person with a normal conscience would be troubled by such deception but Meg thrives on deception and sleeps like a baby. That's because she is a sociopath. Her face in those unguarded, un-posing moments reveals her true character.
Meghan wants to be perceived as a mother to get those glowing/nurturing Madonna optics and merching opportunities. She doesn't actually want to *be* a mother, regardless of what she coerced her former friends into saying in magazines on her behalf. I don't know what the future holds for Archie. After the Suxxits' inevitable divorce in a year or two, Archie will become irrelevant as a merching/PR tool, so I doubt we will need to endure faked-up 'Family visits to Eton!' and so forth, down the line. The way things are going, the Suxxits are not going to last as an official couple to send Archie off to nursery school.
It's been floated that Harry and Meghan have *never* actually shared a domicile since she moved to London more than two years ago. That she never lived in Nott Cott with him; she was in Soho House, living rent-free with her BFF Markus Anderson, possibly in exchange for sexual favors for Soho House guests. That whole roast chicken dinner scenario probably never happened. Notice there was no honeymoon that we ever heard about, and their 'second honeymoon/babymoon' in Oceania was strictly for the cameras, out of range of which they weren't speaking except to have screaming matches. This marriage is entirely a contract situation, which is exceedingly common in Hollywood circles. The two parties each get something they want, present a facade of happyhappyhappy to the press . . until the contract expires in 2 or 3 years (subject to renegotiation) and then they get divorced. Harry's sold his soul to the devil and he looks every inch of it these days.
Rach can never be fixed with anything. She's a horrid, horrid person.
I'm sure it couldn't be shade thrown after Rach announced her pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding.
Which could be why he's so depressed and has trouble getting out of bed each morning.......
He is however, a very adorable little lad who deserves to be loved with all of his parents' hearts. I don't see that in the videos. And, I feel sorry for him for that.
Meghan is not a good mother. She has no maternal connection with that guy. She is not affectionate and doesn't dote on him the way Kate does with her children.
Harry is just a passive bystander.
What a pathetic exercise!
Bish never took microbiology and Bish doesn't understand how easy it is to have been fine one day and then the body is compromised by something which sorta came out of no where (think paper cut).
I would like more than anything to believe that Archie is in safe and loving hands with his birth parents who cherish him as their 'little bub', and that whatever the problems in their marriage or their respective personalities, that they are both committed to being good parents to him.
Even if I were willing to overlook the bizarre pregnancies stylings, the InstaFlate/Deflate tummy, the swaying tummy, the effortless bending/squatting unassisted while at '8/9 months' in 4 inch stilettos in defiance of the laws of physics and what many mothers here have testified is actually possible for a heavily pregnant woman--it's exactly this which convinces me that Megs did not actually give birth to him and has not been his custodial mother since he arrived:
>>>I was struck by the lack of connection between both Harry and Meghan and their baby yesterday. Your darling first-born, on his first 'official' outing, and neither of you seem interested in him? Most parents would be constantly looking at the child and engaging with him, but they barely even glanced at him at all. Meghan was jigging him around a bit as though she saw on TV that that was what mothers were 'supposed' to do with babies, but it didn't seem natural at all.<<<
It is not natural. It would be understandable, though, if the baby doesn't really know Harry and Meghan nor they him, because they've only held/posed for pictures with him for at most a few hours since he was born. I know that all rational people are struggling with this whole situation . . because we are sane and what is going on with the Suxxits seems too outrageous to be even possible. But one must never lose sight of the fact that Megs is a narcissist who will do *anything* for attention. Anything. We've not seen her be violent publicly, but there is a growing drumbeat of anecdotal evidence from staff serving them behind the scenes that violent rages, profane tirades, hurling of objects to cause bodily injury, etc. are pretty common with her. Never for the cameras, mind. I'm sure the staff in SA can corroborate some of what we've already heard from staff at Admiralty House in Sydney. Harry is powerless to control or curb his wife because narcissists will not be moderated or managed.
Upshot is, if these two are real parents, then God help that baby. Also, her conduct and seemingly being under the influence of either drugs or alcohol and the gallivanting around to the States and Italian weddings and late night Vogue shoots and etc. since her maternity leave does not point to Megs being the holistic nursing mother she assures us she is.
With that being said, the infant known as Archie is almost five months old. He's holding himself upright very well for his alleged age without any bobbing, weaving, or arching himself suddenly backward.
@Elle,
That's contending for Post of the Day right now. I'll be happy to take your coffee order!
I like the ring, although it's not a style I would choose. Still, I wonder if Rach will be coveting it, too.
Bea looks smitten. I'm less convinced re the groom, however. Hopefully, they'll be happy. The fact that she's looking dreamily at him and he's looking at the camera - well, I hope that's intentional. I guess it is something that he proposed even after that green frock thing and those lace shoes.
Setting the timeline aside, as it makes my head hurt, in the time since Archie has been born, they have not acted like new parents. She did her Vogue edit, the Smart Works project, and Harry launched Travalyst, all while maintaining their very active social schedule. It's no wonder Archie appeared to not know them in the video yesterday. And as others have mentioned, it makes no sense that they would take him to a foreign country when he cannot be properly inoculated.
It might be something that they teach in public speaking courses.
When I read that Harry said he was having a hard time getting out of bed in the mornings because of 'all the problems in the world', I just shook my head. Look closer to home, mate . . look closer to home. It's interesting, though, that he even admitted to being that depressed. It's obvious to everyone, but a surprise to hear an admission, even if he dodged the real reason. This is only going to get worse for Harry until he 1. comes clean about all the subterfuges in his marriage, and 2. Ends the marriage. He married a narcissist who does not love him and who lies like normal people breathe. She has forced him to alienate not only his family but most of the watching world for whom he used to be a favorite. Within the space of a couple of years, he's pissed it all away . . for what? Some notion that he could become a global superstar to eclipse William?
Silent film star Charlie Chaplin was the victim of paternity fraud in the 1940s, after Joan Barry, an ingenue he had had a brief affair with sued him for child support of a daughter, Carol Ann, b. 1943. Barry's mother colluded with her in bringing this legal action. There was a sensational trial, which Chaplin lost, despite the proof of blood tests that Chaplin could *not* be the girl's father. He admitted to the affair, but Joan Barry was a promiscuous woman with increasingly severe mental illness. Chaplin was legally bound to support Carol Ann until her 21st birthday. His reputation in tatters in the United States, Chaplin fled with his family to Switzerland where he lived out the rest of his life.
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/406-charlie-chaplin-vic
*********
--a mentally unstable actress with a history of promiscuity
--a highly sexualized young girl who had sex with older, influential men for money and promises of a career in movies
--a murky, clandestine pregnancy
--a stage-managing Mama who assisted her daughter into coercing their target to cooperate in giving them what they were demanding
--a man who, despite making some very bad sexual decisions was, in this case, innocent
--a man who was attracted to his highly unsuitable paramour most likely because of her cultivated and/or subconscious resemblance to his glamorous and highly mentally unstable late mother, a former actress herself who died hopelessly insane in a mental institution
***********
Is this sounding like anybody we know??!
Whatever transpired with this marriage and this pregnancy, grifting and fraud are at the heart of it.
I also don't get the idea that Edo is evil because he is so good looking/looking at the camera in pictures. I feel its a covert bullying of Bae because she has forever been bullyied about her looks, fashion, intelligence and now age. I say damn you haters. Let a girl live!
As for the timing, it may have been completely unintentional, after all they were told to keep shtum about this for months. So about time I'd say, national crises or not. But... If it's seems conspicous to us, then someone at BP must have thought about it too. They went ahead anyway. Good for them. This is another very subtle way to modernize the monarchy...by keeping polital.matters and family matters separate.
The ring is co, very traditional. And sparkly. Could it be that a certain someone knew about this, saw the ring and sent their own ring for another redesign?! Wouldn't put it past her. I think we can safely say she never liked her ring much anyway.
I also don't think she's a malignant narcissist. They're very rarely female, for example. But there are other types of narcissism that aren't widely known. If you're interested, there's a recently published book by a Harvard psychology prof called "Rethinking Narcissism". He describes his mother and defines a new type of narcissism that seems to fit very much Meghan (and to some extent, Princess Diana) because they don't really match the typical malignant form of abuse/use. It's can be very simply summed as the not-so-secret Mother Teresa syndrome, where the female narcissist absolutely gets her kick from telling everyone how generous and charitable she is.
For example, the Royals receive flowers all the time on visits and tours. They tend to donate them to hospitals, without a big hullabaloo. I would imagine the toys that the Cambridges received were donated secretly to charity. Meghan gets flowers for her babyshower, and of course everyone has to know a) she donated them to a children's hospital and b) how wonderful everyone thought she was for doing it. Or Meghan donating the gifts she received for Archie on the tour. Apparently this form of narcissism is almost exclusively to women.
Very interesting book - also says we all need to be a bit narcissistic at times because it's healthy, but like everything in life, moderation and balance is key.
Sorry you had trouble posting, Unknown. Some people have said the Safari browser works better for them.
When Andrew was born after such a long gap, ER and PP decided to shield him as much as possible from press exposure for the first couple of years, because they felt that Charles and Anne had been overexposed as very young children. Andrew was not taken for airings in public parks and other things which had been customary with the Queen's other children, or with Margaret and herself as children. They kept him under wraps for 18 months, during which time speculation was rampant that the new baby was blind, deaf, mentally defective or a cripple. When baby Andrew finally appeared on the BP balcony, those rumors dried up.
Since William and Kate have had their kids, all three times, I've read speculation about Downs' Syndrome for each of them.
Babies are often odd-looking and still normal, and the oddity shifts pretty quickly as they grow into themselves. Harry was potentially the homeliest infant I've ever seen at his christening. He looked like a squat ginger toad in the arms of his beautiful Mum. A year later, Harry had morphed into an angelic toddler who was cuter by far than William. My nephew has an abnormally large head; it was something they were monitoring for. He's nearly 8 now, and while his head is still bigger than average, he is very intelligent. There's no impairment.
Alice, I agree that the York sisters are not given their due. They seem like pleasant people, although their dress sense is quirky. Anyway, their father's (and mother's) misdeeds are not their fault.
I am reminded of the famous photos of Prince Charles and Diana returning from some trip and everyone took photos of her, arms out and loudly greeting their boys. What was not really filmed was that Prince Charles also did the same kind of welcome but just behind her. To me, there was something about that which showed what I call "fault lines" (geology again) or observable planes of behavior if only you are looking for them. He never got the credit she did for greeting and expressing the care.
When I was 4, my parents (mom pregnant) were moving. To simplify things, they left me at her mother's. Maybe a week later they returned to pick up. I was running around and fell. Crying of course. My mother lowered herself and opened her arms. I ran right past her and to my grandmother.
Growing up, I had some not good bonding moments with my mother and life has moved on. I will say that I did get some jewelry from my grandmother that others wanted. No other grandchild had specific things set for them in the will.
So, any way. You made me think about observed behavior and that we sometimes don't see it live but only when we look back later do we think: How did I miss that?
I guess they were trying to balance it out, and I'm sure those photos were very, very carefully selected.
It made for interesting contrast, however, between the real activism - risky, scary activism - undertaken by Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela and the modern hashtag activism of Meg and her cohorts.
One spent 27 years in captivity, the other paid someone to write slogans in frosting on cookies. #Forces for change, indeed.
Those girls seem especially close. I'm glad they are not competitive with each other.
He seems to be a little bit guarded, and that kind of upsets me because it may be from lack of interaction from his mother.
I am sure your nephew is the smartest and cutest little guy. Lots of people have small deviations in their proportions without it signifying anything, but if they have a narcissistic mother, they may not feel that they are loved because of it.
It may be a reason why Meghan hasn't bonded with him though.
For the record, I thought all of Kate's children were a little odd looking. But, they all seemed to have grown out of their little oddities.
Sure, charitable virtue-signalling for public view, even if we all know it's a crock. The violence and shocking profanity/screaming/tantrums, etc. doesn't come out until doors are shut. I think Megs is entirely capable of violent harm toward someone. We just don't know about it. Pushed hard enough, she blows.
@Liver Bird - I think you have a good point. The engagement announcement during H&M's tour. Everything we've always known says that's a no-no.
It's odd because, yes, there are private events scheduled in and there was a private arrival, but from the build-up provided by publications such as The Telegraph there were official events in there too, and all the major publications referred to it as a "royal tour" (I've checked again).
I did a really specific search on the Court Circular for the day Harry met Archbishop Tutu and the day before when they visited charities non-privately including one with Commonwealth links according to the itinerary given by the Telegraph. The Court Circular comes up with nothing.
It's a mystery. I'm sure there's a network of obsessive royalists who know all the nuances and are enjoying this more than anyone. Although not when they think of our 93-year-old Queen.
Rumors exist that Haz is gay. I lean toward 'not' . . as he certainly didn't look gay while kissing a woman in his birthday suit in Las Vegas that time. There's the lengthy scorecard of relationships with women . . plus whatever Megs is holding over him is probably heterosexual in nature since sex with men is about all she's good at.
I think he promised her something . . or maybe even went through with a 'ceremony' in Botswana, possibly while under the influence, but it wasn't really legal, or he assumed it wasn't. So he dumps her, because she's starting to get clingy and demanding and he's not having fun any more. So she stalks him for several months, brazens her way into Tom Inskip's wedding . . gets him into her clutches again with drunken sex . . turns up 6 or 8 weeks later alleging that she's pregnant . . recruits her mother to give him the strong arm treatment in Toronto, maybe by threatening to expose other things--his drug use, involvement in the yachting . . I've entertained the thought of Harry's involvement in an accidental misadventure death during sex play of another prostitute. (Notice I said 'another'). That's about the worst thing I can come up with.
If Harry were gay, he could come out publicly and earn himself mad 'impactful woke' points! Whatever Megs had on him, we can bet that Soho House is involved.
https://twitter.com/BananaScribbler/status/1177217810092777472
https://www2.hm.com/en_gb/kids.html
Agree with both of you on architecture. All these steel and glass buildings replacing classical architecture are cold and forbiding, signaling high tech, there is no room for low tech like trees, grass and birds. Mischi as you know nobody wants to spend the money to preserve interiors. These days, we are lucky if they even preserve the exterior. My favorite travesty is slapping on a bunch of modern floors on top of an older building.
It's like an ongoing flashback from when Michael Jackson recklessly held baby "Blanket" over the balcony. And the crazy shaking is very scary too. What kind of mother does that without considering there's such a thing as shaken baby syndrome?
What's next? I expect her to be stupid enough to swing the baby around by his wrists, which can cause her to dislocate his shoulders. I witnessed a pediatrician dress down some parents for doing that to their toddler at the airport once. He said to never do that until the child is much older; that he sees the results in the ER far too often. Always pick up children under their arms, never by their wrists. I honestly had no idea at the time. I knew not to do it, just simply didn't know it would cause such an injury.
Notice on the stairs by the door how Megs had to awkwardly plant her foot as she stepped up a stair with one leg during the Tutu visit? That freaked me out too. If she had fallen backwards, Harry was in no position to check her fall. Most fathers are far more protective and make sure to spot the mother when she's carrying the baby. These parents are not bonded with the baby. They are clueless and overall detached and baby isn't attached to them. There was zero eye contact by baby for either of them.
Now, those of us with kids know that the first thing our babies do is search for mommy or daddy's face and when located, wave about and smile and will fuss and cry if you leave out of their view, even for a moment. Not Archie. He's squirming and pulling away, doesn't look a single time at Harry even when Harry is holding his foot. What a shame and a sham.
I prefer Firefox anyway since it doesn’t track.
Eugenie seems to have chosen a good, solid, grounded guy, and after 8 years, I was confident she was sure about him. Bea & Edo are a little whirlwind, and I wouldn't discount the unspoken pressure of being a woman past 30 whose little sister has beaten her to the altar. I guess she won't have to worry about money ever again or try to scrounge any crumbs the Crown was willing to cast off.
I wonder now at the real story about events and photos we see and about which we assume we know the truth.
I think that Beatrice suffers from the same affliction I do - not being photogenic. I look much much better in person than I do in my pictures. And, I think that by being photographed by her own sister, Beatrice might have dropped the look that makes her look unattractive in photos. She and her beloved really do look lovely.
Beatrice is a true Leo - she seems to possess the generosity that Leos are known for. Meghan, not so much.
How is this kosher? Surely the ad people over at H&M wouldn't run a picture without permission.
That is really bad. Royals are STRICTLY forbidden from being involved with any sort of commercial activity. Not only is this blatant, it's also using an innocent child to do it. If Haz and Megz were involved, and hard to see how they couldn't be, then this is a new low.
The commenters on CB are always saying there's no evidence that MM is into merching, and they still probably won't believe this.
Absolutely she didn't carry him - but I still imagine her insisting that it be of her blood.
Everyone is so on point about the body language and awkward clutching and posing. *sigh* I also wonder why Harry doesn't hold his son.
But that is why the idea nags at me.
Maybe the misdeed was a threesome with another man.
Also infant adoption is discouraged in the UK (as it should be) and the babe is required to stay with the birth Mother, unless addiction or abuse prevents that from being a safe situation for the baby.
Every effort is made to keep Mother and baby from being separated by adoption.
To me, he looks just like Harry, and my only sorrow is Diana is not here to see him.
Cheers for a long and happy life, for the little one
There is a cloud over Harry's fertility and ability to produce viable swimmers. It's tempting to see Harry in the baby also, and sometimes I think I do . . but the reception of Archie from BP has been deafening, particularly if one remains unconvinced that the 2 formal portraits we have been given are 100% real. Just yesterday I viewed shots of Grandpa Charles holding all of his other grandchildren when they were Archie's age. For Archie .. crickets. You'd think that picturing Archie with Charles would be something MM would see as beneficial, getting the comptroller of the purse strings onside and signalling how much closer Chas is going to be to *this* grandchild than the others.
With the abrupt severance from Clarence House, this doesn't seem to ever going to happen now. Charles was about the only member of the family that has interacted with Meghan this year. I'm just wondering why such a cold shoulder to the presumed 7th in line for the throne if he is Harry's biological child. If he's a surrogate baby, that makes it sticky for titles and official status as a Royal, but Harry's baby should at least be welcomed on a human level as part of the family. Given the very cold and distant treatment of the RF toward Megs in public, do we suppose there's all kinds of warmth and amity in private?
I don't. And if one takes the tin hattiness to the ultimate level and believes that Megs has faked up all the pictures of the RF members interacting with the baby, as well as the pitifully bare 'birth announcement', we could go so far as to say that the child known as Archie has not yet been acknowledged officially by the Queen or anyone in the family. Like he does not exist. That would be extra-super cold if he is in fact, Harry's son. Just curiouser and curiouser.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what they can do in America since this is a British child, and the pic of Archie apparently only appears in the British page of the H&M site. I simply cannot see how they could use Archie's image for commercial purposes without the explicit approval of his parents.
Another opinion from a South African expressing his unwilling skepticism on this joke of a taxpayer-funded PR exercise:
https://howardfeldman.co.za/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-on-tour-south-africa/
"Meghan is appallingly patronising in that she seems to think that she has to dress down for us. She seems of the view that South Africans will only connect to her if she dresses poorly. Like we don’t know or deserve better."
I thought Howard Feldman was a Jew. I wish Daily Mail or The Sun Uk will publish it.
What I've noticed is that most other countries, particularly "poorer" ones, people tend to dress up nicer for guests and fancy occasions than over there in the States. Just glad she didn't wear her "I've-just-survived-a-bear-attack" ripped jeans from her pre-royalty days.
The misadventure death is an admittedly out there theory, and it's not one I'm married to, exactly. But in considering what Megs potentially could have been holding over Haz to force him to marry her . . it had to be some really high-grade dirt. Drugs? Haz is an acknowledged drug user, has been for years. His former equerries had 'scoring gear for the boss' as one of their regular duties. He's been to rehab already, maybe more than once . . but hooking up with Holistic Hoochie has done wonders for his sobriety, hasn't it?
An illegitimate pregnancy is, while awkward, certainly nothing that hasn't happened before in these circles. A handsome payout has usually been sufficient. In our day and age, of course, Megs would have had the opportunity to exercise her woke feminist options in terminating the inconvenient results of a liaison. Had the RF desired to play hardball with any extortion claims relating to a pregnancy, they coulda/woulda/shoulda . . demanded a paternity test and/or informed Megs that if she did not agree to a comfortable settlement and an NDA and to leave Harry alone forthwith that they'd release ALL the dirt about her yachting past. All her previous abortions, sex videos, sworn depositions from her 'clients'. It's all out there. The only reason she has been able to obscure it this long is due to the RF's distaste for using their massive resources to obliterate her credibility.
Otherwise . . what else has she got? "Harry promised he'd marry me, and then broke it off." Cry me a river, sistah . . this happens to thousands of women every day. Men will say and do a number of ingratiating things to get a girl into bed and say things they later regret in the throes of passion. Sex haze promises have to be taken with a grain of salt. It might be crummy to breach a promise or trample on a woman's expectation of what she may have believed she was promised . . but breaking up with someone is not a crime. Dating someone, even sleeping with someone does not constitute a binding contract. It may have done in Victorian times, but this is the 21st century.
The only thing left that I can think of as 'bad enough' to force the compliance of Harry all the way up to the Queen is . . . sexual trafficking (ala Epstein) and potentially violence against women. It crossed my mind that Harry and Uncle Andy might have had those circles in common and Meg is blackmailing them with that.
It's a mystery. Sounds just like a psychological thriller novel!
The R word, of course. Well. They should have let her lob it. This whole exercise is a lesson in why you should never, never, never give in to an extortionist.
All you ladies make me laugh a lot.
https://www2.hm.com/en_gb/kids.html
... and I just can't believe what I'm seeing. Wallis did some ads in her day, but these two are doing it BEFORE they've been catapulted out of the BRF. How is this allowed? Someone tell the palace quick.
So, if this is confirmed, she's basically using her little baby AND a Nobel prize winner as props in her commercial deals. Just when I thought she was doing OK, she goes and surprises us yet again.
@Jl, join the club! I’ve only use an iPhone on this site. I spend more time correcting typing errors and auto corrected words and grammar (and still miss some...I have some real clangers out there !), is one of the main reasons my comments are short! Lol
I once read a quote about Rooney Mara's features dubbed 'lemur like intensity'. I like that. Exchange 'rodent' for lemur, if you like. Anyway, I was struck by how much Bea and Edo resemble each other in features. It may just be particularly noticeable in some photos. Opposites can attract; I also think many people are attracted to their opposite number and end up with people who are similar. Benedict Cumberbatch & his wife Sophie Hunter are another example of a celebrity couple who look like siblings.
The York girls have had some fashion doozies in their time, but tellingly, I do not hear any negative talk about their characters. They seem to be well-regarded and well-liked, despite the poor reputations attaching to Andrew and Sarah.
I don't have the knack of taking good pictures, either. I cringe whenever the camera phones come out. I can only hope I look better in person, but I have to take other people's words for it, since I can't see it myself.
As for MM being a narcissist, I don't think there is any doubt about it. I've had a bad experience with a very damaged young lady myself - only at the time I didn't realise she was one of them.
The baby was adorable but evidently not her own flesh. Even PH seemed detached from him (and he is a hugger with all sorts of strange kids) and on the whole he looked very unhappy during that visit. I suppose time will tell ...
"Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born at 05:26 on Monday 6th May. He is the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and is seventh in line to the throne.
"Archie weighed 7lb 3oz and The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth."
No room for speculation there. Perhaps Meghan is a true mistress of the dark arts of PR. If her only aim is to be talked about and fill social media with (even hostile) speculation, she has succeeded. Shame about her baby, whose parentage will forever be a talking point, just like his father's, possibly just as unjustifiably.
Stiff posed portraits and Instagram hooey aside . . .there are no pictures of this baby with his Royal family. The presentation photos and christening photos are deeply, deeply suspect as having been manipulated by Murky.
If the Queen truly acknowledged Archie . . she'd be in his christening photo and it would have come from Buckingham Palace, not Sussex Royal.
Grandpa Charles has candid shots of him holding all of Kate and William's children at Archie's age or younger.
The Cambridge family avoided Megs and her giant infant at the polo like she was radioactive. Kate is no doubt under instruction by William to not allow any photo/merching opportunities by Auntie Meg and the new baby.
The point I made above is the barest bones of institutional acknowledgement is not the same as the embrace of acceptance into the family as a member. And with no signatures/witnesses, the birth announcement and birth certificate are still unofficial as well. Archie is in a kind of limbo.
The question wasn't about 'being seen to accept him'. It was about whether or not he has been acknowedged by the royal family, and the fact is that he has.
Barack got the Peace Prize for being the first biracial person elected to the Oval Office . . the Presidency was the longest-tenured job he ever had in his life, and gee whiz, now he will never have to work again. Just do the dinner circuit for thousands a plate.
Surprised Oprah hasn't received hers yet.
Sadly, the Nobel committee is as rife with corruption and graft as any other political body, and apparently as susceptible to political correctness.
What's next? Tig Tots?
To me, acknowledgement and acceptance go hand in hand, since such a fuss is made over all the other Royal children. They get places of honor in the front row at the BP balcony; they are in family weddings; on the Christmas cards . . all publicly *celebrated* as members of this family.
Archie is not celebrated. Archie is in Siberia. He is not treated as though he signifies whatsoever as a great-grandson of the Queen. His little cousins haven't met him, by the evidence of our own eyes and the acknowledgement of Mike Tindall--a rare bit of unfiltered honesty which was hastily backpedaled.
Only the RF knows the full extent of what they are hiding vis. the arrival/parentage of Archie, but apart from the barest of public acknowledgements, Archie is being received with all the enthusiasm and warmth of Harry's unfortunate and unsanctioned mistake with a prostitute.
Which is kind of what he is, sadly for him. He's a lovely little bloke and I hope he's loved somewhere because the RF haven't chucked a rock at him so far.
If Archie appears on the balcony next June and is fawned over by Granny Camilla and chucked under the chin by Uncle Andrew, I'll withdraw every word. Til then, I am convinced that Archie's Royal relatives haven't actually been in the same room with him.
Archie would have been entitled to Harry's subsidiary (non-royal) title, Earl of Dumbarton, but his parents decided not to give it to him. With the H&M story coming out, I'm starting to wonder if they chose not to give him a title as it would be easier to merch 'private citizen' Archie? Cynical I know, but this couple have lived up to all the cynicism thrown at them, and more.
Archie probably has a strabismus, just like his cousin, Lady Louise Windsor.
I thought the frosted cakes and biscuits were hilarious.
"Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born at 05:26 on Monday 6th May. He is the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and is seventh in line to the throne.
"Archie weighed 7lb 3oz and The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth."
No room for speculation there.
*****
Well . . not if you believe every press release you read. MM has taken away any such certainties, which is why, I believe, we are all here.
I used to believe that edicts from Buckingham Palace were unimpeachable. I no longer think so, and see some collusion with Meghan's agendas, though for what reasons, I do not know. They are enabling her, but why?
It's pretty obvious that the baby Meg was bouncing for Bishop Tutu is at least 6 months old and probably nearer 7. So that would make his birth date of May 6th a falsehood. He was not a large baby at birth, going by 7.3 pounds--petite, for a male infant with a father over 6 feet tall. Were he 10 pounds at birth, a large 5 month old could look 2 months older.
BP has issued a public statement regarding a birth which no medical professional was willing to attach his signature to as a witness. Scour the archives--no birth announcement in the annals of Royal history has been conducted or looked like Archie's. This will be an ongoing can of worms for the RF, but they have allowed it, so on their heads--on the Queen's head--it must be. They will have to deal with Meghan for years to come because they did not shut her down when they had the chance.
Again.... the fact is that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is officially recognised by the royal family as being 7th in line to the throne. So the idea that there is 'speculation' over his acknowledgement is simply false.
Since i have no desire to pursue a discussion around the various (I believe unsubstantiated) conspiracy theories regarding his birth, I'll leave it there.
But let’s be honest, because male-controlled birth control options are either a vasectomy or condoms. Women basically are the one’s who decide when they want to try to get pregnant. That’s why so many pro athletes and Hollywood men have accidental children.
I read that Meghan told a friend she was already trying to get pregnant soon after the engagement. Because she’s likely been on the pill since sometime in high school and her age, she might have gone on Clomid before the wedding to get pregnant asap.
I know at least three women (not my close friends) who told their partners or husbands they were on the pill when they weren’t.
Two of them got pregnant to force their long-term boyfriends into marriage.
The third told her husband she was on the pill when she wasn’t. She had pressured him into a marriage he wasn’t really ready for. He is a successful attorney and his wife wanted to be able to quit working and live the life of big bucks Mrs. Attorney, but she needed a child to provide a valid reason to quit her job. He wanted to wait two or three years before trying for kids, but she got pregnant as fast as Meghan, and told him her birth control pills failed, which he knew was a lie, but it was too late to do anything about it. She literally had the baby the day of their first anniversary.
I can easily see Meghan lying to Harry that she was on the pill, and then, “Oops!” Narcissists are notorious liars.
For this type of woman, including uber feminist Meghan, a baby insures the marriage will endure at least two or three years. Unless Meghan got caught cheating on him or some other incredibly horrible act, Harry would look like a rat if they divorced while she was pregnant or if their child is still an infant.
I think he’s stuck for at least five years, which means one more child in 2020 or the first part of 2021 for sure.
He won’t be able to resist hopping into the sack, even if there is any truth to the rumor they are already having problems.
They are under the "They call Archie Bubba" story.
In some of them, MM is looking right at the camera and she has Archie held to the side.
It could be just a coincidence, or perhaps she knew these would be the photos used for marketing purposes.
I already sent it earlier. I doubt they will do anything. they don't print unless they can make some money on something.
The announcement could have easily been held until next week.
Today’s announcement is an excellent way to telegraph royal displeasure to the boobs and baby show currently underway in SA.
However, he's been masking his unhappiness for a long time now, and the façade is starting to crumble.
My belief is he really has no ongoing qualms with his brother, but if he were to show it to William in word or deed, Megs would rip into him and accuse him of betrayal. The same goes for him avoiding his friends and the rest of his family.
Now, with the baby in public appearances, she has to be in control of all the optics and if Harry makes one wrong move, or so much as says or does something she doesn't approve of, she will rag on him for ages until he relents and tells her she's right about everything all of the time no matter what. So, the only safe place for him is to let her have her way, be aloof from his own son to avoid her emotional abuse. If he snuggled and cuddled Archie during a photo op, or probably even in private times, Megs would go apoplectic with jealousy.