Skip to main content

The Queen Speaketh

For those of us following the Duchess Meghan drama, one of the most common questions has been "Why doesn't Queen Elizabeth do something? Doesn't she care about her legacy? Is she hiding her head in the sand?"

An answer to this question came in today's issue of Mail on Sunday, which directly addressed Meghan's decision to go watch her friend Serena Williams play tennis in New York City instead of joining the Queen and Charles at Balmoral:

If the couple’s absence from Balmoral might have initially seemed as merely disappointing, now it has all the appearance of an outright snub.
The Mail on Sunday understands the Queen is ‘hurt and disappointed’ at a time when she likes to bring her friends and family together.
The annual Highland holiday is the Queen’s favourite time of the year and she was, according to a source, looking forward to ‘a few days of merry chaos’ with the great-grandchildren, including Archie. 
It is understood Her Majesty is already ‘baffled’ by Meghan and Harry’s inability to steer clear of PR calamities, and is concerned that her beloved grandson and his new wife are failing to listen to their team of advisers.


"Hurt" "disappointed" and "baffled" are key words here, as well as "failing to listen to their team of advisers."

Queen on blast

Unlike weepy make-up artist Daniel Martin, the Queen does not do emotional interviews with Gayle King.

A clear message shared to an extremely well-read media outlet (and one that, significantly, does not have a paywall ) is as much "on blast" as the Queen can get.

Meg may claim not to read the papers, but Harry most certainly does. This story was a direct and public message to the Duke of Sussex.

Eye on Harry

The article went on to make clear that the Queen has her 'eye' on Harry, a direct slap-back to rumors that, at age 93, she has checked out of her supervisory role.

The Queen, who has always been close to Harry, is now said to have been keeping a ‘close eye’ on his household. 
The monarch is understood to believe that the Sussexes’ diminishing popularity and frequent mishaps could have been avoided if they had taken the advice of her own trusted team. 
The feeling among the Queen’s most senior courtiers and those at Kensington Palace is that Harry is taking too much for granted and is not listening enough, preferring to make publicity-grabbing gestures such as his barefoot appearance at the recent Google climate change retreat in Sicily. 
Her Majesty’s private office is providing her with regular updates on their affairs. 
More worrying still, sources are suggesting that, for the first time, there are differences of opinion emerging between the Queen and her grandson.

In the passive-agressive world of the British Royal Family, this is hot stuff.

Reining in Andrew

It's also significant that it comes on the same day as a report that Prince Charles is finally reining in his misbehaving younger brother Prince Andrew, which is an appropriate and probably long overdue role for a future monarch.

Charles reportedly insisted that Andrew apologize after a row with a staff member, although goodness knows Andrew probably has a lot more things to apologize about.

What do you think will happen next?

Comments

Nutty Flavor said…
Two additional points:

One, the Queen's message suggests that the Sussexes really were invited to Balmoral, and for some reason said no. There had been a lot of discussion on this board and elsewhere about whether there had ever been a genuine invitation. Whether or not there was, the Queen and her people would like us to believe that there was.

Two, the Queen's message mentions Archie as if he is indeed a real baby whom the Queen would like to spend time with. If the Sussexes really don't have an "Archie", this pushes them further into a corner, much like the "tufts of red hair" story that limited their choice of potential Archies. It also suggests that the Royals will say they knew nothing about any deception. Curiosier and curioser. Lord Geidt in action?
Unfortunately I don’t have time to write much, I have family coming to visit. I’m sure fellow Nutty followers will have tons to say!

I find it baffling that The Queen etc., has only ‘just’ started to be concerned over the Sussex’s behaviour?! Hmmm I’m none too sure I buy that.

As for the Balmoral visit, I have read they were invited, but got disinvited after a clash with The Cambridge’s and media headlines and dates (Blind Gossip). This is very credible.

If Harry refuses to listen, I wonder what the Palace’s approach will be? Let him choose between his birthright, or become Mr Windsor and give it all up?

Maybe The Queen is a lot more concerned than she was a few months back...is what I should have put. 😜
Girl with a Hat said…
this from twitter:
@sage1411
·
5h
Fresh tea, again not going to tell you how I know. While on the Halloween tour down under, not only were Meghan and Harry fighting about the “pregnancy”, but her announcing it. He even asked if she was really pregnant.
Girl with a Hat said…
here's a very interesting article from Australia criticising their behaviour:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/royal-insiders-dish-on-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussexs-summer-of-hell/news-story/661bf90750ad36cdd27a5678374fd1ca

these tidbits were revealed about their 'charity':

Barely two months old, Sussex Royal has already lost two of its directors — Natalie Denise Campbell and Sara Latham — public records show, for reasons unknown. (According to the Daily Mail, a royal source claims the women were only given temporary director status.)

Instead, Karen Tracey Blackett, a British entrepreneur and chair of Mediacom, the largest media company in the United Kingdom, was appointed as a trustee to the charity, which is helmed by Gerrard Tyrrell, one of the most powerful libel and defamation lawyers in London.

“Why do you need a defamation expert on a charity’s board?” asked Campbell, whose book People of Color and the Royals, which is partly about Markle, is out Oct. 28. “The whole thing is farcical and impertinent. Their crisis management is best handled by someone who understands the royal system, and not by Americans”
Mom Mobile said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mom Mobile said…
This is glorious! Thank you Nutty. Long live The Queen!

Note: Deleted comment above due to typo. It's early Sunday where I am. Coffee still trying to kick in.
Nelo said…
Just expect Meghan's media friends( a la Lainey gossip) and Twitter bots to ask why the queen is protecting Andrew, yet is 'hurt' by Meghan. It's very glaring and even Richard Palmer of the Daily Express says there is a cordinated attempt by the US media to discredit the British media and the royal family for supposedly 'trying to smear Meghan while protecting Andrew'. It's the narrative that Meghan's PR is pushing. I will want to see how Meghan's propaganda team in the US will respond.
I can well believe this is what Murky’s PR is doing; she’s the victim and that’s been her narrative throughout. Why is the Queen taking a different stance with Andrew? One, Andrew is her favourite, the other reason, Andrew is a born royal and Murky is not. I think Andrew deserves his comeuppance and shouldn’t be allowed diplomatic immunity if the FBI etc., want to question him. He’s not above the law. So The Queen should put her ‘whole’ house in order and not single out born royals for different treatment. Murky along with Harry need to be pulled aside and read the riot act, or given their marching orders if they can’t respect the very privileged life they are afforded to have
@Mom, I do typos galore...my phone has a will of its own, that’s without anything else to complicate matters! Lol 😂
Nutty Flavor said…
That story appears to have originated with Page 6 in the New York Post and been shared throughout the Murdoch empire. Of the two woman bylined, one is Canadian and the other British, but the British one is now listed as Features Editor of Page 6. Until November 2018 she was at People, so perhaps she was pumping out Markle's drivel there before changing sides.

I think the article is a pretty good wrapup of the anti-Meg case so far - without the fake Archie rumors, however.

https://pagesix.com/2019/09/07/royal-insiders-dish-on-prince-harry-and-meghans-summer-of-hell/
Nutty Flavor said…
Andrew's a different case, and so far all that's been proven is that he spent a lot of time with a very bad man. I don't discount Virginia Roberts' testimony. That said, the only thing that has been publicly released to support it is that notorious party photograph of them together, and famous people tend to be asked a lot to "take a photo with me." (There may be more damning evidence that hasn't been released yet; Enty says there are videotapes of Epstein's buddies in action. Andrew's not out of the woods yet.)

At any rate, even if Andrew has done terrible things, that doesn't make Markle a good person. It's like saying "That guy over there robbed a bank! It's totally unfair to arrest me for robbing a liquor store."

But I do think Markle will try to play the victim role, particularly in the US. Her case reminds me a bit of Stacey Abrams, a Black woman who ran for governor of Georgia last year and lost a somewhat questionable election. I won't go into the specifics of that election here, but the fact remains that Abrams still insists that she really WON the election and - what's more important - lots of people agree with her.

Meghan could easily go for this target market, people who are very eager to believe that a Black woman has been mistreated by the White establishment, as represented by the BRF.
Nutty Flavor said…
Interesting. Harry may have known all along, and just not known what to do about it. He was never the brightest bulb, and it's a tricky and unprecedented situation.
Girl with a Hat said…
I agree Nutty. She is dangerous because she will play to these weaknesses in our society and may aggravate them. All for her own benefit, of course.

Andrew's problems concern potential criminal behaviour and thus may require a different type of treatment, as well. So far, no one is accusing Meghan of anything criminal. This is what a lot of people don't seem to understand - the difference between the two. I'm talking to you, Lainey!

The criticism about Andrew's bad personality are finally being publicised as well, as the DM and other British papers printed the story about him possibly having assaulted an aide.
Jen said…
To add to what Louise said...Andrew is her son; her baby! She wants to protect him as any mother would. Further, HMTQ is hurt that Harry is disrespecting her, not MM. Harry knows better.
Murky’s victim narrative could take so many different genres too. Her, ‘R’ card is the one which will possess the highest cache for her. She only needs to enlist Oprah, Gayle King oh and Hilary C, and she has a powerful platform. It’s hideous really, how this could play out for both the Royal Family and possibly the British as a whole.

Murky doesn’t worry about whether people can see the difference between her and Andrew. Just as long she’s seen as the biggest victim of them all.

With Andrew, goodness how on earth could this end up? It’s the biggest can of worms the royals have had to deal with for decades.
JL said…
If my relationship were on the rocks and all the mate and I do is fight, I would avoid visiting family at all costs. No one wants to expose loved ones to such toxicity. On the other hand, if it is about MM making a splash in NYC then for shame. She had an engagement ring on at the Open yet not that wedding band she refashioned.
none said…
Wouldn't it be awesome if the entire BRF including Harry were setting MM up so she can be extracted with minimal damage done to the monarchy? Harry's latest activities don't necessarily support this, but it does seem like royal damage control has finally begun.
Girl with a Hat said…
Nutty, don't you think that if he's asking, it's because he isn't seeing her naked? the rumours are that in Australia, they weren't sleeping in the same bed. So what does that say about their "love"?
Nutty Flavor said…
I dunno - at 2-3 months, even if he's seeing her without clothes occasionally, a pregnancy isn't always evident, particularly with a first pregnancy, and particularly to a man who is not really the sensitive type.

The Australian trip was when she was wearing a big fake belly one day, arching her back the next, and then turning up with an entirely flat stomach the day after that. I don't blame him for wondering what was going on.
Girl with a Hat said…
but if he saw a fake belly when she was fully clothed, but not when she was pregnant, wouldn't he be asking her why she was doing that instead of if she was really pregnant? I mean even at 2-3 months, there are some subtle changes in a woman's body that her husband would notice. For example, the cervix gets very soft and it's very noticeable during sexual relations.
abbyh said…
My respect for the restraint exhibited by The Queen.

I grew up in a household where there was a spoken message and then an unspoken message also sent.
Lime_Smoothie said…
When was the last time we actually saw them together at an event, not including the trip to see Uncle Elt?

Trooping the Colour? That's months ago.
abbyh said…
Lion King with Bey/Jay and Disney. When he didn't show up earlier for something he was scheduled for months before.
Girl with a Hat said…
this is the Australian 60 minutes expose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D5xF_MX9yI&feature=youtu.be


it is not as scathing as people expected
Lime_Smoothie said…
Oh yes! So, middle of July. Wasn't he trying to persuade the Disney exec to give her a job? Odd.
Nelo said…
It's so sad that a woman who hasn't ever dated black men, who is not known to actively fight for the black community, who never had any black friends (except Serena) suddenly is playing the race card.
As per Andrew, unless he is stripped of his royal duties and previleges at least until the Epstein issue blows over, Meghan will use it as a propaganda tool against the royal family unfortunately.
The queen can't let Andrew continue carrying out royal duties and expect that anything said against Meghan will not be seen as 'bias against a black woman by the white establishment'. Meghan knows this and she holds all the aces at this point and that's why she can snub the queen cos she knows the US media which is actually more powerful than the British media will always support her.
In my opinion, Meghan is winning the 'optics war' against Britain and the royal family as it is and she knows it that's why her focus is on what America thinks and not what Brits think cos she has effectively painted them as racists.
Truthseeker said…
Do we all not foresee a great "tragedy" to be announced soon? I mean what else can they do really. Meg does not want to be weighed down with child and instead of securing another, a "tragedy" would be the perfect way to get past this moon baby. And the sympathy she could live off of for decades. What a PR coup that would be.
Lime_Smoothie said…
Notice Andrew Morton saying to go easy on her. Still hoping for that book exclusive when it all goes south.
Girl with a Hat said…
haha. That's what I thought as well.
Girl with a Hat said…
I think you're right. She is definitely aiming for the American audience, but I think she's lost a lot of them already.
Humor Me said…
I am in the minority here: I believe there is an Archie, HM wants to spend time with the Markles and Archie, and MM is running for the hills because of the inevitable lecture that will come with the visit. The article says loads for not saying anything: if the Queen is "baffled", imagine Prince Philip! And if Charles is taking the reins on Andrew, imagine what he would say to his son, and his wife!
The PR daily drops from Sussex Royal (or what ever the source is) are minding blowing considering the image that we the public are seeing - a prince and his wife at odds with the Monarch. Is the South Africa trip the clincher? Will they behave "or else"?
If any of the comments from American’s on the DM are to go by, a lot see what the Brits see. However, I do wonder what the Brits in America think about Murky?

That awful British presenter (sorry I don’t know her name) on E! Whenever there’s a negative story on Murky, she almost always puts it down to racism, even the tinniest thing she’ll make it about race. Argh, ghastly.

I’m curious as to what level of the media in America are Murky’s criticism seen as racism, compared to her not respecting her role and the expected traditions that come with it etc.
You’re not alone, I think there’s an Archie too. I just can’t believe the Royal Family would go a long with a fake baby scenario. They’d have to cover up too many lies. However, I do wonder why he’s so hidden from the public. Normally by now there’s a few photos released to the media...and I don’t mean the artsy-fartsy type Murky and Harry have put on IG.
Nelo said…
I still believe that until the royal family takes a definite stand by stripping Andrew of his royal duties, Meghan's propaganda will always win. The prince Charles reigning in Andrew isn't sufficient. Victoria Arbiter, the daughter of Dickie who was the queen's aides for years said it clearly that Meghan has huge support in the US and the US media feels the royal family isn't protecting Meghan enough from the British press. And to give more bite to what she said, few weeks later, the queen drove to church with Andrew and all hell broke lose. The narrative that the queen protects her 'paedo' son but couldn't protect Meghan has gained grounds in the US so as long as Andrew isn't restrained from Repping the queen, no amount of leaks from BP about Meghan will make any impact. Meghan knows this so well and she's capitalising on it to do as she pleases.
CookieShark said…
It is astonishing to me that BP allowed the Mail to print remarks about how HM feels.
To me this says they have had enough.
MM jetting off to NYC to watch Serena play tennis in person was thumbing her nose at everyone. She seems to enjoy doing this way too much. Archie is too young to go to Balmoral but not too young to be left at home by his mother. Serena's coach also went on the record with his concerns that MM's presence would be a distraction and it was.
MM took all of the attention away from Serena and Bianca. She also managed to merch the necklace she was wearing and send cupcakes to her makeup artist, who leaked or was told to leak the story to DM.
This is not caring behavior by a mom of a new baby or someone being considerate towards the wishes of her husband's family or friends.
Her pathology is truly on display.
There was a story yesterday of how pics of Archie will be very limited while in South Africa. It is bizarre they announce all of this. It just raises more questions about Archie and where the heck is he.
Girl with a Hat said…
I don't think you are aware of the types of leaks from BP that are available. I've heard it said that they are very shocking indeed. As for Epstein, all BP have to do is link Markle to him as well, which is apparently easy to do. Checkmate
QueenWhitby said…
More smoke and mirrors I’m sure. You can be sure that HMTQ knows all: Markle’s history, who her backers are, that Frogmore is empty, that the existence of Archie is dubious, the brass knuckle PR on retainer, the foundation fuckery - all of it in it’s minutia. And. So. Does. The. Press. But they’re holding back.

Perhaps she called their bluff inviting them to Balmoral knowing they wouldn’t come as there is much to hide. We are watching a master class in PR, and HM is playing the long game. HM is biding her time, the why remains to be seen, but it’s quite obvious everything MM touches is a disaster and that she herself is repugnant so it’s very easy to sit back and let her be the architect of her own demise.

I doubt HM will turn up the heat on MM until after the Oct 31st Brexit deadline, and waiting may also give time to unfold what evidence there might be against Andrew - she’s biding her time to see which way the wind will blow on those two fronts. Make no mistake, the Queen has dedicated her life to the UK and the monarchy and she will deal with Andrew if necessary - the Crown comes first.

In the meantime, public opinion keeps turning against MM, and not just in the UK - Serena fans are condemning MM for attending the USO, and that she is a jinx. The photos of Serenas’ mom sitting next to her (with a face like thunder and ignoring MM’s babbling), are powerful. I kind of doubt SW will be in the MM corner for much longer.

MM’s actions reek of desperation right now. She badly needs public approval yet plans a hasty trip to NY for questionable reasons. There is no evidence she flew commercial, or attended yoga. I feel like she had NO CHOICE but to go to NY but the reason for the trip was not the one given - she and her high powered PR team had to know how the public would react. Why a costly trip for a frivolous reason even though it was reported SW’s team did not want her there?

Kudos to HM using it to her advantage as a snub. This could have been spun many ways, in particular that the $$S spent could have gone a long way to disaster relief in the Bahamas, but depriving an aged, beloved Queen a visit with her g. grandchild is much more powerful - game, set, and match to Her Majesty, The Queen Elizabeth.
Ilona said…
I discovered your blog only yesterday and have been reading it non-stop ! All very interesting and I mostly agree with the comments. I was shocked, too, to see that "baby" at the polo match. It looked totally bizarre. I've just looked up "baby dolls that look real" and was astounded by the silicone dolls that look so much like real babies in every respect - only the eyes do not move (or perhaps they do?). Someone here wrote that the lady in question must have looked like a deranged woman hugging that doll and going around at the polo match and I found that sentence utterly credible.
abbyh said…
On what basis is there this widespread support out there for her? Where is it? I don't hear people talking about how put upon she is. No where. Or the idea she's wearing this and I gotta get me one of them too. She's not registering.

What I do see is lots of articles which talk about race in some manner (often just that she is mixed and that she married into the BRF). Oh, and she's moved into this really wonderful cottage after it was renovated. People like the English cottage look.



KnitWit said…
While MM us in US, it would be a good time for an Archie reveal...either a real baby playing outside with his father or exposure of fauxarchie. The royal family can claim MM is mentally ill, annul the marriage and send Harry to Africa to rebuild his image doing "good works" and keeping quiet. It would also be a good time to file for divorce.

Henry could claim he was trying to help his wife, overwhelmed, etc.

Why does he stay? A secret? Blackmail?

Whole situation is too crazy for words.
Trudy2 said…
@Truthseeker, I can entirely see that being a possibility.

Just imagine the sympathy she'll garner, no one will dare speak of the doll, her critics will have little choice but to take a step back AND she'll get to ponce around in her beloved black. All. The. Time.

She'll be "Poor Meghan, Bereaved Duchess."

Lord spare us!
Catty said…
Where exactly has the narrative of "the Queen protects her paedo son but couldn't protect Meghan" gained ground in the US? I haven't heard that narrative at all - I think you are way over-estimating her popularity here - no one actually cares at all except her deluded fans who all cry racism - I have seen major media outlets like CNN cover their debacles so Americans are hearing negative things about her - she doesn't have a groundswell of support at all. But I have noticed since we found out about Sunshine Sachs there are several articles today saying "she is trying - be patient - don't mommy-shame her - blah blah blah".
SwampWoman said…
I honestly don't see how that would work, Truthseeker. I do not see how it works in the UK but here, even when somebody is in hospice care, a medical person has to sign the death certificate, and the body needs to be transported. When a close friend's husband died from terminal illness at their house, the police were involved (because he had refused hospice's help), and had to investigate the cause of death. Everybody knew he was dying, we had all visited him, including his siblings, a few days before his death when it was clear that he was close to the end. Legalities still needed to be observed. In fact, his wife called the day before he passed to let me know it wouldn't be long. I said I'd be over immediately; she said no. He said he wanted her to call me to let me know to be available for her and to help with the arrangements, but not to come over before he passed because he was afraid I would try to save him. As I said previously, police questioned her, the neighbors, myself.

There would be a LOT of questions and investigation if an heir to the throne died as an infant, IMO. I do not think they could say "preserve our privacy, do you know who we are?" as a shield.

Again, of course, I am not from the UK, and I mean no disrespect. Perhaps some person can kindly clue me in if I am wrong. If the infant is indeed terminally ill, I could not imagine any circumstance as a mother (or indeed, even as a grandmother) that I would be separated from him for a moment.
Fifi LaRue said…
Markle doesn't have huge media support in the US. She hasn't been on any magazine covers for months; nor does her name appear anywhere in the media. Most people don't care about her, she's not on anybody's radar, except for us commenting on Nutty's blog. Markle lacks charisma; and, increasingly due to his own stupid decisions and comments, Harry's once likability is just about gone.
SwampWoman said…
Oh, my, yes, tiny little keyboard and big fingers make for some awkward phrasing and typos here, too! I share your pain (but I have plenty of coffee now, so I can't blame lack of coffee any longer).
Ozymandias said…
I have some things to note that I do not think have been mentioned yet:

She has a new nose job. Look at any previous recent photo and look at her at the US Open. Much thinner nose and bobbed now. Probably wanted to go to US just to show it off. Since it is a flesh surgery and not the bone itself there was probably very little swelling and bruising.

Best role for her: Madame Bovary. Avaricious and grasping woman who dreams of fairy tale husband snags a Dr only to find her life with him is drearily basic and not what she had imagined for her status she desired. Had a child and was soon bored with it. Prodded Dr husband to attempt many ambitious efforts to increase their wealth and status, all the while spending huge amounts on her clothing and home furnishings to have the lifestyle she felt she was entitled to. Dr husband fails at all her ambitious efforts and she goes looking for her fame and fortune elsewhere unbeknownst to her dim witted husband. All is a house of cards and falls down and she is outed and commits suicide dramatically leaving the husband the shame and debt with a broken heart.

No one mentioned that at Wimbledon she purposely took two friends that were notably heavier than her and sat between them to appear thinner. This is a known mean girl tactic.

She is the one that decided she did not like the moniker, "Prince Harry" because as a pair they would be Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. She has taken the term The Duke to all referrals of him now so she will always therefore be referred to as The Duchess. I am sure she endlessly refers to him to all she speaks to as The Duke, hence the silly sign off on the IG post.

Lastly, perhaps she will get what she so desperately wants "to break the internet" if the BRF have a sex tape and will go nuclear and use it to remove her.

KayeC said…
@Flowerzrkool, I could not agree more......the key to being a good chess player is seeing all the outcomes from your moves and possible moves of your opponent. MM has probably never played that game before, but the HMQEII (or someone in her household) is a master on a Napoleon level!
Girl with a Hat said…
There were some pics of her nose on twitter where she seemed to have a saddlenose and another deformity running from the bridge to the nostril on the left side.
Jdubya said…
I agree, Markle does NOT have huge media support or American support. The Tabloids might run stories but i don't even know anyone who buys them. Only time i glance at them is if i'm waiting at the Dr's office. I never hear any conversations concerning her. She is a non-entity here. And celebs supporting her? With all the celebs going political in the last year, insisting they know better, most people are avoiding anything they say or do.

I rarely hear the RF mentioned at all.

And yes, i am in the USA, Northwest area.
I dont rhink the Queen has set eyes on Archie yet. She definitely would not let on to the press that the picture of she and Prince Phillip meeting Archie was fake because it would lead to uncomfortable questions that neither she nor her advisors could answer.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are a little too well matched in that they both crave publicity while crying about wanting privacy. Meghan obviously went into the marriage with dollar signs in her eyes, she thought she was Cinderella and would live happily ever after with unlimited money whether the marriage worked out or not. Harry saw how much publicity his brother's engagement and marriage brought in and wanted some of that publicity, but i dont think he actually wanted a wife and definitely did not want a child because he doesnt want responsibility.

Where we are now is they are living separately and neither wants to be the first to admit it Meghan knows she would be seen as responsible for the failure of her marriage if she files first. She wouldnt get the sympathy that Diana got when she announced her marriage was "a bit crowded".

Harry is stubborn, doesnt want to have to pay her anything to get out of the marriage and also doesnt want to have everyone know he eitger is a huge fool or went along with the farce.

I think the statements about how the Queen feels about their relationship is their final warning to straighten everything out or the leaks will appear. Once the palace sources start leaking info on H&M it wont be long till they are pushed by the Firm to divorce. If Harry continues on this same path until tue sources leak about the truth of baby Archie, he will be exiled just as the King who chose to marry an American divorcee years ago. Accounts read as if Princess Elizabeth actually liked and loved her uncle but when he chose Mrs Simpson over the throne, he was cut off from all his family regardless of any affection they still may have held for him

Jdubya said…
Was thinking this morning. Harry - in the past, we always saw pics of him inter-acting with children and he looked positively radiant with them. Smiling, laughing, talking, touching them.

We haven't seen any pics of him with Archie, i mean actually touching him except at the beginning. No pics of him holding him or talking to him. At the polo match, he barely acknowledged him.

and it made me think - are there any pics out there of him playing with Will's children? I would think he would've been a favorite uncle, but ........ Did George or Charlotte call out to him at the polo match? Run up to him for a hug? Even pre-Markle?
I dont think the royal family would go along with a funeral without a body and death certificate. They will not want to be implicated in such a scandal, and to date they all have the possibility of proclaiming they really didnt know for sure if Archie exists, is a doll or was born to a surrogate
SwampWoman said…
I don't think that the media hype re MM is as powerful as some in the UK (and the people in the large liberal cities in the US) seem to think. The "racist" card has been played waaaay too often to the point that when "raaaaaacist" is screamed, people just roll their eyes.
You’ve answered a lot of questions for me. I wondered what Murky’s true popularity was like over the pond. It doesn’t sound much better than here in the UK.
SwampWoman said…
Thanks for that, Jdubya! I agree. I am in the southeast and nobody cares AT ALL about MM (or even Harry). If they were both kicked to the curb, it would be greeted by shrugs of "oh, well". We southeastern racists are too busy flying supplies to the Bahamas (there was a plea yesterday that if you are a private pilot, come bring your plane and fly in supplies), boating supplies to the Bahamas, or gathering and loading supplies to the Bahamas, and we note the crickets out of MM about the plight of a Commonwealth state.
@Flowerzrkool, I agree and some well observed points too.

No one marries into the royal family without background checks, and no one can get away with things without the Queen finding out..... eventually.
The media in America would collectivelt ask "Meghan Who? " if her name wasnt attacked to Prince Harry. People magazine and other "entertainment" media really dont make up the base of the American media
Girl with a Hat said…
blind gossip has a blind item about her again today. Apparently she was not invited to the last two family gatherings because they found out that she was spreading gossip about them (probably the story about William having an affair)

https://blindgossip.com/why-she-stayed-home/
should be collectively and attached. I guess my spellchecker is suffering a hangover or is day drinking
HappyDays said…
It would be very easy to say Archie died from SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, commonly known as crib death, but refuse an autopsy. After all, how can there be an autopsy if there was no baby in the first place because Archie was played by stand-ins?
SwampWoman said…
Yes, what Mischi said, it looked quite odd.
@SwampWomen,

Really there’s no logical reason why American’s would be remotely interested in Royalty, especially ours! Lol

So very pleased to hear the Southeast pilot’s etc. helping a desperate cause in the Bahamas.
Girl with a Hat said…
here is a pic.

https://twitter.com/wizkid101UK/status/1170482863231438848
@Butterscotchkitty,

The Brits would have asked ‘Meghan who’, before she met Harry, and I think it was the same over the pond too.

I wish the press overhere would just ignore her completely.
Girl with a Hat said…
when she appeared on the screen at the tennis match, there were only about 20 or 30 people cheering and some booing according to reports.

She is pulling out all these tricks to get Harry to file for divorce. If she files first, she doesnt get to play victim. If he files first, rest assured we will all be treated to stories of how she tried to make it work but was thwarted by Harry and his family
SwampWoman said…
I have to think about how I would feel about it if a sister-in-law started spreading that crap about me or my beloved spouse. I would not be at all happy and it could be dangerous to have us in the same house at the same time. I would forget my Christian upbringing in an instant and it would be ON.

HappyDays said…
Mischi, Two sexual behaviors of people with narcissistic personality disorder. 1) Talk to people who have been in a romantic relationship/marriage with a narc. They usually will tell you that at the beginning, the sex was earth-shaking, the best they’ve ever had. It’s part of the early stages of love bombing and seduction.
2) However, these phases fade, especially once the narcissist has established domination, isolation, control of the target/victim/partner, especially emotional control of their partner, making them completely dependent on the narcissist, which Meghan accomplished at the speed of lightning.

Once the love bombing and seduction is finished, there’s no reason to provide the great sex either. In Meghan’s case, she got him to marry her and quickly got pregnant, at least I am leaning toward a pregnancy. But not sure if Meghan was pregnant or if they used a surrogate.

Narcissists use sex as a lure to seduce and entrap their target, but it soon is used as a weapon by withholding it to be given out occasionally to keep their target/victim/partner on the hook. This behavior usually coincides with the devaluation phase of a narcissistic relationship.

They could very well be quite far into the sex drought and devaluation stages. But she’ll turn on the charm long enough to get baby number two very soon.
HappyDays said…
Oh Nutty, I’m very familiar with the Stacey Abrams race for governor in Georgia. Your comparison is a good one. Stacey is interesting in that she derives income from setting up non-profits to do things such as increase voter registration among minorities nationwide. She receives contributions from fat cat donors and pays herself a healthy salary and whines about bring a victim, especially playing the race card.
SwampWoman said…
Goodness, Mischi. I suppose it could be makeup running in the heat, but those look like scars from an accident to me.
HappyDays said…
Enty said months ago Meghan has been sending boxes of notes to one of her friends in the US or Canada presumably for a tell-all “I’m a victim.” book and movie when this marriage crashes. I am guessing Lindsay the author or the other female friend who is a lawyer. Her name escapes me.
@Mischi, the blind is a few days old, but they had another blind piece a few months back, Murky was the one spreading the rumours of William with Rose. Truly nasty if true.
SwampWoman said…
@Louise, it is terrible, and the heart breaks.
Nelo said…
I wonder what Meghan would have told her US friends on why she snubbed the Queen and what they will think of it. We will know what Meghan's propaganda is by tomorrow or Tuesday when her mouthpiece, Lainey tries to spin it into 'but what of Andrew'?
Girl with a Hat said…
LOL. Ventriloquist puppet Lainey.
SwampWoman said…
Yes, we had a congresswoman that shook down a lot of business leaders for "donations" and, if they complained, played the race card. That wasn't enough, so she started a non-profit "charity" of which she was the main beneficiary. She's in prison now. Sadly, she'll probably win election again once she gets out because the people that she represented do not think fraud is a bad thing.
KayeC said…
I'm down here with SwampWoman in the South and no one, except royal watchers like us (who were watching WAY before MM came on the scene,) are paying attention to this. We are the ones confused at the situation because it is not like anything we've seen before. Those "new" fans are easy to pick out because they act like she is the only woman in the BRF who has ever been criticized before.

If anyone is looking for a good way to help the Bahamas, Map International is based down here (we have volunteered with them several times) and is a legit organization that sends medicine and medical supplies all over the world, They are sending many medicines there that people need (antibiotics, ect.) or were already prescribed (heart medication, cholesterol, ect.).
SwampWoman said…
FWIW, at the present time I don't believe that PA was a pedophile. He seemed to like the nubile young ladies that were post pubescent, not prepubescent. I believe that a lot of Epstein's known associates were probably cultivated as cover for his proclivities. (Some of them undoubtedly shared them.) Many were money hounds on the scent of the dollar and PA, if I am not mistaken, was often in financial straits. Another one (money hound) was forced to resign this past week. I'd have never dreamed of an MIT connection to Epstein. His tentacles were everywhere! https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614282/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resignation-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-donation/

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
not unless they elope in Botswana as it is rumoured to have happened.
MaLissa said…
@Louise500 you're thinking of Melanie Bromley, theAmerican based British presenter on E!. I used to like her a lot but she's way too pro S'Meagol these days.
SwampWoman said…
No, I'm not defending him. People have opined that he should seek out somebody his own age. That would be somebody my age. I have to tell y'all that at my age, I'll buy my own jewelry if I want it, TYVM, and men couldn't pay me enough to put up with their sh*t. I'd rather work at a crap job and live in a modest house that I could afford by myself. (SwampMan, of course, is excluded because he's also my best friend and we prefer each other's company to anybody else's.)
SwampWoman said…
I have to say that I regret needing to work tomorrow because I can hardly wait to see if she was actually spotted going back to England?
Mom Mobile said…
Any A-Lister with a modicum of intelligence would avoid MM like the plague after snubbing the queen. This is why this most recent media development is so fabulously juicy. MM became persona non grata within the BRF and now it's extending throughout the celebrity climate.

If I were friends (but let's be honest - Friends? Really?) with MM and she told me she SNUBBED THE QUEEN of M-Fing England I would GTFO and drop all associations with her. I'm no dummy. I don't roll with the BRF but I have mad respect for HM. And I'm not even one of her subjects.

Also, did anyone catch that absolutely glorious quote from Martina Navratilova? About how Serena "actually earned royalty instead of marrying into it"?

LMFAO!!! OMG!!!
Julia said…
I find all this about the loss of a baby simply awful - I'm certain Archie is real - and loved - but his parents are enjoying the mystery of him not being seen. Why is beyond me but I believe it's a control issue on their part - part of a celebrity thing they've picked up from that crowd.

This gives a simple explanation for why Balmoral couldn't happen - even though I'm certain they had an invite whether the queen was keen or not. She loves Harry, although she might have worried about mixing him with the P.M. But Harry and Meghan had no way to get there. Think about it.

Thanks to Harry's new travel scheme, flying private was out - he could hardly say it was a safety issue after William and Kate used commercial flights and the press will be looking closely for a long time at any flight he takes.

When they go to Capetown, they can have an entourage of people between them and any flying peasants like us - if there are even any ordinary people on that so-called commercial flight. But that wouldn't work for smaller Scottish aircraft. The train takes too long as would driving.

It's a rather pleasing irony that they could have gone - but two people with all the resources in the world available to them couldn't get to a simple destination like Scotland. So an excuse was made that it was THEIR idea.
Nelo said…
That is assuming she tells them that. No one knows the sub stories that Meghan would have told her US pals about the RF. Don't expect her to tell them the truth. But I agree that it will be difficult from now henceforth for any celebrity to publicly defend Meghan with this snubbing narrative.
Ava C said…
I found a photo of a doll online, not a baby but a little boy, couple of years old, over £1K to buy, entirely handmade. Astounded is the word. No matter how long I look, the doll looks real. Even slightly warm and rumpled, as if he's just stopped running around. I still refuse to believe you can fool other parents close-up, though what could make it work is the British upper-class version of omerta. They all know she's crazy, and the whole baby thing is crazy, but no need for the little people to know about it. We'll deal with it in our own good time. (I still can't believe I'm entertaining the idea. We must all be covered in little blue marks, pinching ourselves.)
SwampWoman said…
Nelo, I'm not sure that the majority are friends as much as accomplices. Her list of friends does not appear to be very lengthy but perhaps she was afraid that they would not measure up to be a friend of a royal.

How many of you have friends that have been friends since elementary school? I know that we all grow up and we all move on, but I do have some very long-term friends.
punkinseed said…
I think you all are right about post pubescent type on Andrew. And like you, I'm not giving him a pass over his behavior and terrible choice of friends.
If you want some fairly well researched information about Epstein and his MIT, and science interests check out Amazing Polly on YT. She goes into great detail about how Epstein et al invested in and were deeply connected to MIT and other Ivy league involvement.
Julia said…
Andrew needs to go and not because of Meghan - his patronages are being put in an untenable situation - insult the queen's son by banning him, or be accused of having a patron who - at the very least - showed horribly poor judgement. Even his own charity involves young people - most unwise.

And whilst the press may be wary of claims that could shut them down because of libel, they've gone from being not much interested in his engagements to charting every golf match. And there's a hint that palace leaks may be starting to appear - a sign his support within (where he has long-time staff and support) may be weakening. That row with an aide - and Charles' ineffectual response (no apology needed) was obviously a leak.

Andrew will be sixty next year and quietly retiring would be the sensible thing - although the royal family has members in their eighties still working and Charles is over a decade his senior. But they're going to be terrified of doing anything that looks like an admission.

It really is turning into another annus horribilis for the queen. In the old days, they would send him off somewhere but I doubt the Commonwealth is holding out their arms to welcome him.
Ava C said…
Yes, and the photoshopping's been dumped by the press well and truly. Universal sign of disfavour, when the media stops making you pretty.

H&M have similar noses and as of this weekend the similarity is even more marked. But it may just be the press picking the most unflattering angles that they avoided before. I think Meghan's skin is struggling hormonally and that could account for some irregularities. It must be a struggle to maintain her look. By the time I'd reached her age I'd ditched my straighteners, embraced my curly hair (real drawback in corporate life in the '90s) and now I've never been happier. She could have a trailblazing authentic look by now that would be a fantastic example to younger women. More lost opportunities ...
Ava C said…
Should add I do think there's an actual child, but I think a surrogate is likely and that perhaps the baby is so protected (or inconvenient) that they have used a decoy on occasion. Maybe left the actual baby at home but don't wish people to realise, and justify this to themselves on the grounds of security as Harry did with private flights.
Ozmanda said…
If there are comments coming out from the Queen you have to know the proverbial is about to hit the fan. It would be funny if customs won't allow Sparkles back into the UK :)
Míol Mór said…
The Queen has issued a statement! Something akin to ...
... It is with a heavy heart that We have granted Our beloved grandson Prince Harry's dearest wish to surrender all of his and his wife's Royal duties, honors, responsibilities and benefits and allow them to build their future life and that of their son in privacy as Mr. and Mrs. Harry Mountbatton-Windor. ... Prince Philip and I together with all members of the Royal Family wish them the best as they embark on their new path. ...
... or so I dreamt last night. ...

Add the flurry of 'activity' on the part of the Sussexes recently it would seem that the plot is thickening and the stars appear to be aligning for the finals. HM is very dedicated to serving her people and astute doing so, so since the deal with the Deal Memorial Concert I've had the feeling that she may well have had enough.

Thank you, Nutty, for this blog -and all of her audience, of course- for the insights and thoughts you share. I've only recently stumbled upon this corner and have yet to delve deep but it's interesting reading, for sure.
none said…
Charlatan Duchess has an interesting close up shot of MM's knees taken at the US Open showing some kind of bruising/abrasions on both. Editorial says "Well, we know it's not from praying..." lol
Girl with a Hat said…
I'm not sure what the story with the nose is about. Did she really look like that because her makeup run as Swampwoman has suggested? or was that photoshopped in? or what?

What really made me laugh, and I think you can all appreciate this, is the photos of the little trinkets she had around her neck with Harry and Archie's initials in the DM. They purposefully chose pictures where there were strands of her hair on her cleavage. So many people commented that she looked like she had a hairy chest!!!! The freckles or whatever imperfections on her cleavage also didn't help matters. I spit out my coffee reading the comments. LOL LOL LOL
abbyh said…
Oh, burst out laughing.

As for the tiny little gold pieces on her necklace at tennis, I thought: Can't you make them smaller? I think I can still read them.

Seriously, if you are trying to send a message that your heart still beats longingly at these two far from you, you don't send that message in size 2 font.
HappyDays said…
You have a good point of it being about control. Because Meghan likely has a scorching case of narcissistic personality disorder, control is a huge part of how she operates.

She uses Harry’s childhood in the spotlight and Diana's death, which to me is as much Diana’s fault as it is the media’s, to easily get Harry to agree to all the privacy. But for Meghan, it is control and thumbing her nose at the RF fulfilling the public expectation of something in return for all the tax money and other funding that keeps this family, whose members are there only by birth, afloat and in the elevated station of being ‘royal.’

They are also following the lead of the Clooneys, who have kept their twins under wraps. They want to be thought of as A-listers like the Clooneys, so they imitate their lifestyle and behaviors.
JenS said…
The story is definitely a warning shot to Megs (and possibly Harry). Perhaps they avoided Balmoral because they feared hearing this, and probably much more, in person. The gloves have come off.

Next moves: Megs will continue setting up post-divorce income and giving the middle finger to the RF. Expect more scalding tea from the SA tour, including evidence of her "private" activities. If she goes ahead with plans to charge fees for her appearances, she will have violated laws. This could be the perfect excuse for legal action, removal from royal duties, and perhaps stripping of title. Expect her to play race and victim cards with a vengeance.

Next moves: Haz will put on a public show during the tour, but cracks in the façade will appear. He may have some "single Harry" fun in the countries he visits solo. Once back home, he'll be seen solo more and more, as the Firm's PR distances him from M and rehabs his image. IMO, he's over M, and is doing as he's told until he can get the hell outta Dodge.

Next moves: Archie will continue to remain invisible, except for the backside of his body in blurry, photoshopped images provided by SS. The PR team will, however, release a drip of charming but unsubstantiated stories every few weeks. We'll eventually stop hearing about him altogether. Perhaps the story will be that he is thought to have unspecified disabilities that require he live in a private institution, where he receives the best of care.

Unless, of course, Megs succeeds in sourcing a child in the next few months. I'm #teamsurrogate and believe that M never received the infant. Hopefully, he's happy, loved, and well-cared for by his birth mum or whoever has him.

Next moves: The Firm will continue its masterful long game, allowing M to wreck herself so completely that she can't play the race and victim cards. At some point, they will unleash the British press. We may be seeing the beginning of that now.

They have plausible deniability with Fauxrchie if they admit they used, in good faith, Photoshopped images they received from Meg's team in advance of the events, which didn't occur as planned because of illness, schedule conflicts, etc. Since M has allowed no one to see Fauxrchie up close or handle him, it will be easy enough for family members to claim they suspected something was off, but didn't know.

Divorce: Not sure who files, but I bet a pint it happens within a year. M will claim victimhood either way. The crown could seek an annulment for Harry if the Fauxrchie story goes nuclear and M gets thrown under the bus.
JenS said…
It's also possible M hired SS because she thinks (or knows) the RF is planning to let the Fauxrchie story break.
QueenWhitby said…
Fair is fair, MM does regular yoga so her knees will show it and there is plenty of ammo on her behaviour without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

What it does speak to is her lack of royal decorum - take a page from the Anna Wintour or DoC book...if you want to go bare legged, wear a dress that covers your knees if they are imperfect.
gabes_human said…
Swampwoman and Louise... I am on the Texas Gulf Coast and my personal choice for my extra $ is Jose Andres who is feeding everyone he can find. If you would like to investigate his org he’s at @WCKitchen. If I was a few years younger like I was during Katrina and Ike and the oil spill I would have my hands wrapped a spoon too. #ChefsForBahamas.
punkinseed said…
The thing that I find infuriating is that Megs appearance at the US Open created such distraction away from the Canadian winner. Imagine if you just beat SW and how triumphant you would feel. After so much hard work and dedication it is your moment to glow and bask in all the glory as you accept high praises and honors and well deserved affection from your fellow Canadians. How proud you'd feel and how proud of you your nation is for being the very first to win in Canadian history.
How rotten it was of that snatch to take away a single bit of Bianca's thunder. Megs couldn't care less that her infamous presence overshadowed Bianca's amazing win. Keep on looking for the cameras Megs! Keep poaching from others. It's the only thing she's good at doing.
Plus, as it's been stated by SW's team, they did not want Megs there because any distraction could not only cause SW to lose the match, but also the loss of millions of dollars and endorsements. No wonder Serena's mother ignored Megs during the match. Her face and body language said it all.
Back in the old days, high society women would do what's called, "The Cut" which was non verbal and much more punishing than being snubbed. Without fully defining it here, we all witnessed a version of The Cut when the royal family closed ranks and froze Megs out on the balcony during TOC. I reckon we are going to see a full on revival of The Cut from more royals and celebs in all of its versions from now on as Megs continues to blatantly insert and impose herself where she's uninvited and unwelcome, the cry victimhood and throw tea pots. And you know what's so sad about all of this? She really isn't capable of understanding how or why she's become so infamous. She's incapable of having real feelings like compassion or humility, empathy and sincerity. NPD is such a cruel disorder. I kind of feel sorry for her because it's my understanding that there's no cure or recovery for it. What a shame because she could have used her fame and fortune to do so much good in the world.
Girl with a Hat said…
haha. This story just never stops with the funny situations.

Tatler magazine in the UK just named Meghan as the social climber of the year.

I’ve just recently started reading this blog and I really like it. Nutty, I really enjoy your take on things and I love how you stay involved in the comments. That said, I really do not get #teamsurrogate at all. Surrogates cannot just decide to keep a baby they’ve had for a couple. There are many, many legal safeguards built into surrogacy contracts to prevent this. In the early days of surrogate technology, they did use the surrogste’s egg much more often but after several cases where there were legal issues most surrogacy agencies now prevent this. If they did use a surrogate and the embryo was made from Harry’s sperm and Meghan’s egg, then the resulting baby is biologically and legally theirs. The woman who gave birth to it could not just walk away with it and live happily ever after. It would be massively illegal for her to even try. If, for some reason, they were unable to use Meghan’s egg, they would likely get a separate egg donor. Egg donation, like sperm donation, is anonymous and the egg donor never knows who gets and uses her eggs. Once the couple has purchased the egg, it belongs to them. In this case, even though Meg wouldn’t have a biological link to the embryo, Harry would and probably more importantly, the surrogate still would not. The surrogate is paid to gestate and safely deliver a baby. Once she does that, she is removed from the equation. She doesn’t get to choose what she wants to happen to the baby. She was hired for a service, she performed it and was paid, her contract is at an end. Full stop. They don’t allow you to take a baby, any baby, home from the hospital just because you feel like it! I’m with the few posters above who believe she was pregnant and that there is an archie. But even if you do think there was a surrogate I have a hard time believing that reasonable people think Meghan and Harry hired a surrogate who, after nine months, refused to give up the baby and the Sussexes (and their lawyers) just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh, well, where can we find another baby on short notice?
Ozmanda said…
I also think a big part of her trip was to smooze Anna Wintour to get a gig on Vogue US.
punkinseed said…
Haaa! I know right. The comments section is hilarious in DM about the Tatler article. Greasy pole. Haaa haaa.
The queen must be cringing today as there must be five or six articles in DM today all about Megs being this or that wonderfulness. Ish!
Tomorrow will be all about Megs secretly surprising everyone at Fashion Week shows. Watch. She'll poach someone's front row seats and really make everyone furious over it, including the designers who want their fashions to be photographed, not Megdusa.
punkinseed said…
Millicent, are you going by UK surrogacy laws or US or? One of the bloggers a while back posted the UK surrogate laws on here and it clearly states that the baby belongs to the surrogate until she surrenders the child if she chooses to or not.
Ava C said…
Hi Millicent. I think on an earlier post someone pointed out that surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable in the UK. It's legal, but the service cannot be advertised or paid for. It's my understanding the surrogate is legally the mother whether or not she is genetically related to the child. There is scope, from what I've read, for a court to decide what are the best interests of the child if there's a dispute, but Meghan wouldn't get far there I would think.
Ava C said…
I'm not remotely qualified to provide psychological insights, but I believe there's a strong link between narcissism and impulsivity. I've never forgotten reading about what a high Princess Diana was on after she made a speech withdrawing from public life for a time (the dissolving like a Disprin speech I think of it). She loved the attention and drama according to Patrick Jephson. Next day she bounced into her regular diary review meeting with him with 'Right, what have you got for me?' enthusiasm. Only to find her schedule empty. This is so like Meghan, revelling in the moment, without the slightest idea or consideration of the longer-term consequences. If it's an illness, it's cruel of the BRF to give her this much rope, but having watched Meghan in full pushy actress mode in that red-carpet interview a while back, she seemed too tough to pity.
Rainy Day said…
My favourite DM comment about the Tatler story was that the pole was greased with KY jelly!
abbyh said…
Wow, just reading them is ... interestingly clearly that they think what goes up will come down one way or the other. Must not have paid for this one to be binned.
Ozmanda said…
Millicent - additionally - even if surrogacy is legal in the UK (I am not sure if it is) there is another element to this - the media element. Lets assume that MM and Haz decided on the surrogacy route - it is the fact that she carried on the charade of being pregnant that gives the surrogate the power - laws aside, they wouldn't want it to get out as it would out them as complete liars.
So then people think that Harry and Meghan, with all their resources, engaged a U.K. surrogate and just...kept all their fingers and toes crossed that in the end she would “choose” to give them the child who is seventh in line to the throne of England? Really?!? Maybe a loving couple desperate for a baby is willing to take that kind of risk, but a dedicated (and really quite successful) social climber like Meghan isn’t taking that big of a chance with her golden ticket. Again, though, I think that’s why there was a pregnancy, and a baby that is hers. For all their claims to just love their new diversity, at the end of the day, the royals only actually care about blood royals. And now, she has one.
I agree about the nose job. She just wanted to show off the new work done. Especially since she was criticised so much about her weight.

The problem of course, is that it's not her looks, but her attitude. When in England, at most of her official engagements, she seems uncomfortable and trying too hard and that's what makes her look bad.

If look carefully her nose is different, her lips have more shape ( although I believe the lip job was done around Wimbledon), the hair is smooth and highlighted, had a weave, and she has fillers at the contours of her face. She is definitely showing it off.
MM fears the RF plans such a thing....OR

MM wants to do a carefully orchestrated baby reveal herself. Hence, SS.

They will put out bits and pieces of news here and there, but mainly do so much of fluff PR for her - she looks cute, she is so approachable, girls want to look just like her, she eats organic, she earned in millions and get networth is a whooping 100 million etc. They'll build her up without much mention of her husband or child.

And then, they will do a cutsie, gurgling baby happy families reveal. After or during the tour. The so called children's book will likely come out post the tour, just before Christmas. And that's when we'll see Archie.
Jdubya said…
Earlier someone posted az boutique tarot card readings by Janine on YouTube. Just looked up the most recent.

Now I go both directions on these. I do believe there are those with a gift of knowing things but......

This gal says there were multiple surrogates, possibly 3 children born. Possibly 1 died, then Archie, and a girl. That the surrogate possibly kept Archie and now they are looking for a way to bring the girl in.

I keep thinking of the posts I've seen where Megs was positive they were going to have a girl.

Now I have to go back and watch earlier videos.
Girl with a Hat said…
sorry to disagree, but it is her looks. Her hair is just awful. It looks like horse hair which is okay if that's the look you're after, but not if you style yourself as an icon. Couldn't she talk to Beyonce about that? Beyonce's got great hair. I thought they were besties. There's the white part in her hair with her very tanned face. Also, the legs and arms are much whiter than the face.

And, her chest looks like it's growing hair because of some skin imperfections. Get that exfoliated, honey. Her knees are rubbed raw, and her dress is wrinkled.

I'm not one to be dressed to the nines, but this is not how royalty looks or dresses.
Mischi, I agree she look awesome, and her hair, the finish of her makeup etc could do so much better.

What I mean is that ACCORDING TO HER she now looks amazing because she has gotten all this work done. And keep in mind that she us known to be basin about her looks for years now. Her looks are exotic according to her, that's the only thing she has going for her, and for years she has been hailed for her looks. So after months of being planned for her looks, and herself being very self self conscious about how she looked during her mat leave, this is was her big moment.

She is essentially trying to deflect the criticism by making it about her looks again....mainly about how she is allegedly back to her hot self.
SwishyFishy said…
I'm in the Southwest. No one knows or cares who she is here. When I mention her, I get blanks stares and "Who is that?" questions. No one is really interested in her. People have their own worries and don't think too much about a super rich elitist snob who married into the royal family. The only people who have heard of her are those interested in the celebrity lifestyle and they are more interested in Kardashian stories that the BRF. People here are also really fed up with the constant cries of racism in the media as well. I don't think Meghan's really going to 'blow up' in the US as much as she thinks she will. That said, I still think she will land on her feet and be merching in the millions as she does have a fan base for now.
SwishyFishy said…
P.S. I wrote this on another article but it wouldn't post. Prince Andrew is an ephebophile, a person sexually interested in teens 15 to 18. A hebephile is a person interested in the age range 12-14. A pedophile is anyone 11 and under, i.e .pre-pubescent.
SwishyFishy said…
No pics of Harry with the Cambridge children. It's odd. The polo match was also odd. Most parents will greet their children with affection. Harry did nothing. He acted like Meghan was carrying a doll. I happen to think there is a baby (via surrogacy), but the poor child has been sullied with a suspicious birth legacy because of it's idiotic parents and their need to create PR mystery. Selfish bastards.
SwishyFishy said…
Eh. No offense to Janine, but take any tarot reading with a grain of salt. It's all based on the perception of the reader. Keep in mind, Janine also has a lot of conspiracy theory and ancient alien readings too, so she can be a bit out there when it comes to any kind of conspiracy. I think this idea of three babies is a bit much. Think about it. Would the royal family or Harry be so insensitive as to keep one child and throw the other two - also of royal blood - away? I think not, especially if one was the longed for girl they could name Diana. There's no merit to this idea. It literally makes no sense and as bat-shit crazy as I think Megs is, I don't think the surrogacy thing would go that far in order to produce one viable child.
SwishyFishy said…
Speaking of the merits of yoga...I've never had kids. Is it possible for her to squat down at 8 months pregnant with her legs together like she constantly did? I've been told that's not possible. That, along with the ever changing, ever wobbling moon bump is what has convinced me she faked the pregnancy.
Nelo said…
For those who say Meghan doesn't have support in the US, don't you find it strange that more than 24 hours later up till Monday morning, no major US outlet has carried this report about the queen being hurt by Meghan's snub? What does that say? All the major news outlets are full of sweet reports about how she came to support Serena.
Nutty Flavor said…
Gotta disagree with you there, Millicent.

Meg is well-known for not caring about details, and I'm sure the Royals have the power to buy off any surrogate she might have engaged.

Based on Markle's behavior during her 'pregnancy' and the odd circumstances of the birth - no title for Archie, no doctors signing their names to the announcement, no 21-gun salute, no signed birth certificate released - you won't be able to convince me that this is a natural birth of a blood royal to a royal wife.

I've come to the point where I rather hope there isn't any real baby involved in this mess, because neither Meg and Harry seem particularly interested in being parents, and because a divorce soon seems inevitable.
Swishy,

I've been teaching yoga (professionally) for some 5 years now, and I have specialized in prenatal yoga. I also have a degree in Excercise Physiology. Prior to that I used to be a legit scientist, where I extensively studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry. So I like to think I'm qualified enough to have an opinion on this, having come across many, very fit, pregnant women.

It's not unheard of to be able to squat down when you pregnant, if you have been very fit and active, and you don't have a any difficulties in the first 4 months or so. By the 8th month though it's quite unheard of because your body has changed considerably to accommodate the baby and the birth. Also it's just not safe. Any excercise that presses the belly is a no-go, even if it's easy to do.

Squating with the knees together puts a lot of pressure in the uterus, and stretches the lower back, the pelvic floor by that time has opened up, so it's anatomically nearly impossible to keep legs together. Besides , the weight and shape of the belly has shifted your centre of gravity, so the physics is not right.

So how she did that beats me. I'm of the opinion that her bump was probably a lot smaller than it seemed. And that she wasn't as far along as she made us think. Also, she might be putting in a show, and did that despite of it being extremely uncomfortable. ( She might have to soaking her ankles and back in salt water for hours post the stunt every time.)
Also those heels are a big no-no and dicey as f***.

I am still of the opinion that there is a real baby. That pregnancy charade though was a curious case.
Nutty Flavor said…
I find that squat unlikely. By 8 months, baby is HEAVY. And your center of gravity is off, which is why pregnant women generally begin to waddle at this point. I feel pretty confident that the pregnancy was faked.

Flowerzkool, I felt the same way about the dress that showed off her knee bruises. I tend to bruise easily myself on my legs, and when I have bruises I generally wear trousers or stockings to cover them for business or formal occasions. Nobody wants to look at big purple and yellow contusions.

That denimn dress was a mystery in the first place. It fit poorly and wasn't particularly flattering. Why did she choose it?
Nutty Flavor said…
Nelo, I don't think you should confuse media support with actual public support.

Meg has engaged Sunshine Sachs, which represents many celebrities. Ken Sunshine can easily make a few calls and say, "Hey, (big celebrity whom I represent) will be giving out interviews next month. I'd love to give an exclusive to you. Of course, I need you to play ball with my other clients in the meantime. Meghan Markle was in town yesterday...."

Speaking as someone who has spend my entire career working in various parts of the media industry, the gap between traditional US media (national magazines, national network and syndicated shows) and the actual population is enormous, and one of the main reasons the current administration was elected to office.
Nutty Flavor said…
Could be. Anna's own position is tenuous, however; she turns 70 in a couple of months.

There was a lot of talk of her being replaced at Vogue US by Ed Enninful, before Ed crash landed with the September issue of Vogue UK guest-edited by Meghan.
Nutty Flavor said…
Yes, I thought it was surprising that the otherwise excellent Marie Claire article on the life of Royal reporters spent so much time on the William/Rose story, which never seemed to have any basis in fact that I could see. Pure distraction and disinformation, is my guess.
Nutty Flavor said…
There was talk that William banned Harry from hanging out with the kids after he showed up drunk one too many times. This was before Harry's marriage.

Nutty Flavor said…
Which, really, when you're 38 (42), "hot" shouldn't necessary be the look you're going for.

Elegant, yes. Gorgeous. Stunning. Strong. A handsome woman. A woman with classic style. But hot....nah.

Not everyone can be a sexpot at age 50 like JLo. (And I think she's highly dependent on flattering lighting.)
bootsy said…
@ Nelo
That's a very good point that I hadn't thought about much. By protecting her son then the Queen manages to diminish her authority and goodwill (let alone having people question her judgement) a fair bit if MM starts to bleat about being bullied.

They need to do something about Randy Andy and fast. He should be dropped from all public duties immediately in my opinion. Of course he might not have done anything wrong, but then again I don't know too many people who would stay at a mate's house after they had just done a spell in jail for underage sex and who also had lots of young women around all the time and continued to do so and....ah yeah maybe Andy is not exactly the innocent victim in all this!

And as for MM's flight to NYC last week to watch the tennis, I am simply amazed at the stupidity and lack of any sort of nous on her/Harry's part. In a summer where they have been accused of hypocrisy by using private jets and when they have made 2 preachy speeches to us proles about air travel and pollution, in the same week as the last speech she flies to the USA for superfluous reasons? Wow. Let them eat cake....

Nutty, my first thought - in her mind she was sticking to her Wimbledon theme.

She would have turned up in a Wimbledon duplicate outfit, but maybe one of SS execs we're like ' fine you want to wear denim, I won't argue with you anymore. But just wear a jean dress.'
Nelo said…
Very solid point on how the US media works. But let's not totally forget that media like Fox news which actually has higher ratings than CNN, NBC etc helped Trump's campaign a great deal. Let's see how this plays out but I don't see the RF winning the optics war against Meghan unless they cut off funds and other privileges so she doesn't have enough to pay SS, she she will still be winning the game.
It also means that what the British media reports may be different from how the British public feels about Meghan? Does the British public actually love her going by the 'crowds' that usually show up during some of Harry and Meghan's engagements?
@MaLisa, yes that’s her! Agree, I used to like her too, I put her on
mute when she comes on now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Ava, I’ve seen the reborn’s too. There was a documentary on UK telly a few years back, they were so realistic looking they were creepy. The women on there used to take them out in prams and pushchairs and dress them up! I definitely think a reborn could be used as a decoy too. The photos at the polo was the worst ever, if the baby was real I felt so sorry for it. Murky didn't bring a pushchair or anything. It just looked bad and extremely awkward.
Ava C said…
The sudden appearance of Meghan apologists on DM comments is continuing. Seen nothing like this for weeks, and they're in such similar styles. Simpering, over-the-top, z-list celebrity bubble without a clue about the BRF or the UK. Is this Sunshine in action? Must be. Makes my blood boil but I'm getting RSI from all the down-arrowing. Will call it a day and leave them to their intellectual wasteland. Serves me right for being on there myself.

But I DO find it fascinating - as others have said - to finally be reading an article phrased as 'the Queen thinks' and 'the Queen feels' and not 'sources say the Queen thinks' or 'reportedly the Queen feels'. Uncharted waters. Surely can't be long now.

I watched a documentary re-run recently, following the Queen about. The Queen as she is now. She was surprisingly ascerbic at times. In an invigorating way, although my proletarian hackles rose a little in places. She's definitely not a pushover or a rubber-stamper. She probably follows Queen Mary in more than looks, and after all she spent a lot of her early childhood with her grandparents, George V and Queen Mary, while her parents toured abroad. No one more dogged in protecting the monarchy than Queen Mary.
I have the actual mag...I laughed even more when I saw who else was in the list. What a rotten bunch! Lol
Ava, I've noticed that too. For the past few days I've noticed that Elle and GoodHouskeeping are doing a lot of proMM PR, the sponcered 'similar to what you previously liked' posts on Facebook.

I've seen articles that about "You won't believe how much Meghan Markle is actually worth" , "yoga poses Meghan Markle swears by" "Meghan's favourite high Street brands" etc... it's the kind of stuff that jeniffer Garner, Kim k, Jessica Alba and the likes typically rely on to promote their goody-two-shoes brand.

I'm definitely thinking SS has been at work.
I hasten to add, the list isn’t in the October publication.
Nutty Flavor said…
I'm not sure which crowds you're referring to - the only announced event the Sussexes have had since Archificial's birth has been the Lion King premiere, where the crowds were thin.

In fact, I think one of the reasons events have not be announced in advance is that there is a fear they will be boo'd.
Nutty Flavor said…
They're really doing the most to try to make Fetch happen.

But if the public isn't interested, the public isn't interested. And showing up at the US Open badly dressed, with bad hair, unattractive fashion, and bruised knees, isn't going to burnish her brand. (Reese Witherspoon would never.) If SS is trying to market her as aspirational....no.

What I want to know is who is paying for all this Sunshine.
hardyboys said…
I'm with Millicent. I just cant imagine Harry helping Megs take off her bump every night and they fornicate while their 7 month bump is resting on their Captains chair. Then next month her 8 month bump arrives by Amazon courier. It just seems so ludicrous. I cant help but think this moon bump thing started by some crazed DM commentator and it took off from there. How come no one on the 60 minute Australia show mentioned it? How come DM has never made one peep about it? Instead her wierd behaviour after is supposed to be the smoking gum that she had a plastic baby with batteries ? Like it's so preposterous that it is hard for a logical mind to accept. There is no evidence such as a receipt a txt or email to the surrogate holder. There is no smoking gun just conjecture and a little suspicious behaviour
SwampWoman said…
Mischi, I was looking at the x-shaped scars (?) on MM's nose just below the bridge. (I'm not sure if the scabs at the end of her nose are scabs or bronzer.) My younger brother had scars like that when he was hit by a car while on a bicycle. It could also be a darkish liquid foundation over lighter-colored skin that was messed up by her sunglasses.
Jen said…
Nelo, most people in America don't care about MM. I can almost bet you if you did a "man on the street" interview with anyone in NY, Chicago, or even, Aimes, Iowa...they wouldn't know who she was.

As for the Brits, I think most of the crowd is there for Harry, not her. He's the draw.
@Nelo, I think Nutty has raised some excellent and relevant points. I agree with what Jen says about the Brits, but support for Harry is waning fast!

If foreign nationals were to read our media, they could be lead to believe that the Brits are obsessed with the royals etc. Most of the public I think are indifferent, (to the point of apathy) till something good or bad happens.

Meghan came from nowhere, it was only when Harry put out that ludicrous statement in November 2016 did Meghan’s name appear in the press...and it was greeted with Meghan who, what ?! Before and after they married, the British media was pushing the narrative how much love the British had for Meghan. I for one wasn’t buying it or seeing it, and nor were an awful lot of others either. How many American’s were really (even remotely) interested in Meghan and her story when she married? If you were to believe the hysteria from the press you might think an awful lot were, I don’t think this was the reality at all, you only need to read comments by American’s online to see a gauge of that.

The engagement interview gave Meghan away about who she was and what she was about. It’s only been over the last few months that the gulf between what the press report and and what the British public think has narrowed significantly.

The press will report and push any narrative and agenda, it doesn’t mean people believe or buy it...it also doesn’t mean that it’s a true reflection of what the public think. Meghan may for a time have the American media on her side, but what’s the true longevity of that?
Oh there were definitely shenanigans around the birth, I’m not arguing that point at all. And I know if the royal family wanted to start throwing their money (and power) around, there’s probably nothing they couldn’t accomplish with it. I guess I just think that if you take H&M out of it, the stink of a fake pregnancy/fake baby/stunt baby situation would damage everyone in the family were it ever to get out. Charles has spent years rehabilitating his image from the Diana years and working to get the people to accept a Queen Camilla. I just don’t think he risks that for a long-term baby ruse for one of his sons. At this point a “we dunno, she’s crazy” defense wouldn’t really get any of them very far, I don’t think, because they have all been photographed with Archie. So to me it just seems to be asking a lot of complicity from a family full of people who are basically ruled by their own self-interest. Charles and William especially have their own futures and the future stability/viability of the monarchy to think about. They can’t be participating in a scheme that would turn the entire house of Windsor into an international laughingstock. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s how I see it.

And I definitely agree Meghan seems like a bulldozer, rushing in without thought and not much caring what she leaves in her wake. That said, have a baby, cement your future isn’t necessarily a plan that requires a whole lot of forethought, it’s literally one of the oldest tricks in the book.
SwampWoman said…
SwishyFishy, I think we should all order tarot cards and an instruction book and do our own readings! (I can just see my husband's face when he says tonight "Okay, I've made the order for the new speakers from Amazon, do you need anything?" and I tell him "Yeah, don't forget to order my new earbuds, plus I could use some tarot cards and an instruction book!" ) He'd probably say "Tarot cards and an instruction manual? Darlin', I'm pretty sure that Satan is right there near the top of your contacts list, so why don't you just save the money and call him directly with your question instead of going through an intermediary and an interpreter?"
Jdubya said…
first - apologize for auto correct mangling my post. it looked fine before i pressed post.

2nd - some of it was interesting and some of it was crazy. Her thoughts on who Harry's father is - (Hint, it's PP by artificial insemination, think turkey baster, while Di was unconscious - yeah, her words). It was some old ritual.

anyway, people write to her with questions, she does some research and then does a reading. don't think i'll go back for awhile.

but it was a distraction



@Ava C do agree with the DM’s pro Murky commentators being back. They are totally clueless and more, which is why it’s not worth bothering with them,
Ava C said…
Hi Nutty - did you see the reports about Meghan paying £6K (or $) of her own money for Sunshine help?

1. That surely doesn't go far in big-league down-dirty PR terms.

2. Seems an small sum for a woman who's supposedly wealthy in her own right (LOL). A really specific small sum. Maybe it's the equivalent of rummaging under the sofa cushions for lunch money.
Girl with a Hat said…
I'm on sick leave so I have nothing better to do than to surf the web to find Meghan gossip for you guys!

celt news on youtube says she spoke to someone who was in Government House when Meghan and Harry stayed during their tour. They were fighting all the time about her pregnancy and that she had announced it. Harry also asked her if she was really pregnant. They slept in separate rooms and Harry went out drinking most nights. She did not want to do the "tour crap" as she called it, but wanted to have the time to do some touring, so basically a paid vacation. That is what the incident at the market was about. She did not bake the banana bread but furnished the staff with recipes and told them at night to go get the ingredients. I'm not sure if Australia has many open shops at that time. They had to produce several and Meghan chose the one that she attributed to herself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uV151-2QFk
Girl with a Hat said…
Government House in Australia.
Marie said…
@Ozymandias - very interesting analysis of the Prince Harry vs the Duke thing. Never thought about that, but you're completely right. The funny thing is, the photo on their Instagram is of her (their?) royal monogram, whereas on both the Insta pages of people actually going to be come king (Charles and William) they have just photos of them with their families.
Surprised Harry and Meghan didn't use their coat of arms to remind everyone that it's a "royal" account, but maybe even Harry found that a bit too conceited. :D
JP said…
Another really unnecessary mistake - you always go to Balmoral when invited by the Queen. Even an American (me) knows that.
Stop making statements, go to your appearances and show the baby. That is really all they need to do.
And next time just go to the pub instead of just putting out a story. What rookies.
Girl with a Hat said…
from twitter:

EVENTS MEGHAN ATTENDED BUT WASN'T INVITED TO IN PAST 6 MONTHS:
-Tindall christening
-NZ House
-WE Day UK
-TTC
-Baseball game
-Polo
-Wimbledon
-US Open
...Did I miss anything?!
Bardsey said…
Okay, for all my fellow pregnancy-skeptics out there, here is my super wild theory. I was reading this blog and following this story during the last few months of my third pregnancy and have given this waaaaay too much consideration, but it's been too tedious to type up. However I can no longer hold it back and have to share; it'll probably have to be more than one post. Sorry for taking up so much space Nutty but I hope you enjoy the fantasy detective work!

We're working with very little verified information here, and one of the points of contention is her ability to squat down at 8 months. When I read that I was about 7 and a half months pregnant. Immediately I tried to squat down, knees together, and was able to do so easily. To be fair I'm tall and have a lot more space to hold a baby while Meghan is petite and was wearing high heels. Then again, she does a lot of yoga. For the record I tried again every week and after 36 weeks was no longer able to do so.

So it seemed to me there was a chance Meghan was pregnant when she knelt down, but perhaps the due date was off. Perhaps she was only 7 or even just 6 months pregnant when she knelt down, and the largeness of the bump was due to padding to keep up with the 3-month estimate given in mid-October (not just keep up with but exceed, she always looked too large). This was interesting because clearly something was up: the lack of doctor signatures and general birth certificate oddness, the eerily short hospital visit with no one talking or signs of them leaving Frogmore or security presence, the refusal to use the Queen's doctors early in the pregnancy, her obsessive bump-gripping, the lack of pictures in May and June, Archie seeming much bigger than he should be in the Christening photo (esp the metadata being off), and her disappearance for months before the baby was announced. Some people do disappear and reasonably so because they feel awkward. But Meghan had clearly adored the attention and here were great opportunities for walking about and pushing the Tig-style glowy-Mama pregnancy schtick which seems right up her alley. Yet it wasn't happening and still hasn't.

Why? To me the answer is Meghan's first appearance with Harry and Archie. She is pregnant in that picture. If there's one thing I feel confident about it's that we are looking at a pregnant woman in that white dress. It explains why she was willing to risk white; she's not leaking anywhere yet. She probably chose it because it was the one thing on hand that best masked her state but the high belt trying to cut her figure in two and distract the eye is just an effort to trick the eye. That stomach is high up, way way too high up for someone whose given birth a few days earlier. I'll go so far as to say I feel insulted when I look at the full picture of her standing beside Harry with the buttons around her belly button sticking so far out. She's pregnant. And she'd finally be the right size because she was petite and it was a first pregnancy, so she was likely going to be carrying smaller. My guess is she's finally 8 months in that picture and they're planning on a C-section as soon as they think the baby is safely viable.
Marie said…
The marks on her knee are probably just from yoga (table-top positions like in cat/cow moves)

When she's forking out her own dime for clothes, it's JCrew, Cuyana, and insert some random High Street brand. When Prince Charles is footing the bill, it's Givenchy and Dior custom couture. It's risible how her stans say that she was independently wealthy before her marriage, and yet she even found her cast wardrobe to be more expensive than what she could afford.
Bardsey said…
(Pt. II): My wild theory to fill in the details of why they'd lie about this is that Meghan and Harry (or just Meghan) had planned to have a baby right away but using a surrogate. Hence the secret trips to the Clooneys and Toronto. And everything was on track but then something went wrong: maybe Meghan accidentally got pregnant a few weeks after the surrogate. Maybe the surrogate seemed to get a negative and Meghan took matters into her own hands only to find out the surrogate had taken the test too early and was actually pregnant. The possibilities are endless. But whatever the details may be, what seems clear is that Meghan's stated due date was way way off from her actual due date, and yet Meghan was definitely pregnant. It explains the bizarre Meghan-Harry-Archie first appearance and weird arrival week. It explains the lack of pictures with Archie. It explains Meghan's inability to lose weight quickly. She should have been thinner by ToTC but was not, and that time she *was* emotional and wearing dark colors: my guess is she gave birth between May 6th and ToTC and that's why she no longer looked pregnant but did have that post-partum heavy exhaustion and dark colors.

It explains why Meghan's hair was thinning in NY this weekend. People were making fun of her on another website for how thin it looked, but 2-4 months postpartum is when all your hair starts to fall out (life is cruel, it's just started again for me and it's miserable.) What they were mocking actually was additional evidence that she had been pregnant, and recently. If she was really pregnant and gave birth in late May/early June then she should be losing her hair in gobs now. It explains why her pigmentation and hair have been whacky the few times we've seen her this summer; that never would have happened if it had just been a surrogacy. It explains why they were rumors the RF was fed up of the mystery and she was going to be ordered to a hospital to be induced and suddenly they miraculously had Archie on *their* terms. I think they waited till they could have the official due date as late as possible and then just faked the whole thing, knowing the "child of Meghan's body" would always be a few weeks smaller/behind the official birth date.

It explains the huge discrepancy between her bump and the official timeline. It explains the rumors of Harry and Meghan fighting on the late October/early November tour: they had announced the (surrogate) pregnancy and now Meghan is telling him, whoops, uh, I'm pregnant too and they're super stressed and he doesn't believe her because they had this other plan. And the stress is huge, but Meghan just decides to embrace it and go with the big bump and lie like crazy. Then, when the time that matches with the given due date (surrogate due date?) draws near, Meghan vanishes, something which does not seem consistent with her personality.

Bardsey said…
(Pt. III, final): It's impossible to verify any of this and all we can be certain of is that they left a lot of room for speculation. But if I was being asked to put together a story here that fits everything I know, well, my guess would have to be that there were two pregnancies involved and at least one was Meghan's (and of course both conceived children could be Meghan and Harry's biological children, just the one was being carried by a surrogate). The two things which I can't bring myself to dismiss are that 1: the timeline was completely bogus and Archie's hospital birth on May 6 never happened, and 2: that Meghan was pregnant. Hair loss, the May picture, the pigmentation, the bloating at ToTC and Wimbledon: she was pregnant. No one would fake all those things, and some of them just increased speculation she wouldn't have wanted if she was using a surrogate. She wouldn't have faked the belly in that picture because it made things worse.

There is also the possibility she was pregnant, announced it and miscarried, and then was pregnant again and used a doll in those pictures because she knew she wasn't due for another few weeks. But why lie? People would have been sympathetic to a miscarriage. So I still suspect another party was involved and there were complications along the way leading to this mess. If I'm right, though, and there was a surrogate who got pregnant earlier and did not have any complications, then there are two children involved. Yup, that's how crazy this theory is: not only is the No Archie theory wrong, but there are actually two babies. Whew, it totally sounds insane and is probably wrong, but honestly it's the only way I'm able to account for so many of the little things. And there certainly have been really bizarre stories about what people have done for money and power and titles, so it's not impossible. People do strange things for glamour and luxury. If anyone can tell me why this guess is batshit nuts please do, I'm not pleased that my best guess sounds so ludicrous!

Most likely we'll never know, but it would be pretty interesting to find out what actually happened because I've never seen anything like the circumstances surrounding this birth(s). The poor child (or children). Hopefully there are loving caregivers involved and these weird days are forgotten and lost amid much happiness, security, and stability. Whatever the circumstances of the deception around the birth, the interest is and should remain on the outrageous behavior of Meghan and Harry and their willingness to abandon their duty to the public in pursuit of their own self-interest.
Marie said…
Would love to see sources behind that video. I find it a bit hard to believe. I mean,
Imagine her not wanting to do "tour crap"? It would mean that cameras wouldn't get photos of her showing the world how much Harry and the Fijian/Australian/New Zealand commoners adored her, and vice versa.

I also can't imagine her not baking the banana bread because she seems more like a control freak than anything else and also, she strikes me as a borderline narcissist or at least an insecure person who needs to present an inflated ego but never struck me as being lazy.

And Harry going on a royal tour without her is also hard to believe. He seems rather insecure with people who aren't old ladies, children, soldiers, or athletes and sort of needs his mommy. And he also seems to want to get the point across that he didn't make a mistake with his marriage.
Girl with a Hat said…
I actually believe all of it. Meghan was there with Jessica Mulroney and probably preferred to hang out with her friend than to behave like a Royal. Also, I don't think she is actually a good cook and would prefer to put the blame on others if her plan didn't work out.
PaulaMP said…
Re the bump theory, didn't we all see the pictures where they were at some event and it looked like it came loose and was dangling around her knees beneath her dress? The details fail me now but I do remember seeing it, she was trying to hold the front of her dress
Hikari said…
@Louise
>>>I wish the press overhere would just ignore her completely

Same. In fact, I wish there was a worldwide gentlemen's agreement among the global media that any and everything to do with the Sussexes is a non-story. As the one correspondent drolly put it when Harry kicked the press out of covering his speech, "Nothing to see here; everyone's packing up and going home."

We all know this clamoring for 'privacy' from the Suxxits is just a ploy to whip up more interest in themselves. Smegs' face while watching herself on the Jumbotron at the Open was positively orgasmic. It's been great fun jeering along with the media about the greasy pole and etc., but epithets like these are just giving Smegs ammo for her racist-victim narrative.

Imagine a world without a single photo or mention of Harry or Meghan and their pathetic attention-seeking antics. Wouldn't it be peaceful? Perhaps a trusted media source (Harry likes that Sky News reporter Alan) could slip the Suxxits a memorandum that says that out of the deepest, deepest respect for the couple and Archie's privacy, as requested, they are going to be left resolutely alone, with the exception of a televised interview with Archie. Let Megs chew on her liver over that for a while. Let her attempt to bring 'Darren' on TV for a live interview of 30 minutes' duration. Then at least we'd know one way or the other if they have a live Archie or they don't. If this child was as good as good and slept throughout the interview even if Alan pokes him with a pin, or if 'Archie' looks very different than the baby we saw in the christening photo . . at least we'll know.

No Archie, no coverage . . that's the deal that should be proposed to them. Then the void can be filled with lots of glowing Cambridge, Tindall, Eugenie & Jack, and Wessex stories instead. Ie., the royals we want to see more of anyway.

It's a pipe dream but an absolute moratorium on Smeaghan coverage is the only way to starve out this narc. When I saw her face up on the Jumbotron, I was crestfallen, because that is EXACTLY what she craves.
freddie_mac said…
As an American, agree with Jen. In the States, the BRF is an interesting bit of trivia; a majority of Americans could probably identify Princess Di, HMTQ and Charles.

But the rest? Don't know and certainly don't care. How many Epstein-related stories in the States have to re-introduce Andrew because the audience just doesn't know anything about him?

Also, Megs may be a global A-list celebrity *in her mind*, but certainly not in the American market. Again, getting outside of the NY/LA market, and most people haven't even heard about her *and don't care*. So, why would a story about a D-list actress snubbing HMTQ be news here?
freddie_mac said…
JP wrote "you always go to Balmoral when invited by the Queen. Even an American (me) knows that."

Agreed; the only time it is acceptable to refuse is when you've got a serious crisis in the family (i.e., someone in the hospital/on deathbed ). Even then, you graciously acknowledge the invite and (with the help of protocol officers) convey your sincere regrets. For that matter, this is applicable to any head of state -- president, prime minister, etc.
punkinseed said…
Ava C, you make some excellent points and I agree that NPD people lack impulse control most of the time. We all can go off without thinking things through first and that's more or less normal, but NPD people in incapable of feeling remorse and sorry for what they've done. They just flatten anyone in their way like a pancake and never look back.
Hikari said…
@Millicent,

>>>At this point a “we dunno, she’s crazy” defense wouldn’t really get any of them very far, I don’t think, because they have all been photographed with Archie.

Are you sure about that? Because I am not. Both of the 'official' photographs purporting to be of members of the Royal family with the baby (HM, Philip, Kate, William, Chas, Camilla . . and the Spencer aunts) are of extremely dubious provenance. None of these images has been released by Buckingham Palace, but rather, 'SussexRoyal' and Meghan's personal photographer. Think about that. These images have almost certainly been digitally manipulated, and the why and how have been extensively discussed here.

There has not been, in fact, an official Royal acknowledgement of Archie's birth or existence. The stunt plaque outside the gates of BP was unsigned and therefore had all the authority of a spoof announcement from a party store. The phrasing of the announcement was *not* according to protocols for previous royal baby birth announcements. The one for Archie mentioned how delighted Doria was at the birth also, for just one example. Other grandparents do not appear in official birth announcements emanating from Her Majesty.

Any images featuring herself would also be copyrighted as property of Buckingham Palace, through their official channels, not SussexRoyal, which Meg has copyrighted in order to sell the images she creates/disseminates.

The Royal Family's extent of knowledge/collusion in a potential fraud of this magnitude is worrisome and does keep us occupied here a lot. The House of Windsor is, unfortunately, already devolving into an international laughingstock, but this was set in motion by two of their own. Meghan has exposed the weakness in a system that functions by everyone agreeing to keep schtum, keep smiling and playing their assigned roles . . .but the real source of all the damage she's done is Harry, who brought her into his family.

Both Meg and Harry have documented fertility issues which, also given her age, geriatric in pregnancy terms, makes it quite unlikely that she would have conceived naturally within 6 weeks of her wedding, as she claims to have done. Have you actually studied the copious photos available to us when she was allegedly expecting? It's the bizarrest pregnancy ever known to womankind, defying reproductive stages and the laws of physics at every turn. She had a plan for a baby all right, but not one of her body, and her plan has pretty obviously gone sideways.

With the amount of attention which cute baby photo ops would provide Meghan, not to mention the merching opportunities, it is strenuously out of character for her to not be showing off her baby. By this stage (four months) for Louis, and indeed, all her children, the Duchess of Cambridge had released a ton of christening photos, several candid snaps taken at home, and family events, like the birthday party last summer for Charles.

The secrecy surrounding Archie gives any reasonable person pause.
@Freddie, agree, Murky’s A-list celebrity status and her so called wealth is very much a figment of her imagination, and the work of her PR team. She’s only anything because of who she married.

She was a B-list actress at most, and most certainly never ever Hollywood royalty as some PR fluff stories would like us believe! Lol
Nelo said…
Lainey, Meghan's mouthpiece has written a post which I believe is what MEGHAN wants her to write. Basically, Lainey is saying Meghan's trip to the US is a FU to the British media. Says the RFs media game isn't up to that of Meghan's and that Meghan has something up her sleeves. As usual Lainey asked 'but what of Andrew'?
Hikari said…
The impulsivity goes along with their constant craving for immediate gratification. They feed off attention to such a degree that it is preferable to them to be the brunt of negative attention if the other choice is no attention at all. They have such cast-iron confidence in their abilities to charm and manipulate people that I don't think narcs give a thought to their plans and desires not working out. Hence, I can totally believe that Meghan set a pregnancy narrative in motion when she did . . .precipitate by any standard. Had she bided her time and waited a year, she might have conceived naturally herself or had time to bring the Royal family around to her plan for surrogacy. She rushed it because, a) she was angry at the Yorks, Eugenie because she 'stole' the tiara denied to Megs for her wedding and the father of the bride almost certainly knew her before her wedding to Harry. Perhaps even knew her very, very well. Hijacking Eugenie's wedding with a pregnancy announcement was revenge . . and b) even without that drama, a narc like Meghan couldn't bear another bride upstaging her in such a public venue. Having hatched the scheme to get herself a baby, she was unable to wait til a more opportune time to roll it out. If she had, they wouldn't be in this mess surrounding Archie now, but she can't. She is constitutionally incapable of delaying her gratification and acts in the moment for the emotional high of attention she craves. The fallout from such reckless decisions isn't something she worries about in the moment.
She's happy to win the battle but not the war, which makes her a lousy strategician. Her strategy to nab Harry worked, but she didn't get there without a lot of help . . principally that Harry fell for it, but tons of other Soho House types were pulling strings for her too. This baby scheme was done all on her own, which is why it's been handled so poorly.
Hikari said…
Charles' investiture anniversary. Now that makes for some good video of The Cut in action.

Harry should have known better. There they were, all dressed up. She, overdressed by a mile, obviously needing to merch that dress but with nowhere to wear it. I liked the dress and coat, actually, and I've only been able to say that about perhaps three of her outfits in the last year. But it was suitable for a red carpet or a state dinner, not an afternoon reception 'at home' for family. All the other women where wearing day attire.
Fifi LaRue said…
Millicent, since Harry was said to have fertility issues, and Meghan would be a geriatric pregnancy candidate, it's doubtful that the baby carried either one of their DNA. They could have selected close enough looking egg and sperm donors for the surrogate. The surrogate could very well have decided in good conscience to not give the baby to the vile Markle.
Lurking said…
Catch me up on the banana bread. Have no idea what happened there.
Lurking said…
Any sightings of Harry while Smeggle is/was in NYC? Is he at home playing manny?
Fifi LaRue said…
They couldn't go to Balmoral because there isn't a baby. Taking the doll wouldn't do because Liz would want to hold it.
Hikari said…
Meghan's PR about any of her skills is vastly overinflated. She goes on and on about how she's such a 'foodie' who loves being in the kitchen . . . so far her culinary achievements seem limited to roasting chicken (Basic Cooking for Dummies 101) and writing inscriptions on bananas. Her contribution to the Grenfell Towers cookbook (which she was lauded as having written) was a foreword in which she mentioned herself 26 times, but did not contribute a single recipe to. Then she put on an apron, waved around some tongs and merched her mother, imported for the occasion for the optics of being an African-American woman mingling with other WOC, and all of this inclusivity arranged by her daughter!

Meghan steals but does not originate. I believe her mental disorders make her incapable of originality. A true cook is passionate about her interest and the nurturing aspects of providing meals to friends and family. True passion for cooking involves a certain amount of artistry and creativity. These are not attributes of Meg. She likes *eating* expensive meals and featuring them on her Instagram, but creating them from the ground up is too much work.

Out of all the elements on her self-glorifying resume, I believe that her mom taught her how to do yoga, but as for the rest of the 'holistic woke' lifestyle, I say a big Pffft to that.

I suppose wine could be considered a 'fruit group'.
Girl with a Hat said…
of course it's what Meghan wants her to write.

Lainey is the biggest racist online. I've never seen a person who is so uncomfortble with her own ethnic origins. She actually had a post about rich white people the other day. Could she get away saying rich black people? And she laughs at people who don't talk about money, like she and her vulgar mother do. No wonder she gets along so well with Meghan

She also sucks up to the immigrant and ethnic readers like crazy.

I find it funny how she thinks that Bianca Andreescu and she have something in common just because they happen to live in the same country. Bianca has class and has respect for her parents.

Finally, Meghan, Lainey and Jessica Mulroney are the ones who dreamed up the Archie story. You really are stupid when you don't know how stupid you are.
Hikari said…
That would be the woke thing to do as a 21st century man. But if they use disposable diapers, that's hardly ecologically responsible. Good thing Archie never needs changed. Being good as gold means none of those messy, inconvenient bodily functions like eating, peeing and pooping that other less-wok parents have to deal with.
SwampWoman said…
Bardsey, I like your theory!
Lurking said…
@ Hikari... on point. To be fair though, bloggers and very well known celebrity cooks rarely ever create anything new. They regurgitate the same recipes over and over again with glossy new pictures.

But the banana bread! What's the story?
Girl with a Hat said…
@Lurking - there are no stories of Meghan sightings on her way back to the UK. Some people surmise that she is going to be seen at NY Fashion Week. Probably taking someone else's front row seat.
Beardsey, Im quite onboard with your theory. And I'm all for pt-1. Pt-2 is so improbable that it could very well be true.

Sometimes the truth is simply the simpmest chain of events. And with the train wreck that the whole Sussex saga has been for the past year, it's getting harder and harder to say that there is such sound planning behind the scenes.

It's an epic saga being written in front of our eyes...a few years down the line this story could make a blockbuster darkcomedy.
Girl with a Hat said…
HIkari, I liked that outfit as well, but not at that stage of her pregnancy. I wonder where it would be most appropriate....

What other outfits of hers did you like? I like some of them, but not for the season she is wearing them, and not the way they fit her. Like the TTC dress was ok, but much too expensive, and not accessorised properly, and not matching the mood.
none said…
Sounds very plausible Bardsey!
Lurking said…
Very likely she will stay over for Fashion Week. I do wonder what Harry is up to. Nothing on his calendar? His royal appearances seem to be very sparse for a working royal.
QueenWhitby said…
Lainey is delusional and predictable. Next...
Girl with a Hat said…
Lurker - she produced a banana bread while on tour in Australia and said that she had baked it herself. It was a big deal in the press. It turns out, she didn't bake it, but told people to bake it and took the credit.
Hikari said…
I liked the blue dress in Tonga . . the evening one, though the day one was nice, too. She must have thought so, since she's recycling that picture as thank you cards for friends, apparently.

Um, let's see . . the red one on the same trip was OK until I saw the tag hanging off it. So much for Megs' attention to detail . . lol.

Her first appearance as a 'demure' in the champagne colored dress and hat at Charles' birthday party was a good effort . . but I didn't know until later that she was hustled out of there within 20 minutes. Kind of a waste of an outfit. But the silver foil dress was really wasted since they were practically shoved out the door in even less time.
Avery said…
@Julia such loving parents that mummy leaves the country to watch a tennis match. Sorry - just ... no.
@Lurking, Harry’s distinct lack of royal duties have been absent for sometime...from the time he met Murky.
Oh I remember the banana bread story and how she made it whilst on the Down Under tour! (Ad if anyone believed it!) Seems she has a thing about banana’s!
Hikari said…
Miol Mor,

I read . . .The Queen has issued a statement! Something akin to ...
... It is with a heavy heart that We have granted Our beloved grandson Prince Harry's dearest wish to surrender all of his and his wife's Royal duties, honors, responsibilities and benefits and allow them to build their future life and that of their son in privacy as Mr. and Mrs. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor . . .and I got all excited.

Don't tease us so! :p

In my opinion, if HM really wanted to be done with Harry and Meghan's self-serving nonsense, this is exactly what she would do. Perhaps even will do. A senior royal being banished from the Royal family by his own wish has been done in the Queen's lifetime, and if it gets bad enough, I'd like to think that she would not hesitate to do what her father did in 1936.

Hasta la vista, don't let the gates hit you in the ass on your way out.

Harry is now a relatively minor senior royal . . .not the stature of the King, and he's leached away so much of his former popularity in just the last 6 months that I doubt too many people would be sad to see him go. He's allowed his wife (with his own participation) to turn him into a buffoon that comes across as a selfish, hedonistic t*rd.

Blowing off the Deal concert and his sworn duty as Captain General of the Marines in favor of sucking up to Beyonce in a bad shirt was just beyond the pale. Haz should have absolutely insisted that he needed to be at the veterans' memorial and Meg could have gone to Lion King by herself.

The upcoming SA tour is going to be the maker or the breaker, I think . . and at this point I do NOT expect Harry to comport himself with dignity befitting the Queen's representative. It's going to be a travesty. The Queen shouldn't even send them but she seems to have a masochistic streak when it comes to her red-headed grandson.
@Hikari, and no-one in her office did the very necessary background checks on the kitchen used for that staged fiasco. It had several links to terrorism. Hideous.
Girl with a Hat said…
there's a CDAN blind about the Royals but it sounds like it was planted by Meghan via Lainey, i.e. they are picking on poor Meghan because of Andrew and William is cheating on Kate.
1 – 200 of 217 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids