There is nothing stranger in the Sussex story than that of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, who supposedly reached the age of six months on November 6.
On precisely that day, the Duchess of Sussex took the opportunity to inform military families she was greeting that Archie was already crawling and had two teeth.
It is, indeed, possible for a six-month-old to have two teeth. And it is technically possible for a six-month-old to be crawling, although that is usually a seven-to-twelve month milestone. But the intersection of both suggests that Archie is a bit older than advertised.
No photos, please
That's not news, of course: supposedly born May 6, Archie appeared much older than 2 months at his baptism on July 6.
He appeared to have the size and neck muscle control of a 4 month old baby when carried by Meghan at a polo match a few days later.
Perhaps mindful of the criticism - the Daily Mail repeatedly referred to the child as "two month old Archie" in both headlines and text, almost begging its readers to point out the discrepancy - there were no more photographs of Archie until he appeared with Bishop Desmond Tutu during the Sussex trip to Africa.
The Africa appearance
Archie was officially four and a half months old at that point. The strong, independent baby who appeared in press photos (and an H&M ad) appeared to be at least six months old at the time, and have little or no emotional connection to the people named as his parents.
Instead, he appeared to be looking off camera for people he was more familiar with.
Meghan and Harry didn't do a much better job exhibiting a motherly or fatherly connection to the child. Neither could carry him properly. Harry briefly smushed the poor baby's head into the front off his business suit, and the child looked miserable.
Archie hasn't been seen since.
The media would like fresh photos
At least, he hasn't been seen by the public. The captain of the England rugby team, preparing for a tournament final in Tokyo, said that Harry had sent him an image of Archie wearing an England rugby shirt. But the image was never released to the media.
Speaking of the media, there's no group of people that is more eager to get fresh images of the young Master Mountbatten-Windsor.
I'm sure photo-heavy Hello Magazine isn't thrilled with having to run months-old images of the child in South Africa to illustrate a story of Archie's latest achievements.
For the rugby shirt story, People was reduced to running an image of Prince George wearing an England football shirt. Different kid, different sport, folks.
But I've yet to see a story in the mainstream media asking why no fresh photos have been released.
Why the media says nothing
This week's release of ABCNews footage showing that ABCNews killed a story on Jeffrey Epstein three years ago in part because of pressure from the British Royal Family shows that the media is desperately afraid of rubbing the BRF the wrong way.
This is partly because they don't want to miss out on future interviews, and in part because the BRF has a fearsome legal presence.
(The infidelity rumors about Prince William went away quickly not only because they were probably not true, but because palace lawyers seem to have leaned heavily on their source, opinion writer Nicole Cliffe. Cliffe was persuaded to admit that she had embroidered on the facts.)
This need for access, as well as fear of lawsuits, is why no establishment media outlet has come out and said the obvious:
Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was not born on May 6, 2019, and he is not 6 months old.
When he was really born - and to whom - is an unanswered question.
Comments
Maybe there are rational reasons Meg’s pregnant body appeared the many ways it did. I don’t know. But why on earth did she flout standard medical protocols so many times? Either Meg/Archie is a medical marvel, Meg was willingly negligent of Archie, or there was never any risk to Archie as in she had a fake pregnancy and he’s older in age.
Let’s all not forget Archie’s Christening. That was another event Meg was LEGALLY required to have Archie’s birth and christening information be in the public domain. How exactly were the laws enforced after Meg obfuscated the details there? The royals have avoided the formalities of those requirements with transparency (as far as we know). How about Meg? Who exactly is bringing the law down onto the BRF for that breach?
>>>She really wanted that baby shower advertised too. I remember how she apparently called the paps, left by the front doors, pap walked, and had large gifts delivered at the front doors and all the guests arrived amid fanfare at the front doors. I wonder if the excessive exposure of this event was a way of highlighting a smokescreen. But was this a good idea? And Hikari I love your ideas as always, but if she returned from NYC with a baby why is she still not showing him around? Are you thinking that an NYC baby is not the one we met in Africa?<<<<
Meg was so ostentatious during the pregnancy that the abrupt turnaround to 'We want complete privacy to bond as a family, and oh, by the way, Archie is going to be raised as a private citizen, so don't expect the normal complement of birthday photos, etc. Ain't gonna happen' that signals to me that something went seriously awry with her plans viz. Archie. I think if she was the full-time mother of this baby, we'd be seeing him more.
Such a low profile around the baby is not in keeping at all with Meg's hard-wired Narc need to show off and brag to generate attention for herself. Not being able to show Archie off and merch his photos must be about killing her. That's why if she comes out cupping her belly we'd better steel ourselves.
The definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein is apropos with Meg: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If she is brazen enough to try another faux pregnancy, that will just tear the biscuit as they say. There is an outside chance that she could conceive her own child if she was hitting the IVF treatments hardcore to account for her bloated appearance in May and at the Trooping, though she seems thin again now. Her weight and appearance fluctuate so much from week to week or even day to day--I've never seen anything like it. It's like her whole face is inflatable, not just her stomach or her a$$. Her boobs in SA looked a good cup size larger than they ever were even at the very end of her 'pregnancy'. I personally think she took the extended 'maternity leave' to have cosmetic surgery, and why not, as her diary was vacant except for her bizarre PR appearances. (cf. 'Abandoned Mother from a Tent City' at the polo, for instance.) She looked thicker at SmartWorks (Feed Time!) but not like a nursing mother. Just thick waisted, as ever.
The 'Archie' we saw with Bishop Tutu in SA is the same baby Harry was holding in May and was sitting on Meg's lap in July. I don't think they've ever switched out living children, though I do not rule out occasional use of dolls for long-range photo ops. The bright bouncing little boy we saw in SA definitely seems to have features of both H. and M., sharing Meg's lazy eye and looking a lot like Thomas Markle, I think. Other fans swear he's a dead ringer for Harry as a baby, though I think he looks more like Meghan. The 'tufts of ginger hair' were not apparent from the pics we have seen. Harry has been an unabashed ginger from birth on. His head practically glowed at his christening--at which he looked a good bit younger than Archie did.
As to whether they have custody . . I don't know. It doesn't seem likely that they could have taken him out of the country to a dangerous area for 10 days if they didn't. They may have legal custody but it seems apparent from their interactions as a 'family' that Harry and Meghan are not the daily caregivers of this child and have barely spent any time with him. Perhaps, to add another wrinkle to this extraordinary situation, they are the legal/genetic parents but have been deemed unfit to be the baby's caregivers. Mental instability or drug use perhaps . . and therefore Archie is actually being cared for and raised by other sane, sober caregivers. Sophie Wessex has been floated as a foster mom, but I think the entire family is at a remove from this incendiary situation and Archie has a team of experienced nannies. At least one, probably more of these traveled with the Sussexes to SA.
Meg and Harry's behavior has been so erratic that I do not think they are trusted to be be alone and are constantly being watched and minded and in Harry's case, given exact scripts now of what to say. I think the baby is in good care, which would rule Meg and Harry out as the daily parents. My opinion.
Philip's sister Cecilie died in an airplane crash when she was eight months pregnant. Apparently she went into labour when the plane was aloft and the pilot tried to make an emergency landing in bad weather, but collided with a factory chimney instead. The mother and child were found separately, suggesting that Cecilie had given birth in mid-flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Cecilie_of_Greece_and_Denmark
December 10, 2018, when she crashed the British Fashion Design awards and elbowed Rosamund Pike out of the way so that she could take to the stage and present the award to her wedding dress designer. For a televised event that had been months in the planning and choreographed down to the second, it was so incredibly rude. Rosamund Pike handled herself with grace, but the whole situation was comical. Meg stood there, the center of all eyes, cradling her massive belly (about twice the size as it had been 5 days or less previously at the old folks' home) in her black off-the-shoulder number and her black nail polish, lapping up the attention. Basking, in her what I call "Julia Roberts as the Madonna' look.
My bells went off earlier in the week about the Moonbump at the old folks' home, but at that time I was still trying to give her the benefit of the doubt and thinking, "I bet she's padding herself to look 'more' pregnant than she is," Ie, that she wasn't really showing much and wanted to look noticeably pregnant so everyone would comment. To ensure this, she helpfully reminded all the elderly folks, 'Feeling very pregnant today!' as she sat down and her stomach deflated. Also that remark is usually uttered by women who are considerably more than 4 months and a couple of days preggers as she ostensibly was at that time.
By the time she took the stage, I thought to myself, "Wow, she's really gonna do this--parade around with outlandish bumps in public and expect us to buy it." Because the size of her belly that time looked easily like 7-8 months gestation. I've got a colleague who is due at Thanksgiving, just three weeks to go, and she is nowhere near as big as Meg was at 5 months, so-called. Perhaps Meg was even hoping for twins via surrogate to really show up Kate, and calibrated her bumps accordingly. Then she bizarrely appeared much smaller the later her pregnancy got. Hmm.
So, after all these months of theatricality, the world was presented with a baby, and I thought, well, at least things will settle down now. Have they? Not really. Archie is still as big a mystery as ever . . starting with the name 'Archie Harrison'. The name choice itself seems bogus, like the whole thing was a joke that went too far. It's convenient that Harry's son can fit the middle name and disguise that 'Harrison' is also the name of the high-end home linens line available at SoHo House. Meg is devoid of originality, so naming her son after her favorite bathrobe is very fitting for her.
Regarding the complicity of the Senior Royals in hiding this sham, they supposedly all got together for a Christening Day photo in May, which they passed off as being in July. Of course, many believe, as I do, that this photo was photoshopped, therefore all this skullduggery was the work of the Harkles while the Queen and the others just turned their heads away so as not to be seen to ‘see’...Hikari’s ‘plausible deniability.’
Glowworm 🐛
It is precisely that horrific incident in Philip's life--a loss that scarred him forever (the Crown has a touching episode about Philip's youth called 'Paterfamilias' which touches upon this incident and his time at Gordonstoun) and did a lot to form the man he would become, in how he copes with emotional pain. He may not be that fond of Meghan and counselled Harry not to be daft and marry an actress, but it seems incredible that he and the Queen would have zero concerns about sending their newest pregnant member, with high risk factors for pregnancy, abroad for such long flights.
I have read that apparently Meghan attempted to claim 'being in labor' to get out of going to Morocco, though had she been permitted to go to the Oscars instead, I doubt she would have been suffering from contractions. She got sent any way. This was at the end of February, which is a more plausible due date than a full week into May . . so in the case of a genuine pregnancy, nobody would have been messing around with her welfare. After I read that, it crossed my mind that she pulled out the 'Guess what! I'm pregnant'' card at Eugenie's wedding to get out of going to Australia. If so, the BRF called her bluff.
Most of us would be thrilled to go to exotic Australia on our first official royal tour, but Meg is, contrary to her own PR, work-averse and really not interested in anything if it's not happening in North America. It was by all accounts not a successful tour, with Megsie bailing on several planned engagements, citing 'sickness', though they had ostensibly had the 12-week scan already. Maybe she was ill. Or maybe she opted to pass on a trip out to an Outback village in the back of a Jeep in favor of some quality time with the minibar in her room. Who knows. It would have been negligent in the extreme to send a newly pregnant woman on such a rugged schedule of engagements so far from London and her doctors. Which is just one reason I believe that Meghan did not carry Archie herself.
I'm not sure why you picked the month of March, but here is why I think it's significant.
After seeing Archie in SA it was obvious he was older than Meghan claimed and according to Doctors, how Archie held his head, wanted to stand up while holding her hand and a few other things, he was acting like a baby closer to 6 months old. If accurate, that would put his birth back in the month of March.
I remembered Harry rented a home until the end of March. Do you remember when Paparazzi flew helicopters over the Cotsworth house Harry was renting. Even though Harry and Meghan were not living there at the time, Harry was so angry he sued for violation of privacy. My first question was: Why would paparazzi hanging around a house that supposedly no one lived in upset Harry so much? and What attracted the paparazzi to this house, other than finding out Harry was renting it?
FWIW, Harry rented the Cotsworth home until the end of MARCH but never moved in. I didn't think anything of it until after the SA trip when it was suggested Archie's was probably born in March.
My 2nd Question: Is it possible, Harry rented the Cotsworth home for the surrogate until the end of March so she'd have some privacy? If March was her due date she wouldn't need the home afterwards and that might explain why he was so angry about the paparazzi hanging around that house?
I have no evidence that this is true, but the timing is interesting and its simply food for thought since the month of March has all of a sudden become significant.
What do you think?
I don’t mean to disrespect or attack the fonts that believe Meg genuinely gave birth to Archie. I wish I did but I find the arguments against surrogacy anemic:
- There are rational reasons for her body changes (padding, natural pregnancy changes, clothing, camera angles)
- Members of the BRF/Government/Hospital would never be complicit in illegalities
- H&M are obfuscating birth/christening details for “privacy”
Yet at the same time we are to suspend belief in standard medical info/practices. I am willing to accept that physical changes and development is extremely diverse. I am not willing to believe that Meg has come up with a magical Moon Juice recipe that let’s her:
- Safely go to Zika countries while pregnant
- Take flights during later term pregnancy
- Have an overdue birth as a geriatric mother
- Manhandle her newborn’s developing skull
- Travel with her son before he gets his immunizations
Interesting theory about the Cotswolds house. It did certainly look too rustic for Meghan's standards, based on the photo I saw. I had not considered that house as a lodging for the surrogate, though I suppose it's possible. A surrogate carrying Harry's baby would be such a valuable commodity, I think they would want her at a very secure location and under guard/watch . . for her safety and also so she did not go blabbing to tabloids. That Cotswolds place looked too remote for that purpose.
Someone floated the idea that Harry and Meghan's surrogate was impregnated without knowing whose baby she was carrying and all the obfuscation about Archie's arrival was to in fact hide *from the birth mother* the fact that she'd actually delivered the Sussex baby. If true, that would clear up a lot of the confusion for me. At least there would be a good explanation why the roll-out of Archie was such a sh*t show. I never thought Sara Latham was that incompetent but it was obvious she was being required to fall on the sword for some veiled purpose.
I had a sick feeling that the first time we saw 'Archie' it was a doll, owing to the sinister stillness of the child, the parental nervousness, Harry's stumbles over how long they had had the baby and the way they seemed loath to show his face. Harry moved the blanket slightly at the photographer's request but Meg immediately put her hands all over his head, like she was afraid. You are not to touch a newborn's head like that, so that was very strange.
However, the baby did not look like 'Darren', and I distinctly saw the Markle nose. He was oddly still but they had him swaddled like a sausage, and maybe he'd been medicated so as to not be too active. I don't think this baby was a doll but I have my reservations about Polo Baby and Plane baby in Nice, which dangled and were inert in ways no real child is. Plus we could see sod all of his face. The faces of the spectators were interesting, though. Kate looked quizzical as did the couple that stopped to talk to her. 'Deep concern over crazy woman' said the face of the wife of Mr. Gilkes, who is the ex of Misha Nonoo, I believe, and therefore known to Meghan. She looked like the Madwoman of Chaillot that day.
Kate's non-interaction with the baby was decidedly not normal, either. I think that she is under orders from William to not go near the Harkles with the children. William does not want any merched photos of his kids with 'Auntie Meghan' and Archie as taken by the Sussex Royal photog because Meg could do want she wanted with those copyrighted images.
Archie in the christening photo is a younger version of the baby we saw in SA. Cute little thing. But I do not believe that either of the 'official' portraits of Archie with members of his Royal family are legit. I'm not versed in Photoshop but even to my untrained eye those were both pretty amateur efforts, like a high school digital media project. The proportions are all off and I'm sorry but the chances of the entire group recycling outfits from previous sittings at the same time is minuscule. Kate in her Christmas dress, despite being photographed arriving in Windsor that day in a blue dress? Chas and Cam both in the identical clothes they wore to Louis's christening a year prior? Down to the flower in Chas's buttonhole?
No. Just no.
There may have been a private christening but I do not think there is a single real photo of Archie with anyone besides Harry and Meghan. Even Doria's been photoshopped in, in my opinion, and the Spencer aunts. No one in the family is getting within a mile of this baby. They have not denied involvement in the photos, either. They are just keeping absolutely schtum like the baby does not exist.
Interesting to me that 'William dropping his brother like a ton of hot bricks' coincided exactly with the pregnancy announcement, followed immediately by the public severing of the Sussexes from Kensington Palace, William's charity and their banishment to Frogmore.
William is not playing along with the Happy Uncle optics, which must be frustrating for Meg. And Elizabeth was so uninvested in this child that she decamped to Scotland about a month earlier than usual under the guise of having a tea party at Balmoral instead.
Everyone must draw their own conclusions, but I'd say it's definitely a Situation Not Normal in the Royal family for the last couple of years.
No--Elizabeth would never have risked this if she knew for a fact the pregnancy was legit.
Makes me wonder if Liz, et al. were using those late trips as ways to trap H&M. As you mentioned above, no way would Liz endanger a legit pregnancy, but proposing dangerous trips to a supposedly expectant mother could have been used to confirm BRF suspicions.
Upthread, someone else mentioned DNA samples. I'm of the opinion that BRF has already done the necessary testing and knows Archie's parentage in great detail.
"Chas and Cam both in the identical clothes they wore to Louis's christening a year prior?"
They are not the identical clothes.
If you put both christening photos side by side, you will see that although Cam's dress is a similar colour, it has a totally different neckline. One hat is also slightly larger than the other.
Charles may well be wearing the same suit but his tie is pale blue at Archie's christening and a much darker blue at Louis's.
1. It was quite odd to me that the splitting of the KP offices was announced when H&M were on tour in Australia. I got the impression at the time that announcement was NOT the work of the Sussex team. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.) I know H&M have made announcements that distract from their own tour activities (obviously re: SA!) but it really seemed that particular announcement was not their doing and was quite "unroyal" in its timing. Had their been a "last straw" for Will?
2. What was up with M's solo trip to Canada only a few months after the wedding?
i'm not missing any crucial points - I'm quite familiar with the laws in Britain regarding surrogacy. Obtaining a parental order in the case of surrogacy takes several months. There are proposals to change this but they are a long way from becoming law, if they ever do. Archie's birth cert was published less than 2 weeks after his birth. It's simply impossible that all the legal work necessary to obtain legal custody and seal the original birth certs could have been done in such a short time. In fact, they could not even have begun the process of applying for the parental order for another 4 weeks, as that is the earliest time the birth mother can legally consent to the process.
The scenario you are proposing simply could not have happened.
As Kate and Meghan both wore white too, it's easy to spot the difference in shade.
According to the birth cert, Archie was born in May. So the scenario you propose would involve the falsification of a legal document, which would be a fairly serious crime. I don't consider that to be at all plausible, for reasons I've already stated.
>>>@Hikari, I was thinking that perhaps William does not want Kate and his children interacting with Meghan and Archie, not because of merching/copyright issues as you suggested, but because he wants his family to be as far removed from the Harkles as possible when the shit hits the fan at some point in the future and the surrogacy cover up is inevitably exposed.<<<
Indeed. Yes, that would be the primary motivation, I imagine. Not subjecting his family to commercialization to support Meg's narrative would be a secondary consideration. That just illustrates to me that the family is aware that there are irregularities surrounding the birth/baby/legal/succession ramifications and they are taking 'plausible deniability' to its limit. Therefore there are no remarks on the record or casual snaps, nothing that could come back later and implicate them by association.
William and Kate were press-mobbed while on engagement on the day of the alleged birth, as were Charles and Cam in Germany. Both couples smiled and made the vaguest possible congratulations, while at the same time pointedly not mentioning Meghan by name. The child had not been officially named yet, I don't believe. If you watch Wills' and Kate's demeanor during that little segment, they are visibly nervy, laugh nervously . .Will is so at sea he seems to refer to his wife as 'an uncle' . . they both titter and then Will takes Catherine's arm and they march to the car double-quick time to get away from any more inquisition. They'd said as much as they were able.
Not a single comment since by any of the BRF about this baby, which one would think would be a joyous event for all, Harry's first longed-for child and all. Mike Tindall let something slip to a reporter to the effect that his family hadn't yet met Archie (this was about 2 months after the birth), and then backpedaled and looked embarrassed because he'd broken the family rule: Strenuous no-comment about Archie. Period. Poor man only spoke the truth.
>>>Should have added that Cam's dress is white at Archie's christening and off-white at Louis's.
As Kate and Meghan both wore white too, it's easy to spot the difference in shade.<<<
Go back and look at the photo. Meghan's very expensive designer dress was white. Kate in hte christening photo is in the short raspberry red dress with headband that she wore for the Christmas portrait in 2018. It did look kind of summery but it's not likely at all that she would have recycled the exact dress in July which she wore at Christmas, when it was likely the next 'official' portrait.
Kate DID wear a white dress for Louis's christening in April 2018, so maybe that's what you are thinking of.
The Prince of Wales has so many suits, it's a wonder he wore the same one to two christenings while only changing his tie. Camilla's spectator pumps also appear water-stained when you zoom in closely, which is odd. Neither of the Cornwalls' eye lines are precisely looking at the camera and Camilla is laughing like she's half-cut. More like a day at the races than a christening photo if you ask me.
The only thing that I think could be even slightly acceptable to the UK public would be mental fragility on the parts of M&H. Of course, that leads to the question about why Archie hadn't been removed to a safe environment (as can happen with non-BRF people), but maybe they actually don't have custody and can only borrow him while being heavily supervised?
So if these 3d scans are still being carried out today, they would be more sophisticated than those done in 1999. In 1999, the scans supplied the following information: at very early pregnancy,the attending doctors name was printed on top of the 3d scan, as well as the date,time and name of the institution that carried out the scan, also possibly an identifying number.
As the pregnancy progressed , if baby and mother were seemingly well, more scans were carried out. Bone development,organs, ears, eye formation ( trying to recall ), fingers (how many)...all in all, these scans provided real time information. By then, the doctors name got replaced by the biological pregnant mom's name on the printout. This printout was in black and white, on not quite usual paper and came out in a small square . The information as I mentioned, now had the mothers name, place where the scan was held ( usually different to the doctor ),the hospital where the doctor works at, date and time .
So if I have these printouts as an older mom, on both my pregnancies,way back then, surely things have progressed to include more details in these recent years.
I don't know if these scans exist today, and in which countries, but it's worth looking into. A specialist can also see if the baby will be male or female.
Also that information goes into that 3d scan company's database. A person cannot tamper with that, much like biometrics.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse.
I was trying to point out that both Kate & Meghan wore white when their children were christened.
If you look at Louis's christening photo, you'll notice that Camilla's dress is not white, (it's more ivory in colour) yet at Archie's christening, it's definitely white and with a different neckline.
Charles wears double-breasted suits all the time and I actually think, (having looked again) that they are also a different shade of blue.
Will agree though... it was a very strange photo. Kate looks like a giant in comparison to the others. :)
It is sad. If she truly loved him, surely she would beg him to get some help, but she seems to have opened up old wounds and magnified the pain with her victimhood and devaluing him in her behaviour. If only he had listened to his family and waited before getting married (and rushing into parenthood). But, her pronouncements about getting UK citizenship, being part of a team, and so on were believed and not enough investigation was done to check out how honest she is. Did the Queen know the truth about her acting roles, her family, her so-called career as a humanitarian?
It's too late now. She is part of the family and the Queen will continue to support her as long as she is.
As far as hiding Archie, they have to cover for the fact he is older than advertised. As soon as people notice something unusual in his abilities, there is an article in DM/People/UsMag explaining it away. Everyone noticed how little he moved in the first two appearances, then we find out he sleeps longs periods of time. People noticed he didn't seem bonded to either parent at the Tutu visit, now we find out he loves Harry and reaches his arms out whenever he enters the room (of course we all noticed Archie did NOT reach for Harry and Harry did NOT attempt to intervene to calm him). People noticed that Archie seemed more interested in people off camera, now we find out he "loves people" and will go to anyone. Archie is "super smart" because there are so many comments on Harry's dimwittedness. "He's such an easy baby" so that must mean Meghan is a great mom. It's just covering the obvious. No doubt there will be an Archie sighting on Thanksgiving with Doria at Oprah's CA home. We'll see him standing and grabbing things off a low table, just as she said today at the Windsor coffee visit in an attempt to thwart the likely speculation he is older than advertised.
>>>It is sad to see such a despondent Harry at a time when you would think he would be deleteriously overjoyed at the birth of his first born son. One would expect him to be showing off his baby at every opportunity. Carrying him around, loving on his little guy, the proudest daddy ever! But no, we see a sick looking, very angry and unhappy man. How sad!<<<
I know, isn't it? Very curious that Harry is so natural around other people's kids--he lights up around completely strange children. At that engagement at the YMCA, Haz made a beeline for an infant girl sitting on the sidelines in the arms of her mother and was completely adorable with her. Based on this, I was hoping his baby would be a girl. But where is the baby-besotted Haz now that he's got his boy? In SA, he touched the baby's foot tentatively, once, and there was that very awkward hold. By that point, 4.5 months into his fatherhood, holding his own baby should have been considerably more natural. At the polo, instead of being delighted to see Archie, Haz looked angry and sullen. He barely glanced at the baby. This is not normal behavior for a first-time father who was happy to be so.
There was that quizzical speech he gave at the WellChild awards where he mentioned becoming a dad and then had some sort of breakdown there on the podium. I attributed his laughter to the stress of trying to cover over some strong emotion and master his tears, not that he was laughing at the audience for pulling off a charade, as such. Harry is not the natural dissembler that his wife is. Lies which he is forced to tell come out in all sorts of ways. The interview he gave to his buddy from Sky News in front of the Queen's stables at Windsor could be used as training videos in body-language reading classes in 'Spot the Deception!' Haz was a nervous wreck--the tittering, constant hand-ringing/washing motions, glancing wildly around; looking down at the ground, shuffling his feet, having great difficulty in maintaining eye contact with the interviewer . . all classic signs of deception and being under great stress.
When a person with a normal conscience practices deception, the resulting psychic stress comes out unconsciously. Harry is not a practiced liar, and was exhibiting many signs that he felt a dissonance between what was coming out of his mouth and what he knew to be the truth. He was, as he wanted us to believe at any rate, a new dad who'd been up all night. Being very tired might account for some of his odd behavior and statements, but not all of them . . Like calling his son a 'thing'. His mind was rebelling at the story he was spinning, is my take on that extraordinary performance.
Then, after clanging on for weeks about how they were going to 'bond as a family' and display the baby when they were good and ready .. ie, a week, two weeks, maybe, or more . . there came the press call just a day and a half after the 'birth'. Longer than Kate took by about 30 hours, but not nearly as long as they'd been priming us for. The new mum should have rested longer as she looked and sounded well out of it.
The 'optics' of their retreating backs was the identical pose to their engagement photo call as well, down to the identical color and style of Meghan's dress. So much attention is paid to the tiny details and meanwhile the huge details get dropped like a beginners' juggling lesson.
>>>@Hikari It was originally proposed here today that MM came home with this baby from her NYC shower sometime around February 19th but now you are discussing a March birth date. Have you discarded the shower ploy / birth in NYC or just discussing different options? LOL this Markle Debacle sure makes my head spin!<<<
Mine, too. Makes me veritably seasick.
I am entertaining different possible scenarios. It is possible that Meg came home with a baby from NYC on Amal's plane, though she would continue to appear pregnant publicly up until March 19th and the visit to NZ House .. where she laid flowers on the pavement outside by squatting as low as humanly possible and then getting up effortlessly while Haz hovered in the background. That was her last public appearance until the presentation on May 6th.
Something was definitely afoot with both of the Clooneys in attendance at the shower, some kind of Soho House pow-wow. At the time it was speculated that Amal and Serena were going to help Meg get a Manhattan apartment as a bolthole and put it in their names to keep Meg's intentions secret. I had not considered a baby pick-up until today, actually . . the presence of men who weren't relatives at this shindig--MA and GC--is odd if it was just a regular baby shower. Though they are 'woke' guys so I guess they would say that sitting around a hotel suite playing 'Guess What's in the Diaper?' would be the best way to spend a Saturday they could imagine. Coming back via private plane would insure top secrecy if there was a baby on board.
But the wrinkle in that theory is .. if she had a newborn in her possession, or even slightly older than newborn at the end of February, why drag out this pregnancy so long it defied nature? It would be an inordinately long time until the 'birth' . . 10 weeks, give or take. It would have been more convincing to stage an earlier labor and say that she'd had a premature birth, rather than taking her pregnancy 4 weeks past what's normal.
Because it took so long for her to give birth, with so much prevaricating about the birth plans, I do not think she came back to London with a baby and was still waiting for the surrogate to give birth. The surrogacy seems to have run late . . or, I wouldn't put it past Meg and her Teflon self-confidence to announce her pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding *before* the conception had even occurred. That would explain why this woman was very publicly pregnant for 11 months. If she was in her 4th month at Eugenie's wedding (after the 12 week scan), she would have delivered before Easter. Maybe she went to visit the surrogate and get an update, or maybe it was just a press-generating junket to let herself play the Kartrashian Duchess about town in a way that she was precluded from doing in England.
Also Louis was christened in 2017 not spring of 2018 as I mistyped up there earlier. Honestly anything to do with the Harkles makes time drag out like taffy. It hasn't even been 2 years since they got engaged. Feels soo much longer. Like at least 5 years. They create a lot of wear and tear on people and force us to question basic reality, like maths.
I need a drink.
>>>@Hikari LOL at the {prank in front of the horse stables}. I agree Hazza sure was odd during that interview. It was bizarre and sort-of campy, and brought me to thoughts of "Mr. Ed".
I don't know if anyone is old enough to know "who" that was. (I know of him from re-runs - lol)<<<
Harry came off like a giant ginger horse's butt, so the setting was fitting on that score.
The Sussexes yammered on for weeks about how they were going to do everything differently than the Cambridges when it came to their babies.
100% different. Mission accomplished. Different is not 'better', just different.
They are both jerks, and that's the kindest word I've got.
Meghan looked good ....from a distance. Up close, and there's questions. The overabundance of hair pieces. The once again visible eyelash glue. The cute hat that nevertheless is kind of inappropriate. The coat that is simultaneously too small and swamps her. The boots that would have worked for me if they weren't slouchy. The stupid belt that doesn't even belong to the coat. The cleavage. She simply refuses to dress the figure she's got, not the one she wants. Her face looks good, whatever she has had done has settled in nicely, so clearly she can differentiate what looks good. I guess it doesn't apply to her clothes.
As for Archie, I don't believe she carried him at all, he looks enough like Harry for me to believe he is his, but can't tell if Megsy used her own eggs or not. I thought for a while maybe they were hiding him because he had a visible disability, but now I think the answer is simple: Keeping him under wraps until he's big enough for people not to notice that he's older than his public birthdate. I think she was surprised that so many people didn't buy the various baby bumps or her miraculous pregnancy, but she's smart enough at least to hide him till it isn't so obvious. I bet it's killing her though to give up those juicy merching opportunities.
Yes, I'd say that's possible . . except that the baby we've seen seems to resemble Harry or Meghan or both. He's even got Meg's lazy eye, and other commentators do not see the Markle nose (Tom's nose) but I do.
If the baby has zero Royal DNA from Harry or Meghan, then that would go a ways to explaining the complete disinterest in him from the family. Also technically he'd have no claim whatsoever to be 7th in line for the succession until the statues are changed to recognize adopted and surrogate-born children. They haven't yet, which is why this convoluted mess is happening, in my opinion.
Harry and Meg did say when they got engaged that they were open to adopting children. They must have been informed in the interim that only natural children would be recognized because they abruptly changed their tune. I think adoption was only ever mentioned because they knew they had fertility issues . .his, hers or both. And also because Meg wished to copy Angelina Jolie as the Mother Theresa of children.
What we didn't get were odd teaser "baby part" photos.
Have we ever seen a papped photo of Archie other than the private jet "could be a dummy" photos? Or any of M taken anywhere near Windsor? Or even reported sightings of M anywhere with Archie? (Not counting the obviously phoney pub photo.)
@KitKatKisses-- Agree. The only explanation I can come up with is the BRF didn't know what was going on until too late. I mean, it's not like the Queen would demand to see medical records before the pregnancy was announced. And once it went so far.....Of course maybe all this speculation is wrong. I know some think it was a normal pregnancy but I've never seen bumps change in such weird ways including disappearing. Sure how clothes fit can make any body part look larger or smaller. But in the white dress M wore to Fiji it looked like she might have just been a little bloated or had a big lunch. At the evening gala in the long blue caped dress she looked close to 4 months along....and that all happened on the same day!
I understand. Those baby bump photos are hard to unsee
I do think that BP, though not entirely naive about the pregnancy, was also gaslighted at first until trickles of facts started to emerge. The first fact would have been when Megs refused any of the royal doctors or recommended medical OB/GYN care by BP. Now, a normal, newly pregnant, newcomer to the royal family would be all about getting referrals from courtiers like say, Camilla or Kate or Fergie, or even their staff, but no. She slammed that door in all of their faces and created the ridiculous cover stories after that, like water birth at home with a midwife... on and on in order to DEFLECT. And way would that be? Because Surrogate! It's so obvious. And as others on here say: Megs thinks the world is always stupid and wrong about everything and she's always smart and right. That's the way criminals think, too. Narcissists are so smart... but too stupid to think things through like a normal person would react and respond. That's where she goes so horribly wrong about everything all of the time. She can't think beyond the next one or two steps, but expects that others are too stupid to notice, and if they do, they're haters and racists. And even when she is told she screwed up, she'll blame it all on everyone else and do the victim dance until she gets tired or bored thinking about it all then it's on to the next attention seeking scheme.
Someone, slowly but soon is going to expose what they know. More and more cracks are showing and over time, the sugars and flying monkeys won't be able to plug all of the holes fast enough. Look how long it took to expose Epstein and his creepy helpers, then wham, an abyss opened almost overnight.
“ Interesting theory about the Cotswolds house. It did certainly look too rustic for Meghan's standards, based on the photo I saw.”
Exactly what I thought. the fact it was So remote would draw less attention. I don’t know the date the lease began, only that the lease was to expire end of March, but it’s a mystery that may never be solved.
What made you say you thought the drama began the end of March?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-had-orgy-paedophile-20664407.amp?__twitter_impression=true
I'm with Hikari in thinking something happened around March when things changed and MM even started looking visibly subdued. After reading above comments it occurs to me that maybe the premee baby idea holds for the Feb baby shower. She went to NYC (when there was no need to) to check on the surrogate who was there. Something happened, the baby came earlier than they anticipated.the celebrations would also be in line with that theory. The baby was premature by a few months and they celebrated it's birth in NYC and then MM flew back by private jet without the baby, who was still in NICU maybe. (What's odd about that the baby shower seemed to be for a baby girl though. Would also account for the lack of bump on MM one evening. Maybe they were secretly visiting the surrogate and it would be too weird to go there wearing a fake bump. I know they went to dinner but I'm speculating here)
If I remember correctly, just after her return and before Morocco, there were rumours that she has gone into labour early. Maybe they were laying the ground work for bringing the baby home. These were later dupelled and the couple goes to Morocco. That's odd because she is so pregnant it's not safe. This trip is also so last minute, as if the BRF did not want them around for a few days and sent them away for a really lame reason.
In Morocco, mm is a disaster. She is not allowed to walk the red carpet (although that was a military salute and she wasn't supposed to. She was to stand in a corner). Her clothes are hideous, did not seem very well thought out. She is wearing jeans and blazer for 2/3 consecutive enagagements and it's uncharacteristic of her. She seems visibly nervous and quite most of the time. Harry is out of it. And then, Harry's awkward "is it mine" comment.
I think Nutty mentioned one very good reason why the press are keeping up the facade of MM's pregnancy & Archie. Super injunctions.
The so-called paparazzi photos at the airport in Nice were set up by MM. Apparently all the money of the 'papped' photos goes to MM. They are copyrighted just like all the images from the Sussex Intagram are copyrighted.
MM has been drip feeding information since the beginning. Classic PR. All the lawsuits are H&M's way to control information.
Also, whilst H&M are married the press don't jeopardise their jobs and risk being frozen out. Harry is the one that is being protected not MM. Once they divorce the gloves will come off.
Nothing has added up right since they were dating, and I have thoroughly enjoyed going down this rabbit hole with you all.
I don't present this as a more convincing alternative, but just as a possible explanation for the vagueness about how far along she was in pregnancy, the royals reactions and how Harry/Megs seem not to have a strong bond with the child.
Great blog, Nutty! I've really enjoyed it and all of the comments!
But surrogacy agreements can still be worked out, they are called 'compassionate' or 'altruistic surrogacy. The illegal part is monies being given as compensation for genetic material, but if that does not happen and good guidelines are adhered to, then surrogacy can legally happen.
Reread what I write; It was a rebuttal to your half facts as usual. An agreement can be written by an attorney worth his salt, Again 'Baby M' is a thing of the past legally. That is why surrogacy agreements.contracts are allowed but not for the payment of genetic material.
Perhaps the lack of bonding by the Harkles has to do with the fact that they missed out on the entire pregnancy, as they would have only met the surrogate a few times and may not have been present at check-ups.
https://youtu.be/yhipwtqZtOI
My jaw dropped when they covered Meg’s outfits. Please tell me if I am imagining the shade or if it’s just genuine criticism. The fashion journalist has such a sweet and innocent demeanor when she says the following:
- [Meg’s Red Outfit for Gender Equality Talk] is daring, so low cut for a royal; she likes to push the boundaries a lot; she’s from California, she’s quite relaxed with her figure; the heel she’s wearing is a very sophisticated thin high heel; I wouldn’t be able to walk in them, but I admire women who can.
- [Meg’s Purple Outfit for One Young World Summit] is a simple dress; Purple is having a moment; she’s saying “look at me, I know fashion, look at me”; surprising she is wearing her maternity dress, I wanted to get rid of all my maternity clothes; purple is a bit witchy; it’s a winner if you play by the trends and the seasons.
Or, to go out even further on a limb, it could be a Michael Jackson-like scenario. Meghan is a biracial woman whose actions have always prioritized her white heritage, despite her recent declarations that she is a "woman of color." Could Meghan have preferred a light-skinned baby? Archie certainly shows no signs of African heritage.
My jaw dropped when they covered Meg’s outfits. Please tell me if I am imagining the shade or if it’s just genuine criticism.
I think most media outlets are afraid of being too hard on Meghan for fear of being accused of racism. So they say a few negative things, and then some positive things to balance them out.
But there's really no defending that outfit for the Gender Equality Talk, with the clashing blue-based red top and yellow-based red skirt.
voted off Strictly Come Dancing?
Due to life threatening problems she suffered with her first child, they decided to use a surrogate for their second.
Interesting snippet:
"The Weymouths went to a clinic in California where they spent three months as Emma had IVF. 'I always wanted to have a second baby. Henry is our DNA. I'm so grateful to the woman who carried him for us. Some women thrive and flourish when they're pregnant. I didn't."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7666599/Viscountess-Weymouth-reveals-immense-physical-emotional-toll-Strictly.html
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/751827/Viscountess-Weymouth-surrogate-son-royal-IVF-baby
I also think they used a surrogate, especially after seeing all the 'shifting/vanishing bump' photos and videos and also because I found it really strange that she gained no weight throughout the pregnancy and wore sky high heels.
As for the baby, I can definitely see Harry in him but I also see Meghan's eyes - so I'm as confused as the rest of you are!
-surrogacy is legal in UK but not enforceable.
- birth mother's name always reamins on the birth certificate, but as result of a Parental Order by court another birth certificate can be issued, with different names. The first birth certificate will remain sealed and will be opened only to the child after he/she is 18
- Liver Bird pointed out that Prental Order is a lengthy process that could have not been in place if Archie was really born in May, as his birth certificate was published within two weeks after his birth. Not enough time for the process to take place.
- Alice provided very interesting info about the couple who had a child by surrogate and
the child's birth certificate bears thier names.
Again, thank you so much for your contributions. As the saying goes "The truth is born in dispute". We are not near the truth about the controvertial couple but at least we can amicably discuss various theories. And this is great.
@CatEyes, very interesting theory. Do you think such a thing is possible? Is there a black market out there where you can pick and choose babies? For the babies sake, I hope not.
Perhaps the lack of bonding by the Harkles has to do with the fact that they missed out on the entire pregnancy, as they would have only met the surrogate a few times and may not have been present at check-ups.
I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing, but anything is for sale if you have enough money.
We should also consider the longstanding rumors that Harry is sterile.
It's often suggested that Suri, Tom Cruise's daughter, is not his biological child but the child of a man specifically chosen because he looks like Tom. (I have no insights into whether or not this is true.)
At any rate, were Harry sterile, a male donor with similar characteristics might have been chosen. It's not difficult to find a redhead with close-set eyes, particularly if you are looking in the UK or Ireland. Most donors are anonymous, so neither the male nor the female donor would probably have any idea they contributed to Archie. The surrogate might not know either.
Yes. No matter how Archie came into this world - and there are many possibilities - Harry knows. His role in this is what intrigues me.
They had little choice; announce that the new Duchess had been fooling her husband, the family and the public and make the House of Windsor look ridiculous or try and ride it out? They couldn't admit they had been deceived, the public would have been incensed at being fooled and taken for idiots. I think it would have resulted in a constitutional crisis and a severe wobble in the monarchy.
As time passes owning up to the truth on Archie's birth becomes easier. The details can have a veil drawn over and the explanation can be a very simple "Meghan's mental state was so fragile we needed to protect her, no matter what". Win-win - see how well the House of Windsor protected the seriously unwell Duchess of Sussex. This could well be the trump card they hold in the battle to come.
You can literally SEE it snap back into shape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_XaippuOQc
The curious part was the palace rep pointed out Kate was meeting as part of her patronage of the charity and any benefits would go there.
Did the rep mean that meant to be a subtle dig at the TV Apple deal the sussexes have? Or just stating a fact?
They have the resources to have an ironclad enforceable agreement to do anything legal and I dare say maybe somethings that are illegal (and get away with it). All the theories floated here are quite possible within their world. I hate to say this but I accomplished something (acting in pro se) in the legal arena that is unheard of (getting three marriage annulments) which I attributed to in part that I was good-looking and was a sympathetic litigant (one time going against my ex's attorney in court). So someone with resources and power and connections can do alot more!
If they were honest about surrogacy, adoption, ivf they may have raised awareness of challenges couples face and gotten sympathy from the public.
If she were truly "with child", she would have probably recreated famous photos like Di in the red bikini, Demi Moore on the magazine cover. How could she resist the attention?
The posing and belly clutching is starting again. If at first you don't succeed, try try again!
If they have another baby somehow, I hope it is a precocious red haired girl who upstages her skanky old mom at every opportunity then writes a scathing tell all. Baby Liz
Yes, I hope so too. A drop-dead gorgeous girl who grows into being a raving beauty that Meghan 'can't hold a candle' to. We all know her Narc personality would cause her to be jealous rather than proud of a daughter. By then Megs and Harry will have divorced and the children would probably be raised under the wings and influence of the BRF.
However, I for one don't know if I can survive another 11-month pregnancy and all the attendant antics that she provides. Ugh!
Looking forward to watching the interactions between the Harkles and the rest of the Royals.
Camilla's going to be there too. Apparently.
The complete lack of emotional connection in SA was an obvious indication, but also there's her odd behaviour in giving away his clothes. I mean it was extremely weird and insulting giving used clothes to the women in SA, but more than that was the absence of any kind of sentimental attachment to your first baby's clothes, particularly the Invictus babygro.
MM apparently studied communication at North Western, so she must know the rule of 'show don't tell' so why, if she has Archie, did she Insta that he had an England rugby shirt and was wearing it to watch the match but didn't post a picture? She knows more than anyone that Insta's all about images.
And then she says random baby related anecdotes that make no sense. For example, that Archie slept for 11 hours on the flight from London to Cape Town that clearly wasn't true. Her comments about Archie crawling and having two teeth were very odd - almost as though she needed to prove she had a baby! Then saying that Archie would have his hands in the cupcakes; well no he wouldn't because early crawling focuses on the floor and interesting targets, not what's on the table because he can't lift himself up to see at 6 months.
For an actress she really is crap at sticking to the script.
She is desperate to prove everything is real and peachy keen, but it's far from not.
If someone gave her a script she must've thrown it away at some point.
I agree they could have prompted an "of the body" discussion (or been content with their "private citizen" child not to be in the line of succession---Harry still would have been) But unlike @Tatty, I don't think M would want to be seen as an older woman struggling with fertility. M behaves like she's still a teenager half the time (giggling, wearing jewelry that looks like what teenagers buy at Claire's in the US) And in her mind, I don't think she believes people think she looks a day over 25.
I completely agree with this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7668199/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-join-Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-Festival-Remembrance.html
My great-grandfather and Fatherr were physicians, and my sister is a Nurse midwife and her husband is an OB-Gyn and as a Biologist (having had 3 children) we don't think the various weird sights/stories seem indicative of a pregnancy. But more importantly, no one here follows her or much less cares. It takes me asking, even begging, for an opinion; Megs & Harry are so unimportant. I'm a freak (what I feel as an American) to be concerned about them and what they are doing to the BRF.
I agree. Plus, she looks really thick around the waist. Either she chooses clothes like this on purpose to fuel the rumours or she really is pregnant again!
Keep refreshing the page, as they are adding more photos.
I expect a few more weeks of 'is she or isn't she' anticipation, and an 'announcement' once she's in California, for maximum PR value.
Her hair and make up are great. That's my 'something nice'. Her outfit is fugtastic. And even though it's a freezing day with driving rain, of course she isn't wearing tights. This is why I never buy the 'Oh she's from Los Angeles so she feels the cold and that's why she wears clothes that are too heavy for the season' line. She's never appropriately dressed either for the season OR the event. No clue.
https://ladygreyhound93.tumblr.com
Photoshop, perhaps?
A year from now we are bound to see more of Archie so we'll have to wait and see how things pan out.
What if the baby presented for the first time was not a real one? I found it a little odd that on the way to the "presentation" they had bumped onto Prince Philip - in the grounds of Windsor Castle - who was the first to meet the baby.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7006803/Prince-Harry-Meghan-reveal-newborn-son-called-Archie.html
"While the Queen was expected to be the first senior royal to officially meet the newborn, a giddy Meghan revealed how they accidentally bumped into the Duke of Edinburgh in the grounds of Windsor Castle while making their way to the photocall.
She said: 'We just bumped into the duke as we were walking by which was so nice. So it'll be a nice moment to introduce the baby to more family and my mum's with us as well.' Isn't this bad English or is it my imagination?
"Harry said: 'Everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks we're basically monitoring how the changing process happens over this next month really. But his looks are changing every single day, so who knows.'
I spent the evening with friends who brought their 6 month old son to a bbq. After holding him and watching the parents interact with the baby, there is no way Archie is 6 months old--at least 8 months old. At least.
On YouTube, like-minded (to us) vlogger Celt News posts regularly on her channel about various Meg-related topics. She's got a three-part series, Part 1 of which I repost here dedicated to the "Woman in Brown"--a young pregnant woman in a brown dress who was standing directly in front of the church and in full view of the Royal family as they exited the Commonwealth Day service in March. She's carrying a handbag and does not seem to be part of the Royal entourage but rather a civilian. She smiles at Meghan and Meg clocks her too.
This was the day that Meg wore the whimisical print white number and looked as big as a house in it, despite having a flat belly a few weekends prior at her NYC shindig. So, the Internet couldn't help buzzing--was this woman in the brown dress the surrogate, placed there by prearrangement? Odd that a member of the public with no official function is loitering so close to the building. The Queen and everyone else was only steps away from her as they exited.
Prior to this, inside the church, we had the very grim looking photos of the quartet. That is, three of four people were incredibly grim and strained-looking, but Meg, in her white dress and hat (everyone else more soberly attired in darker colors) is grinning wide like she's posing for a yearbook photo and not a portrait in church. Catherine looked as upset as I think I've ever seen her in a picture. This leads to my conjecture that there had been words just prior, or some sort of family meeting re. the surrogacy . . and yet, here's Meg, turning up as the resplendent Madonna in white to look as big as possible.
To what degree the Portland Hospital is complicit in a scam, I know not. It is not plausible though that one of the leading maternity hospitals of the world would release a geriatric first-time mum who had delivered her baby so late--by more than a week, 10 days, and allow her to return home within hours of delivery. Surely an overnight stay for observation is customary? Particularly since she could well afford it.
For me the Commonwealth Day service was the rubicon Meg could not cross. The 'formal separation' had already occurred, but things might have returned to greater amiability between the couples if Meg had just been honest about the pregnancy. Because if the BRF had discovered the surrogate and had her standing on the pavement outside as a message to Meg ('We are onto you') and she continued the ridiculous charade of being pregnant for another nearly 2 months, refusing to come clean . . you can see what William and the family would make of that: Meg is a dangerously unstable loony bird.
That 50-day absence from public view was her either scrambling madly to source a baby or else not being allowed out of the house as Lord G. and the minders tried to force her to crack. Tough nut is our Meghan.
After all this, she still gets to carry on as part of the Firm with international tours, et. al. That whiny-butt suckamentary was more fuel on the flames but it did not create any new rifts, only underscored those which were already there. William and Kate have been done with the Suxxits since last Christmas, but the ongoing pregnancy charade and now Archie charade have just burnt every last bridge--with acid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr9ZY1qXzYQn