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
@LiverBird, yes, I saw the Remembrance Day photos. Is it just my imagination, or is Duchess Meghan arching her back again?
If she is pregnant, I don't think she'll return from her 'family time' in LA. Especially in light of the recent 'she wants to have her next baby in America' line from her 'friends'.
Literally married into royalty, money is no object and she has a healthy, sleeping baby.
She has a lot of nerve giving the interview in SA saying how hard it is to be a newlywed and a new mom.
Archie, to me anyway, isn't much different than her other hyped roll-outs of the Vogue edit and the SmartWorks "collection." Lots of media and lots of focus on MM, but the actual product falls flat. I will say what I always say on these threads: they are just not acting like parents. Archie's appearances are controlled in a way that natural life does not allow. And the Tutu meeting was ridiculous. Archie, in my opinion, was used as a prop as an extension of his parents in this case. It was to make THEM look good, certainly not for his benefit. As others have pointed out, he appeared disinterested in H&M. I understand when people take their babies to see older relatives as this matters to the family. But Archie isn't related to Tutu, and while Tutu may have enjoyed meeting a baby, the only benefit the meeting served was to showcase how "humanitarian" his parents are, taking Archie to meet Arch, as it was so disrespectfully phrased.
I won't even get into how bizarre the pregnancy and birth were. I don't have to. It is clear something was being hidden or covered up, otherwise there would be no reason for all of the secrecy, the media blackout, etc. I don't recall the Latin but as they say, "the thing speaks for itself."
I agree, compared to what she usually does she looks very subdued. The coat is a little big but it is belted and her tits are not hanging out, her wig is combed, the hat looks good and she is keeping her smirking to a minimum. I would count this as a success for her (finally).
It's worse than that. It was actually 'Arch meets Archie', as though an elderly Nobel Prize winner should be honoured to meet a 4 month old.
On a slighly different note, I will admit that facially Meghan looks lovely today. I'm wondering if she's had chin implants? A lot of actresses do that to get that coveted oval face shape, and her jaw line is looking sleeker today than it used to.
Smegs looks ok today. Her coat is not great though, too bulky and the belt does not work well with it. Her makeup looks better than usual though.
Invisible Archie indeed. I still don't know if MM was pregnant with Archie the Invisible. If anyone has links to the series of photos (by someone in Tumblr?) I'd like to look again.
I thought the rumours of her faking a pregnancy were too incredible and preposterous but now I am not so sure. Everything about Archie the Invisible is just so very secretive and frankly odd. I wonder if MM will be showing Archie whilst on break in California. The Royals won't be able to control her and rumours of another documentary? Roll out poor Archie like in SA.
I hope for Archie's sake he has kind nannies....
Even if Archie isn’t sleeping through the night, you think Smirkle herself tend to him when he wakes up? They have night nannies for that. I’m sure that wherever they’re staying, they have a floor plan laid out in such a way that they won’t be woken up by Archie’s cries. If they’re staying in Frogmore it would surprise me if those renovations included some in-house soundproofing. If they’re not at Frogmore, padding walls goes a long way to soundproof it.
It’s clear Smirkle doesn’t have a motherly bone in her body. If she’d been waking up to tend to him at night she would be more comfortable holding and handling him. This kid is handed off to the nannies (or it’s real mother of you believe he’s not theirs) every second the Duke and Duchess of SuckAss don’t need him for the cameras.
The thing speaks for itself: “Res ipsa loquitur.”
Some have said in the past that the lack of Archie photos may have to do with Harry. He is the one putting his foot down and not allowing the release of photos...cause we call know, she would definitely be selling photos to the highest bidder. She sees herself as the famous actress that every mag wants to pay millions for the photo spread of her child.
I reckon the lack of photos could be done to a number of things. As mentioned above, she might have wanted to do a lucrative Brangelina style 'reveal' in People magazine, but Harry and/or the queen said no way. It could also be down to the infantile games these two like to play with the British press, and their desire to be seen to not be doing anything the 'traditional' way, unlike boring Kate. And sad to say I also wouldn't be surprised if, as someone above said, Meghan thinks her own baby just isn't as cute as a child of hers should be. That would be a weird sentiment for most mothers, but this is Meghan we're talking about.
I continue to think the Sussexes were caught off guard by the reaction to their documentary. They were expecting overwhelming sympathy and for everyone to turn on the meanies in the press and what they got was more along the lines of “oh dear, if it’s so horrible, maybe you...shouldn’t do it?” They definitely wanted to complain (and they did) but they also didn’t want to lose their meal ticket so now they are playing cleanup a bit. Tom Sykes mentioned their smiley photo ops in the last week, trying to pretend they didn’t say they hate thier jobs and now I can’t unsee it. I’m also crying laughing because I just watched the video of their military family meet and greet on their insta. Meghan definitely wanted it out there that Archie has teeth (she knows in lieu of photos, info is the next best currency when it comes to royal babies). So she decided to impart this information, on camera, to what looks like a two year old child. It’s so awkward it’s hilarious “look at all your teeth, Archie has two teeth.” The video conveniently fails to register the child’s reaction to being the recipient of this little bit of info but I can only imagine the “huh” look on that child’s face. I’m dying!
So, I can believe that 6 months old is crawling and already saying "mama", but we've seen this kid and I agree with you, Nutty, for a two months during christening Archie was, well, developed way faster than for two months. Because 6 months can start crawling, but two months can't keep his had without support, it's just a biology.
She also had that shell-shocked new mother look in the cringey Archie 'reveal'. It's maybe the only time I've sort of felt sorry for her.
There is something about this baby which is just off from the first whisper of conception and has never, ever died down. It's kind of like the photo shop of the christening where there are bits and pieces which don't fit.
Is it that she thinks it isn't cute enough or has a disability or that she is attached to it the way some are about a handbag (in the closet until I need you). Could be. Or something we haven't thought up yet?
I don't think Harry is driving a whole of that decision making about the baby. More like trying to figure out what she'll say next and how can he respond. He reacts not anticipates about what/where she might be thinking 20 feet from now.
I think she was planning a whole baby extension of her mirror but that was shut down. If it was not the palace, then maybe if there is another one?
Notice What we are not seeing is the personal publicity (like the bakery) where it is her and her photographer with the baby. Perhaps she has really limited or no access to it?
IDK but it, like so much of what they do/say only raises more questions. But, like the last blog, someone pointed out that she/they are getting really good at being able to make William and Kate look really regal/good.
DM making big deal out of Harry's nob and her side shuffle to get closer to him. Didn't want to stand close to him?
Her performance was better than in the past. Perhaps she listened to a few pointers or they got her a new coach.
Notice Camilla backed out, or perhaps she really does have a worsening chest infection. Pneumonia? I didn't see that Wills & Kate appeared alongside Smeg+1... still on the outs?
Meghan calls the shots and has stage managed their every move since they met, so I’m sceptical that she would acquiesce when it comes to Archie. There is something very off - any proud new mother can’t help but show off her baby and apparently there were Meg plans in the pipeline to merch a “prince line” on Meghans Mirror that were suspended. Why? He’s not ugly and was quite bright and engaged at the Tutu visit so they’re not hiding a disability, I doubt Harry or even the Queen could tell Meghan what she could or couldn’t do with her baby based on all her other defiant actions against the Royals.
I’ve also wondered if the weird holding him to their chest move is so we cannot get a good look at his features, which makes it much easier to switch out babies at a later date.
I have to say, the biggest confounder of all is that nobody in the RF seems to have the slightest bit of interest in Master Archie. Kate’s behaviour at the Polo was astounding. I can’t stand my SIL (she is very much a Meghan), but I would walk across a field to coo over my nephew.
Coat is way too small and gaping open (the cost is a wrap around) with very tight sleeves. Boots are identical to the Stella McCartney boots that she already has in her closet. She seems to be newly botoxed and filled. For once, I wish that her eyelash glue was not so visible. Don't get me started on the nylon wig.
You say 'was'. Has anything changed since then? I jumped on the Moonbump Mountbatten-Windsor train in December of last year when she turned up at the old folks' home sausaged into a summer dress and her bump was most definitely square and had weird wrinkles in it. It also seemed about 6-8 weeks more than a "I just entered my 5th month this week' bump."
In Australia, I wasn't sure, but she looked plausibly first trimester pregnant then. After that though, she went nuts with the padding. Just as the current Megs seems a bit out of touch with the milestones of infant development, last year she demonstrated no working knowledge of what a typical gestation was like, with the bump veering wildly up and down in size (and location), oftentimes during the same engagement. It was particularly active during her appearance at the National Theatre in late January. But it had been double the size at another appearance two weeks earlier. Like with the butt pads and the masses and masses of faux hair, 'More is more' is Meg's aesthetic, when a bit less, moderately applied would be more convincing.
If she was truly pregnant, she also wore a range of different padding, which probably is not advised for the wellbeing of a real fetus. And then, when she went to New York that time, she completely forgot to bring her fetus with her, in her 8th month.
As Nutty succinctly put in an earlier entry . . What postpartum mum in her right mind would go on international television 2 days after giving birth in a tight WHITE dress, no support hosiery and sky-high heels? She definitely appeared zonked at that appearance, and uncharacteristically lost for words. Would a shell-shocked exhausted and hurting new mum of a 48-hour-old infant (allegedly) call her current state, "Magic?"
I can think of reasons why Archie is magical, indeed, I can, but not in the way Meg wanted to sell it.
*If* she gave birth to a baby at some point earlier than advertised, first of all, why hide his real birth, if he is of her body? Second, if Meghan gave birth her and Harry's child and everything is normal, why all the subterfuge? Why does he act like he's got no clue who they are? These are things I wonder.
Speaking of clothes, is Meghan merching again? The coat is by a Canadian designer and costs over a grand. It's also clerly too small. Look at how it gapes at the front and is wrinkled on the sleeves. She's also wearing a new pair of boots which are almost identical to ones she already wore and also cost aobut £500. At least they're by a British brand so there's that....
So has the era of 'thrifty' Meghan already come to an end?
>>>>I find it curious that on the one hand, Meghan is painted as the dominating, overbearing, decision maker who has ridden roughshod over Harry, yet for some strange reason he is perceived to have grown a pair and put his foot down when it comes to protecting Archie from media exposure. Not buying it.
Meghan calls the shots and has stage managed their every move since they met, so I’m sceptical that she would acquiesce when it comes to Archie. There is something very off - any proud new mother can’t help but show off her baby and apparently there were Meg plans in the pipeline to merch a “prince line” on Meghans Mirror that were suspended. Why? He’s not ugly and was quite bright and engaged at the Tutu visit so they’re not hiding a disability, I doubt Harry or even the Queen could tell Meghan what she could or couldn’t do with her baby based on all her other defiant actions against the Royals.
I’ve also wondered if the weird holding him to their chest move is so we cannot get a good look at his features, which makes it much easier to switch out babies at a later date.
I have to say, the biggest confounder of all is that nobody in the RF seems to have the slightest bit of interest in Master Archie. Kate’s behaviour at the Polo was astounding. I can’t stand my SIL (she is very much a Meghan), but I would walk across a field to coo over my nephew.<<<
Exactly. Everything you write is what I think, too. If Harry had demonstrated EVER that he was the dominant force in this marriage, and if she EVER had demonstrated that she was the supportive wife willing to follow his lead *since he is the senior (real) Royal*, I could accept that Harry is the one 'calling the shots' about pictures of Archie.
Except that this man has never once in his life called any shots, even when he was Captain Wales. She's got him wrapped so tightly around her finger that he doesn't know whether to blow his nose or carry her handbag. He might *want* a press blackout on Archie, but 'what Meghan wants, Meghan gets', and what Meg wanted was to turn Archie into a baby cash machine. Harry's objections hold no weight with her. None. He probably planned to go to the Marines memorial in Deal before she informed him that he had to cancel so he could escort her to go meet Beyonce on the yellow carpet.
Meg's desire re. Archie have been foiled though and that can only be because she doesn't have custody of this child. If she did, we'd be seeing cute kid snaps on Instagram daily, and there'd be an entire coffee table book of Archie modelling cute outfits. Meg would have introduced him to Oprah. The way they both acted with the baby in SA was the smoking gun. He didn't know them and the feeling was mutual. Harry acted like he'd never held this kid before, apart from the presentation day when the baby was a lot smaller and so very still.
Meg constantly gives the truth away if one listens between the lines. All these references to Archie is a quiet baby . . slept through the night immediately . . slept for 11 hours on an airplane. Yes, indeed. A baby can be very quiet if he is not actually there.
>>>Kate wore a mostly white (in the crucial areas!) dress just hours after having Charlotte.
I had forgotten what exactly Kate had on so I Googled the picture. This link has a nice full body shot of the dress.
http://rachelpapers.com/the-royal-baby-name-game/
*****
You are correct that Kate's dress has a lot of white in it, particularly on the skirt. The top is covered with daisies, so the effect is a 50/50 white-yellow design.
To wear any white at all is a pretty brave thing to do, but you have to admit that there is a world of difference between *this* forgiving sheath design that billows out from the new mum's body and happens to have some white on it with the 100% white, tightly fitted, double-breasted, belted, very stiff white coatdress Meghan wore--it was too tight, too short, too embellished, too everything, pretty much. A very poor design choice on every level. It might be a cute dress if it actually fit, which it did not. Gaping buttons on TV, not a good look. Meghan is in love with double-breasted belted coats and dresses that do her body zero favors. That post-baby white coat-dress appearance was no accident--she was purposely echoing their engagement call, when she was in the white double-breasted trenchcoat . .that was so big on her it looked like a bathrobe. She could have worn that coat to display Archie because it might have fit her then. Since her post-partum stomach appeared to be on sideways, I remain in the Moonbump camp. Which is why she could risk white because she really had nothing to worry about, leak-wise. Top or bottom. But the tales of 'breastfeeding' did allow her to get new breast implants on the sly without raising too much comment. Except here, of course, where we comment on everything!
"To wear any white at all is a pretty brave thing to do, but you have to admit that there is a world of difference between *this* forgiving sheath design that billows out from the new mum's body and happens to have some white on it with the 100% white, tightly fitted, double-breasted, belted, very stiff white coatdress Meghan wore--it was too tight, too short, too embellished, too everything, pretty much."
Kate's dress was pretty tight and almost entirely white in the areas that might be subjected to an 'accident'. So really no, I don't see the great differences that you do.
Mimi, do you still feel the pregnancy was legit and they are all playing happy family at Frogmore? Because I believe we've had ample evidence since Archie arrived that neither of these two are playing with a full deck. They *are* mentally disturbed, and pissed off at Harry's family. She's an actress and lives to play dress up. I think there has been a treasonous cover up but the media daren't call them out, even though it is so obvious that something beyond a desire for 'privacy' is awry here.
If we entertain the surrogacy argument, then all the mystery actually dissolves and makes sense. They conspired to trick his family so that they could get a title for this baby and because Harry at least would have been aware of the 'of the body' rule.
Perhaps they are infertile. Or maybe she just didn't want to get fat for real. Either way, she used a ploy to get herself the attention and perks of being a royal mother without any of the actual sacrifice and effort, which has always been her MO. Being a fake mother is much more in keeping with Meg's character as we have come to know it than being a genuine mother. When has this woman ever behaved genuinely? There is such a sacred aura around motherhood that normal people are aghast at even questioning a woman's motives around a pregnancy/baby. Well, I believe Meg has exploited this to her advantage but there is not a maternal cell in her body. She needed an anchor baby. But if the world is willing to swallow a false baby as real, there was no need for her to actually birth one herself.
>>>Kate's dress was pretty tight and almost entirely white in the areas that might be subjected to an 'accident'. So really no, I don't see the great differences that you do.<<<
I disagree that that dress was tight. The bodice was fitted, but the skirt billows out. It's the one with the yellow daises on it, right? In the shot of her coming down the steps of the hospital, William is holding the baby and you can definitely see how loose and baggy the dress is fitting around her stomach.
Meg's skirt was loose but up around the waist area it was very fitted. That belt looked really uncomfortable.
The birth certificate is pretty suspect, though, isn't it? When compared with all of the ones for the Cambridge kids, it's very sparse. Harry (the father and registrant) didn't even sign it. It's merely typed HARRY. Frankly any of us could have done that on Word. It's my understanding that what was released was a preliminary registration form and not the actual birth certificate. We still don't have a single doctor who has been identified with this birth, which gives me pause. That is strenuously not normal. Even very private parents have properly signed and witnessed birth documents for their babies.
I don't think so. I've never got my hands on one personally, but I believe it is quite the norm for certified copies of birth certs in Britain.
"Harry (the father and registrant) didn't even sign it"
That's because it's a certified copy, not the original. Signatures - other than the one of the registrar or deputy certifying that it is indeed a true copy - are always absent, presumably for security reasons.
" It's my understanding that what was released was a preliminary registration form and not the actual birth certificate."
It was a certified copy of the original, with the appropriate signature to that effect.
"We still don't have a single doctor who has been identified with this birth, which gives me pause"
We do have the name of the hospital on the birth cert though. I do not believe that the Portland, the most exclusive maternity hospital in the country, which prides itself on absolute discretion, would allow its name to be used falsely. If it were to be proven that they had done so, that would be a massive scandal.
I know this comment may be slightly off-topic but I would be glad to see your thoughts on this matter.
As you are all aware, here in England we will be giving thanks and respects during the next few days to all those who died in World Wars I and II plus those who died in the various other wars since then.
Do you think it is too much to hope that MM, at this most sensitive time, will hold back on merching each and every outfit she wears during the official events?
Personally, I think that at 11.03 on Sunday, 10 November (one minute after the respectful two-minute silence) the aforesaid outfits will appear on Meghan's Mirror.
".... I do not believe that the Portland, the most exclusive maternity hospital in the country, which prides itself on absolute discretion, would allow its name to be used falsely. If it were to be proven that they had done so, that would be a massive scandal"
I had agreed until various bits and pieces started appearing on alt media. Some time ago it was suggested that the Portland Hospital might not have been transparent re its part in Archie's birth.
It wasn't really taken up at the time. Now this (my extract) has appeared on LSA, so thanks to the poster for an interesting read.
“The Portland Hospital is owned and operated by HCA International UK ..... parent company HCA Healthcare based in Nashville, Tennessee.
Kathleen Whalen appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of HCA Healthcare, effective January 1, 2019......1993-1997 she was Associate Counsel with responsibility for the White House’s ethics program, President Clinton.
Sara Latham was working for the WH as Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff from 1996-2000”
This kind of connection had been hinted at, the 'who you know' school of cover up. My mind is open to such dirty doings these days.
>>>That it would take not someone who is merely craving attention and wanting to secure hers and harry’s future by doing something that to me is just so unthinkable, but someone who is beyond that....... To me it is much more than just lying...it goes down deeper than than.....words to describe or express what I truly want to say don’t come easy in this case.<<<
As Button says, and you concur, sociopathy is the word we are looking for.
I don't think that Meg is going to go berserk with knives and kill someone, though she does have documented rage issues, both verbal and physical, and has been known to hurl crockery and scalding beverages at staff members.
I hope Melissa Toubati received such a handsome settlement from the Royal Family that she can buy a cottage (anywhere but Sussex) and need never again play the minion for ungrateful entitlist prats. I hope she is happy now wherever she is.
After Archie's debut, Nutty penned a column where she envisioned an interview with Harry in which he explained why the pregnancy and birth announcement was so strange--that they had used a surrogate, and Meg improvised a pregnancy. Nutty's 'interview' was incredibly sympathetic and she managed to make the scheme sound nearly like an act of charity on Megs' part. They wanted a baby so badly, but unable to have their own, yet unwilling to disappoint people by depriving the world of the joy of an impending Royal birth, they decided to fake it and hope for the best--even though, as 'Harry' says, he was not initially onboard with the plan. His wife is a performer, he said, and it is natural to her to assume different roles and identities. It's not really lying if she's just being herself.
That was a masterful job by Nutty, but if only it were the truth. Then some public sympathy might be possible for these two who were so in love and wanted to make a family but were thwarted by their biology, and who didn't want to risk scandal by being open about their (technically illegal) surrogacy plan, or risk disappointing all the adoring fans that wanted to see Meg rock maternity fashions as Kate and Diana had.
But if Meg is a Narcissist as many of us suspect, then consideration for other people's feelings and best interests does not enter into their thinking. They are not troubled by conscience in normal terms--they have awareness of what is right/expected vs. wrong/shocking in society's eyes, but they do not care. To them, they are the supreme authority. Narcissists are entirely driven by self-interest, which is why Meghan setting herself up as a global humanitarian is so droll. She is a living example of Irony. Meghan will do what benefits Meghan. Narcissists crave attention, fame, material wealth and control. If they cannot get positive attention for being and doing good, they will settle for notoriety by being provocative, shocking or ridiculous. Just as long as she is constantly being talked about and having her image and name in the public eye. Nothing has to be strictly 'true' for that to happen.
At age 37, with her history, pretty unlikely. Not entirely *impossible* though, which is where she slid in. It's hard to fathom now, but Wallis Simpson and Meghan were the same age when they married their princes, and the idea that the Duchess of Windsor would get pregnant 'at her age' seemed daft.
I think Meg wanted to have her cake and eat it--all the privileges of having a Royal baby without actually having to go through it herself, and orchestrating a Princess Pregnancy to her specifications that would show up Kate whenever possible. "Look how energetic Meg is! No morning sickness! So flexible! So strong! Must be all that yoga!" Perhaps one or both of them cannot have children the natural way . . but hiding Archie's origins and obfuscating when and where he was born only creates more questions, it doesn't silence them. Meg is a risk-taker and Harry, too. They gambled that they could pull this off and nobody would be any the wiser. Nobody is talking on the record but that doesn't mean they've gotten away with it, where it counts, which is with the Queen and the rest of the family.
Messing with the line of succession is treason, but I don't think anybody is going to press the letter of the law on that. In the final analysis, Harry is just too irrelevant to the future of the Crown. If William and Kate had had fertility issues it would have been a whole lot more impactful (to use one of Meg's words) on the monarchy, but it seems like the family is willing to let the Sussex duo act up without repercussions because the *legitimate* succession is secured through William's line. The Suxxits are just so much noise.
I'm aware of Lathan's connections with The Portland. However, the problem for those who believe that the birth cert was faked, is that they must believe that:
a) A prince of the realm - a son and brother of future kings - would have forged an important legal document.
b) The deputy registar would have allowed his or her signature to be forged on said legal document.
c) A major hospital would have staked its reputation and laid itself open to legal action by lying on said legal document.
All of this sounds utterly absurd to me, but people will beliee what they want to believe.
If the alternative was being party to a very serious crime - the falsification of a legal document - they certainly could and would.
So you believe the son of a future king forged a birth certificate?
"Massive Scandal" is kind of proving to be Meg's middle name.
A hospital should be discreet. Meg's arrival, labor and delivery at the Portland were so discreet as to be invisible. So that's either a masterful job of discretion by the Portland or else a complete fabrication from start to finish. I lean toward the latter. Because by the time the birth announcement was given, if we believe the Sussexes' tale, Meghan had already returned home to Frogmore and was resting comfortably. That's another tale for another occasion, Toad Hall, the Empty House.
No doubt on account of all that yoga and her healthful lifestyle that has Meg high on life whenever we see her, she was able, as a first-time geriatic mother whose baby was distressingly overdue by more than a week labored for less than four hours and was back home before elevenses? I've never given birth but . . .Horsepuckey.
All the other royal babies born at the Portland have officially witnessed birth announcements outside the Palace gates signed by multiple doctors except for Archie, which I find interesting. Also Sophie Wessex had her children at Frimley Park hospital, which was the nearest one to Windsor, and an NHS hospital. That was good enough for the daughter-in-law of the Queen, but the granddaughter-in-law opted for the posh and private Portland. Fergie and Meg are both Spenderellas, but nobody disputes that Fergie actually did have two normal deliveries at the Portland. On the bright side, if Meghan didn't actually give birth at the Portland or ever darken its doors, she didn't rack up a huge bill. Wonder if Charles received any bills from the Portland for phantom babies as he has for all those invisible renovations at Frogmore?
I don't think she is living at Frogmore but I do think it's quite possible for her to discreetly enter and leave the Portland. That's one of the reason everyone from Arab princesses to millionarire actresses has their babies there. Also, nobody knew that Kate had gone into labour at the Lindo Wing - despite the fact that it was known that she would deliver there - until KP announced it.
I agree there were some puzzling aspects of her pregnancy and birth. However, in order to indulge the surrogate theory, you must believe that a prince of the realm, a major hospital and a registrar all happily contributed to forging a legal document, putting at least some of them at risk of prosecution. There was no obligation for them even to release the copy of the birth cert, so why would any of them do this?
Harry, the son of the future King has performed a number of other actions which until now have been out of the question for someone in that position. Until Harry I don't think a #3 to the Crown had attended any drug-fueled nude poker parties in Vegas, either. Or married an American showgirl who'd already had two husbands.
If Harry was willing to defy his grandmother about this entire marriage and collude with a fake pregnancy for the better part of a year, I don't think forging a document would be out of his wheelhouse. If they forged a pregnancy to get all the perks of having an heir to the succession, mocking up a birth cert would be a piece of cake. If Harry is in thrall to a controlling Dominant he is going to keep her happy at all costs even if he has qualms about what they are doing. His status as a Royal furthermore means that he's got a ton of complicity in covering up any actions that could threaten the family. If the Windsors were American, they'd be Kennedys.
It was probably Meg that forged the birth certificate. We know how she likes to play around with digital manipulation for fun and profit.
But you're assuming the pregnancy was faked and making everything else fit that theory.
"It was probably Meg that forged the birth certificate"
Right. You're accepting as fact that prominent royals forged a legal document and published it (though they had no need to). And the deputy registrar who was named and whose signature appears on the cert? And the hospital who would put themselves at risk of criminal action by going along with this forgery? They were all accessories too?
That's my problem with the surrogate theories. They require an increasingly larger number of conspiracies to sustain them.
Birth certificates are public records in the UK, aren't they? Which means that no, there was no obligation to 'release' the document for publication on the Internet, but that it should be available freely to any citizen who wishes to apply to the registrar. Royal babies' certificates are released because they are public figures.
An ordinary citizen would be at risk of prosecution for forging public records, but as has already been discussed, the Royal Family wields enormous power to silence that which they do not wish made known. I believe that the Queen and the rest of the family discovered the subterfuge late, after Meghan had already been pretending to be pregnant in the public eye for six months. The right hand really doesn't know what the left hand is doing with these separate households. Upon discovery, what could they do . . announce publicly that Meg wasn't really preggers after all, when she was supposedly in her 8th month? I think the poop hit the fan in March, which is why she disappeared for 2.5 months and there were daily, sometimes hourly changing statements about their birth plans. I think at that point the family and their advisors were trying to ascertain their legal position and formulate maximum damage control. So far the party line is "We all play along like Archie is a completely normal situation", but the complete absence of any anecdotes or pictures of the extended family with the baby is so telling.
She could have been padding. Or it could have been an odd angle. Or her clothes might have been arranged in different ways.
The idea that she could forge a birth cert and involve a prince, a hospital and a registrar in her forgery, yet somehow forget to put on her moombump when she knew she was going to be photographed sounds nonsensical to me. In fact the whole thing does. We've seen with the Harkles that every single thing they do involves shenanigans and foolery. Why would her pregnancy be any different? To me, all the nonsense with the announcements and the like were just typical of the games these two play with the public and the media. But in order to believe the surrogacy theories, you have to involve an awful lot of people, a lot of whom would have a lot to lose and little to gain by going along with such a scenario.
That's my problem with the surrogate theories. They require an increasingly larger number of conspiracies to sustain them.<<<
True. Which is why they are so shocking to contemplate. But if there is a conspiracy, look who is at the very top. The Queen. She can make the risk of criminal action go away if it is in the Crown's interest, and for whatever reason, HM has decided that keeping Harry, in name at least on-side as part of the family, or at least disguising his indiscretions, is in the Crown's best interest.
The government works for her. The security services work for her. I think she can make a forgery charge disappear. Official secrets, NDAs . .powerful things.
This family hid the extent of Edward's involvement with Hitler during the war for decades. Meg and Harry are small fry compared to that.
I know this is a terribly cynical view. That is why the whole Dumbarton Debacle depresses me so much.
And... this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yet another layer to the conspiracy. Why on earth would the queen go to all this trouble for the 7th in line? It's all layer upon layer of increasingly far-fetched conjecture, and no evidence.
Anyway, I see you're absolutely determined to believe this surrogate theory, so maybe it's best to leave it at that.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/2e6943fb607bcbb9b167cf0f4a0f45c3/tumblr_pmfxel4E9X1y3lzado1_540.jpg
>>>But you're assuming the pregnancy was faked and making everything else fit that theory.<<<
I concede that. But the same is true for your position--that she had a completely natural and normal pregnancy and delivery, and there is nothing whatsoever untoward about their family life now. Your scenario is the 'normal' one, and 'normal' is what the bulk of humanity experiences. It's easier to accept that which is familiar and understandable: A couple gets married and has a baby within a year. Happens all the time. I don't believe it happened that way for Harry and Meghan. The circumstantial evidence to support my theory is overwhelming. Pictures can lie, of course . . but so many?
Everything can be faked in the media, so both sides of this debate must accept that reality and that it works for and against both sides.
I just come back time and again to Meg and Harry's extraordinary behavior surrounding the pregnancy and Archie, and her quite extraordinary appearance. If it was a natural, normal pregnancy and birth, why all the secrecy and changing stories? The truth speaks for itself; it doesn't need embroidering. Only lies have detail, as BBC Sherlock once observed.
>>>And... this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yet another layer to the conspiracy. Why on earth would the queen go to all this trouble for the 7th in line? It's all layer upon layer of increasingly far-fetched conjecture, and no evidence.<<<
The trouble is not for the '7th in line' but to safeguard the reputation of her House, and ultimately her own legacy. At the end of her life does Elizabeth want to depart the stage as the monarch who reigned impeccably until she completely lost control of her children and they destroyed everything that she stood for--fidelity, honor, devotion to duty? This process started with all the divorces among her children and the toxic fallout is being felt in this current generation. I'd sooner believe that Elizabeth would like to smooth things over and pretend everything is normal than admit publicly that her grandson is mentally unstable and she has allowed a crazy woman into her house to run rampant.
Eh no. I do think aspects of the pregnancy and their family life - or what little we know of it - seem odd. But that's not the same as alleging a complex, multi-layered conspiracy theory involving surrogates and all sorts of other stuff.
And that's my point: Those who are on 'team pillow' are the ones who are making a very serious claim. Namely that a prominent prince - and several other prominent individuals - went along with lying to their family and to the British people. Such a claim requires solid evidence, and I have seen none, just conjecture piled upon conjecture. A few 'now you see it now you don't' bump pics really aren't sufficient. I should add that I love a good royal scandal and at one stage was prepared to think there was something in these theories. But the evidence simply is not there.
All birth certs have to be filed within - I think - 40 days of the birth. We already saw a copy of Archie's birth cert, which was 'final and complete'. What more are you expecting to see?
https://66.media.tumblr.com/b1f25c1717c09b248374db799ee3c20f/tumblr_pnfzipWp2e1y3lzado1_540.jpg
If somebody can explain to me how a belly can decrease in size so dramatically I will be grateful.
prompts media entities to ... NOT print stories because of being terrified of not getting scoops in the future.
See the Project Veritas/Epstein leaks for a pertinent example. Seems that the BRF used access to Will & Kate as a way to kill the story.
It would be gratifying to have proof of (surrogacy), but I don't expect to see such a "revelation" any time soon.
We're in an odd position now where the MSM has proven to be mostly/entirely unreliable, and the investigative journalists we do have would be painted as cranks or conspiracy theorists for exposing H&M.
Frankly, for those journalists, this ranks pretty close to the bottom. I can think of at least one topic in the UK that deserve much more attention due to people injured by inaction/disappeared for questioning the narrative. Compared to that, H&M are a sideshow.
"parental order can be done very quickly and Harry and Markle would become legal as well as genetic parents"
This is not correct. The 'intended parents' cannot legally become the child's parents until several months after the birth. To repeat, the woman listed as mother on the birth cert is the woman who gave birth to the child. According to Archie's birth cert, that woman was Meghan. There's really no getting away from this, unless, again, you posit a complex conspiracy theory involving several people putting their reputations and careers on the line to lie for the Harkles.
I do not remember how long it took for Archie's birth certificate to appear, but not immediately after birth.
Who's talking about paternity? Once again, for the 3rd time, the woman named as a child's mother on a British birth cert is the woman who gave birth to him or her. No exceptions. That can change if the child is adopted, but that legal process will take months or years.
"I do not remember how long it took for Archie's birth certificate to appear, but not immediately after birth."
It was issued about 2 weeks after his birth. Much, much too short a time for Archie to have been adopted and the birth cert altered.
But if you're determined to believe that some kind of massive conspiracy theory occured, I doubt anything I or anyone else can say will change your mind.
No, I don't post on any other forums with this user name. Interesting that I have a 'twin'! Mind you there are two Liver Birds so I guess it makes sense!
Anyway, good night all. Maybe continue this discussion tomorrow!
She got shifted over to a minor royalty balcony last year, maybe she’s planning to make a fame-ho look-at-me statement this year on her balcony to pull eyes and royal watchers away from the major royals. It’s her M.O.
The mirror had an article yesterday about her having her next baby in the us near ‘friends and family’ ( what family?) because it was so uncomfortable having archie alone in the UK. More PR planted hints and chatter to keep her in the news. And blind gossip had a thing about an upcoming pregnancy announcement like that.
I have found out, though, in private messages on Tumblr, that many people who say they believe in the pillow theory are joking. Apparently it’s a thing to pretend to believe the most outrageous things about her and then post about it and make fun of it, when it’s all pretend fun.
(Like she is scratching her balls, etc). It’s considered funny entertainment.
Also, people egg skippy on for fun.
Today's outing. MM looked fine from the neck up. That Royal bathrobe was hideous and one of MM's assistants needs to sneak into MM's wardrobe and permanently remove all the belts. The belts have to go. The pregnancy pose - well that is why I still follow this shitshow because MM never disappoints. She is a narcissistic attention seeker who cannot help herself even at such a sombre occasion as this.
'
Money, Big Money! Like offering a Million dollars to who can provide proof that Archie is 'born of the body' from Meghan and is Harry's child. Worded this way would encourage Meghan and/or Harry to admit it and prove it. Others could claim prize too if they provided inconvertible truth, Remember when periodicals.newspapers would offer contests like this such as proving there was a Loch Ness Monster (I think).
Now I think about it, maybe that is why Archie is so hidden from everyone. So no one gets close enough to get hair, skin cells, even a used tissue, nothing. Maybe that's why they don't live at Frogmore so no trash or.anything is thrown away or compromised.
@Button Totally agree!
The whole pregnancy/birth/keeping Archie hidden scenario beggars belief.
Narcs flaunt what they have--they can't help themselves. What new parents don't proudly show off their offspring?
There is plenty of money to cover up what needs to be hidden. Here in the US it is being reported in the media that one of the reporters on Good Morning America was forced to cover up the Jeffrey Epstein story for years in deference to the BRF.
Investigative journalism is alive and well-Ronan Farrow is a perfect example.
I personally cannot bear the thought of endless months coat flicking, bump rubbing and cradling and her smug face. Yuck.
One of the strangest aspects of this whole saga is the non-acknowledgment of Archie by the royals. I am thinking of the polo match appearance in particular.
The whole Archie shenanigan by the Sussexes seem to be a deliberate attempt to stir up as much gossip, conjecture, rumours and ultimately, interest in themselves. I don't for a second believe that they genuinely value their privacy. They seem to want to be in the news so much, there are so many articles and tit bits about them.from their so called trusted friends that it's hard to believe even for a second that they aren't drip feeding the I'm formation themselves. It's too Hollywood in nature to make us the public, specifically the British, believe in the goodness of innocent hearts.
I believe they are well aware of the surrogacy and fake baby rumours, hell even before the actual birthday, but they have encouraged it with their weird secrecy. Some questions around the whole birth and pregnancy are genuinely perplexing. Controversy aside, what are the some of the weirdest parts about her pregnancy that almost every single person feels was.odd behaviour?
* She purposefully teased a pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding. There was no need for it and no serious rumours before that. But they needed to drum roll their Australia tour. That was a cheap Hollywood move by Meghan. And seemed like entirely her own design, maybe with JMs encouragement.
* She exaggerated her body language to seem more pregnant than she was, by over arching to emphasis a non-existent baby bump. Was she 3mn or 4 mns in? In posed out tures she looked bigger, in candids she looked flat.
* Her bump seemed bigger than usual, which made people speculate that she hiding that she was actually 5 or so months. But then, before Euge's wedding she seemed super skinny and did not look pregnant at all. It's strange to think that the bump knew it was allowed to grow and show in Australia not before that. Such an intelligent fetus, oh my God!!!
* Some speculated that she was actually not that far into her pregnancy and maybe just about 8wks pregs. She lied at the york wedding to Garner attention. This also ties in with the actual birthday.
* The bump was totally suspect. Too high too low when it shouldn't be. Not talking in with the stated gestation period. Changing shapes. Also at time it was too perfect, like at the animal charity in the white dress (it looked like it was a kivie scene). But then the next day she would be in shambles.
* They also teased endlessly that it would be a girl. They hinted at it, the baby shower was somewhat pink she was carrying higher as some specualate happens when it's a girl child. Then it turns out to be a boy.
* Morocco was a shit show and she looked horrible. She also looked visibly more subdued, always clinging on to Harry. It seemed like she was either ill, scared, almost about to pop or had been scolded and told to behave.
* The baby shower! It was too in your face, she wanted to bask in the attention. It was also the time that I finally had enough and googled Meghan Markle suspicious bump and finally found this blog. And she seemed almost 7/8 months rather than 5/6.
* As compared to the baby shower her belly looked smaller in Morocco until the infamous 90k sack.
* The 90k sack looked more post oartum than 6months.
* Her last few appearing, new Zealand house, Westminster she looked very subdued and mellow as compared to her usual over the top demeanor. Almost fragile. Looked like she was about to pop.
* Absolute silence during the matleave before the birth. No pap photos, no deliveries, no sources giving any credible info. I never believed the home water birth doula nonsense.
* The weird announcement that they wouldn't be showing the baby immediately after birth. While understandable, it was unnecessary. They could have just done the private family bonding and not said anything to the world for the first 10 days. It seemed to me that maybe they had a preemie and were doing this lay any rules ours regarding that to rest.
* The mat leave started way too early for someone who was apparently having a the smoothest, most easy pregnancy, esp for someone who claimed to be a workaholic. Again made me think they had a preemie and wanted to focus on the baby for the first few till it was out of the woods and they knew better.
* She was overdue by what,10 days?? That's weird since that would be dangerous. Esp for someone like MM who is so self centred, her survival instincts would be in hyperdrive if she senses any actually physical/mortal danger to herself. They should have been in the hospital about 3 days past the due date. So maybe the baby was already there, and they just didn't do the math right and goofed up?
* Once they goofed up with the supposed over due birth they had to do damage control and come up with something because this had the whole world somewhat worried no amount of spin would do. So they had to have a birth story. That was last minute and total shambles. They probably already had the baby and he was given a go ahead by the doctors.
* They had some help from the BRF/press maybe of the baby was a preemie. He would technically be 6 months if he had been born in may but is actually like 7 or 8 if he was born earlier. That's why mm wasn't seen or heard from for so long. That's why they say no one can understand why they have been going through.
* Basically Mm is an overrated cow who fucked up a totally normal life event because she is bonkers and wanted to drudge up controversy for the sake of it. So she did pad her belly.
PS: sorry for this essay. I got carried away with a massive caffeine dose early in the morning.
https://mmbelly.tumblr.com/
Often Meghan forgets which bump she wore the day or week before so you'll see her bump increase and decrease from day to day, week to week or even within a matter of hours. The bump might be large in the morning and half its size later in the day.
One of the bumps has a special button (many believe its the belly button) that will automatically inflate and deflate the bump. During her visit to the rescue center she bends to pet an adorable Beagle. As she stands up she presses the special "button." Visible to the eye, the bump grows in size under her coat and all of a sudden there's a loud pop sound. I don't think that video is included in the link below, but it's out there on YouTube.
The highlight of the photo collection in this link is one of the last pictures shows Meghan rushing to the car as her bump is gradually falling below her knees.
https://mmbelly.tumblr.com/
So many interesting thoughts on MM's 'pregnancy ' & Archie the Invisible.
I am pondering your interesting thoughts @ Alice, Surrey James. Very well thought out but I wonder about a couple of points....
- Why announce th 'pregnancy ' so early? Most women are quite careful about announcing in the first trimester. Geriatric pregnancy (35 +) would be even more careful especially if it were a (supposedly) first-time mother.
Looking back on her 'pregnancy ' it seemed to be a performance first and foremost.
Photos and posing.
- Why not use the best doctors available? She refused to use the royal physicians. Again, a geriatric pregnancy , rather odd behaviour.
And where is Archie? He really does seem to be hidden. As others have mentioned even the other royals seem to not give him much notice. Has he interacted with his cousins? After the Christening has Charles or William had any contact?
M&H supposedly refused to go to Balmoral as they stated Archie was too young.
Post SA tour there has been no visible trace of Archie. Why the subterfuge?
I'm wondering about your points as well. Either they announced too early or well into the 4/5th month. The official timeline doesn't work with the photo evidence we have.
There's a very lol-worthy article out a few days again, about Archie turning 6months. In this, a close royal source (who needs a whack across the head, IMO) descibes how "Archie is showing a lof of promise" (such a weird way to describe a baby, honestly). How he is trying hard to talk but not able to yet (really?! Maybe being Meg's baby he is trying to give an exclusive interview already. Or crying out to be rescued??!).
Most hilarious is how this source mentions the baby sleeps through the night now so Meghan and Harry can enjoy some couple time in the evening (basically meaning they can now have sex). Haahahahhaaa.... I have tears streaming down my eyes I'm laughing so hard. Who was this lame ass source, first of all? Meghan herself or Scobie? Those are the only two people I can imagine who'd give such crincy nonsensical soundbites.
PS: can't find the link to this article, I just saw some screenshots on Instagram. Maybe someone has the link??
(As crazy as that sounds.)
Why announce the pregnancy so early? To take the attention from Eugenie at her wedding as selfish and awful as that behavior is to normal people. And to assure the world's attention is on her during the Australian tour. Remember the sheaf of folders held over her abdomen when they first arrived?
Agreed the whole "pregnancy " seemed like a bad acting job. If she was going for the subterfuge on the world stage why wouldn't she be careful with monitoring bump size, placement, and attachment so it doesn't slip down to her knees?
I have always thought the reason she went to the Polo Club sans bump in NYC was so she could be served alcohol and party.
@Alice, I think the "showing a lot of promise" and the idea of Archie being waaaaay ahead of all his milestones is good old American parent bragging. Back when I lived in the US, mothers and sometimes fathers were constantly talking about how their kids were reading at age 3 and doing 4th grade math in first grade, etc. Being precocious may not help the kid in the long run - in fact, it can often isolate them - but some parents see it as a way to show off your child's high quality and your own excellent parenting skills. Sounds like just the kind of thing "whip-smart" "single-handedly changing the monarchy" Meghan would do.
@Trudy, all journalists in Britain may be covered by an injunction which prevents them from discussing matters of Archie's birth. These injunctions are easily obtained by the powerful - many athletes and entertainers seem to have them to cover up their extramarital affairs - and sometimes there is even a super-injunction, which prevents any mention of the original injunction. In addition, libel laws in the UK put the burden of proof on the outlet to prove the story is true. I think that any exposé of Harry and Meghan's doings will have to come from outside the UK. My money is on the French or Germans.
@Tatty, you're welcome to present a dissenting opinion, but your comments calling people stupid or idiots have been removed.
I have always thought Harry's comment that babies change a lot in the first two weeks indicated Archie's true age and that he was,in fact, two weeks rather than 2 days old. With a slip of the tongue Harry outed them.
Whatever Law governs the line of succession requires the child be physically born of his/her Mother's physical body. So, the option of surrogacy is completely out of the question if the parent has the throne in mind. Probably why the palace doctors are required to sign off on any birth certificate (Except Archie's BC of course)
With that said, any interference or manipulation of the line of succession to the throne is considered TREASON. Hence, Meghan is willfully committing an act of TREASON
The fact she is hinting at a 2nd fake pregnancy will clearly be an "In Your Face" 2nd ACT OF TREASON. SMH Wonder if the monarchy will allow it this time. Time will tell.
Prince Charles is certainly being put to the test, huh? What do you think he'll do?
Smegs may have her eye on the throne, but it seems impossible for her to get there.
I checked through my photograph album (I still do them), at four months,both my babies were definitely NOT crawling. When they did crawl,there were so so many dangers around the house, that for a while I curtailed visits until I was at ease. No idea how the Markles look unstressed about a crawling baby. Whilst babies do develop at different rates, the milestones are universal. Before crawling a baby should turn first, or flip over for a while. Then after this is somehow mastered, a baby has to master lifting up the stomach muscles. This takes a while too. So many more little stages before actually crawling. The Markles baby is not 4 months old.
Also having seen firsthand my sisters coming home after hospital births (3 sisters) I can say they were in so much agony, movement was the last thing on their minds for days afterwards. How Miss Markle swung her body and tottered around in high heels,2 days after delivery puts my suffering sisters to shame. Something was odd here.
I don't know who came up with it. But it wasn't "Archie meets the Arch," unfortunately. That would have been better. Instead it was (and still is on Sussex IG) "Arch meets Archie." So as others have pointed out, this suggests the nearly 90-year old Nobel-prize winning cleric was supposed to feel honored to meet a 4 1/2-month old baby. Perhaps M did have a hand in the phrasing after all.
My incubating fetus didn't have large size and shape shifts from week to week, either. My tummy was tight as a drum and never, ever quivered like Jello or inflated or deflated randomly.
There are some increased risks to the baby in pregnancies that continue beyond 42 weeks, and it is for this reason that midwives and obstetricians will recommend an induction sometime between 41 and 42 weeks. In practice, this tends to be around 10 days after the due date". Wasn't 10 days Markle's overdue? How big is the chance that an overdue 37 years old mother and her baby are discharged from the hospital immediately without observation? I honestly don't know. But added to her shifting size bump it causes more raised eyebrows.
I posted this on the previous thread. Could this be the article you are looking for?
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a29710465/meghan-markle-prince-harry-son-archie-6-months-report/
https://www.ngalaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/parenthood-and-parental-orders-surrogacy-law
This doesn't prove that Markle's child is surrogate born but it does prove that the Birth Certificate can be legally changed.
As I said earlier you may be perfectly right but the surrogacy and subsequent BC change is not impossible in UK.
The source here is clearly Meghan, who seems to be gushing about her baby. I get that all parents are super proud of and enamoured with their newborns, but t geez girl, calm down. Your baby is nice and all but don't bore us with imaginary details. Next she'll be telling us he's already taking polo lessons from Harry because he lives horse riding so much.
I had a couple of teeth at 6 months. My mother breast fed me til 6 months and weaned me after I bit her. My brother walked before he crawled, so that can happen as well.
Fairy Crocodile, thank you for the information about overdue babies. The main problem with overdue is the risk of the umbilical cord getting wrapped around baby's neck and chocking them, causing stillborn. That happened to my husband's sister.
Why did Megs announce early? Because she can't stand anyone to have more attention than she gets. Plus, Megs has proven to be extremely vindictive and wanted revenge on Eugenie for having her choice of bridal tiara after, gasp, Megs had to wear the one the queen chose for her. She wanted to punish Eugenie. Megs always punishes those who slight her in any way.
Why did Megs take the whole pregnancy so far? Because she never has and never will submit to anything that's not her choice. She's granted herself impunity in every action, thought and deed, even if that means committing a crime like treason. She does not believe any of the rules on the planet apply to her. She proves it over and over. Look at the speeches she writes for Harry about what everyone else should do or not do about everything and everything from climate blame to tourism.
>>>if the surrogacy paperwork took longer than expected and/or if the baby was born in (for example) the USA. Which would tie in with Meghan's February baby shower by private jet. It would not have been difficult for her to take the baby home with her on Amal's private jet on the way back home. Which would tie in with something I read on another blog (I think Anonymous Houseplant?) where it was mentioned that the intellectual property rights for the name Archie Harrison were registered in February, two days before or after the New York baby shower. It would also explain the lack of vehicles going from Frogmore Cottage to the Portland Hospital and vice versa on May 5th or 6th . . .<<<
Thank you for your comments about the birth certificate, with which I concur, and this.
Having an ostentatious transatlantic baby shower while supposedly so heavily pregnant, in New York, a city where I guess her good friend Lindsay Roth is based (?) but to which Meg has no other particular ties--none of her Hollywood friends like Serena or Amal, the 'co-hostesses' are based in New York. It certainly left out all of her California contacts, all of whom were noticeably absent from this shindig. Wouldn't it have been much better 'optics' to invite Doria, the baby's grandmother? Whether it was a legitimate fete for an expectant woman (strenuously doubted by me) or whether it was a trip to pick up a pre-arranged infant (possibly explaining the celebratory lack of belly on the evening MM hit the town with Marcus Anderson et. al to go drinking. Question for the Duchess: Even if you turned up at a bar with a flat belly on a certain evening, wouldn't most bar staff serving an international celeb such as yourself have knowledge that you were supposedly pregnant? They'd have to serve you regardless of their personal disapproval of a heavily pregnant woman drinking . . or perhaps you doctored the virgin cocktails you were served with a secret stash of your own . . but this does appear to be one salient detail you overlooked, which is par for the course with you.
It looked bad that Doria wasn't there, no matter what. Doria will support Meg no matter what (perhaps for a price) so whether the baby was inside Meghan in February or imported from another womb, you'd want grandma read in, wouldn't you? This is her only child's first (alleged) child, so a rather big deal. Meg is supposedly so close to her mother and yet Doria was excluded from this celebration of her daughter's major life event being held in her home country? Quizzical. It would have made far more sense for Meghan's well-heeled celeb friends to fly to England, where they could have had a lovely party at the Clooney's Oxfordshire estate with maximum privacy. That would have played so much better in the press, besides being practical on a health and safety front. But if the baby was in New York than that's where Meg had to go.
******
This baby might only be #7, but why would the Palace risk Meghan's or the baby's health unnecessarily? Harry could have gone alone both times. The Morocco trip was a hastily-planned, brief and pointless busy-work tour to keep her away from the Oscars, as I understand it, where she planned to wear the ostentatious Valentino bling-encrusted sack.
These trips support the faux pregnancy theory to my view. The Palace would have rescheduled any official trip that fell that late in a pregnancy; likewise any normal expectant mum would think twice about flying all the way to Los Angeles from London when approaching her ninth month of pregnancy. Such a long trip at such a time would be both uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, and any reputable doctor would advise against it--even if travelling by private jet. What if she'd gone into premature labor at 20,000 feet?
No--Elizabeth would never have risked this if she knew for a fact the pregnancy was legit.
If Meghan and Harry conceived via surrogate, that is not the scandal, or anything to be ashamed of. The scandal is the deception and subterfuge. She appears like she may be getting ready for a repeat. I've got no 'proofs', other than the evidence of my own eyes. Anyone who laughs at Team Pillow needs to take a good hard study of those Meg Belly photos on Tumblr. They are damning evidence of Meghan's FU brand of Narcissism in action. Of course, the idea of a Moonbump Coverup beggers belief. But Meg's psychology is abnormal; her actions always seem reasonable to her, if they will get her want she craves. As for the family colluding for so long in her scam, I know that's a head-scratcher of epic proportions, too--for all the recent talk from the younger royals about shining a lot on mental health issues, the powers that be in the Palace, including the Queen, are from the older generation where one did not wallow in one's mental health issues--one assumed a stiff upper lip and carried on no matter what was happening. The Queen has been incredibly indulgent with Meghan and Harry because the alternative is to admit publicly that senior royals have engaged in criminal activities and are likely mentally ill. For those of Elizabeth's generation, that translates to 'defective', and would be very humiliating to admit to.
My daughter was born 7 weeks early and has cerebral palsy. She's developmentally delayed, as well. She could have been walking on her own as early as at twelve months, but she refused to try to let go of something to hold on to, to walk away from furniture. But she was cruising the furniture a a year old. She only crawled about 2 days before she figured out she could walk around without holding on to something. It wasn't exactly crawling, though. It looked a lot more like she was playing leap frog with herself.
So, as far as Archie's milestones, I don't really see anything wrong with what is being reported, for his (reputed) age. However, I absolutely believe that she faked that pregnancy, or at least got pregnant MUCH later than was stated.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/stop-funding-hate-next-level
William has had a lifetime of Harry's shenanigans, so what else would be big enough for him to cut his brother off entirely?
If it were a normal pregnancy, the days surrounding the birth of a new baby would be a very odd time for a decisive break.
The thing is, who at this point would even care about a second pregnancy. With the first, we have barely seen Archie, he made his big debut to a total stranger in South Africa, and H&M have acted like poor Archie is a total afterthought to them.
So even if she is pregnant, she is massively overestimating the public's interest in it at this point.