Most of us have never met Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth, Donald Trump, or Meghan Markle in person.
These people play roles in our lives and in our consciousnesses, for good and for bad, but we know them only through still photo and video images.
Images are something we have in common, whether they are joyful or horrifying. They're the building blocks of our shared culture.
So for two people so obsessed with building cultural influence and fame, why are the Duke and Duchess Sussexes so stingy with personal photos?
In particular, why are they so unwilling to share photos of their official home at Frogmore Cottage or their son, Archificial?
Ellen DeGeneres also supposedly visited the couple at Frogmore Cottage and fed their son, Archificial. No photos were released of the event - even on Ellen's very active Instagram.
Earlier in the week, we were told that the Queen herself had been visiting Frogmore Cottage regularly while at her home at Windsor.
There have been no photos of that, either, including candids of the Queen's car that might be taken by someone strolling through the public park around Windsor Castle.
It's not like the Sussexes are opposed to photos of Archificial with celebrities: they did a whole photo shoot of Archie with South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu. That, however, was linked to an H&M ad campaign.
Is Archie only shown when there's an opportunity to get paid? Or is there another reason we see so little of him?
(I'm sure it's completely a coincidence that Palmer and the Express got an exclusive about Archificial's baby playgroup today. No photos, of course.)
That said, the Tweet is a little lame.
OK, the windows were open, and the lawn was being watered, and there's an electric car charging point. Same for my local public library, and I doubt the Sussexes live there.
Driving out in full view of the press doesn't sound like any kind of solid proof that they live there either. It sounds like a pretty elementary form of media manipulation.
You know what really shows that people live someplace? Trash. Lots of trash. Groceries going in and (particularly with a baby) lots of trash coming out, every single day.
If the Sussexes really live at Frogmore Cottage, show me the rubbish.
-----------
Some housekeeping:
We've had some complaints that the 600-comment posts are unwieldy.
However, back when I was cutting off posts at 200 and putting in an "open post" if I didn't have time to write, we got complaints about that, too.
How do you feel, Nutties?
These people play roles in our lives and in our consciousnesses, for good and for bad, but we know them only through still photo and video images.
Images are something we have in common, whether they are joyful or horrifying. They're the building blocks of our shared culture.
So for two people so obsessed with building cultural influence and fame, why are the Duke and Duchess Sussexes so stingy with personal photos?
In particular, why are they so unwilling to share photos of their official home at Frogmore Cottage or their son, Archificial?
You can't see us
Yesterday we were informed that former US first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited the Sussexes at Frogmore Cottage. No photos were released of the event.Ellen DeGeneres also supposedly visited the couple at Frogmore Cottage and fed their son, Archificial. No photos were released of the event - even on Ellen's very active Instagram.
Earlier in the week, we were told that the Queen herself had been visiting Frogmore Cottage regularly while at her home at Windsor.
There have been no photos of that, either, including candids of the Queen's car that might be taken by someone strolling through the public park around Windsor Castle.
It's not like the Sussexes are opposed to photos of Archificial with celebrities: they did a whole photo shoot of Archie with South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu. That, however, was linked to an H&M ad campaign.
Is Archie only shown when there's an opportunity to get paid? Or is there another reason we see so little of him?
The Royal Reporter's Tweet
Yesterday The Daily Express' Royal Reporter Richard Palmer responded to the suggestion that neighbors say no one lives at Frogmore Cottage with this Tweet:I know you lot won’t accept anything that conflicts with your world view but I’ve actually seen the car in the drive, windows open, the lawn being watered, the couple driving out. Oh and the castle mews has electric car charging points. I wrote a planning story about them.
(I'm sure it's completely a coincidence that Palmer and the Express got an exclusive about Archificial's baby playgroup today. No photos, of course.)
That said, the Tweet is a little lame.
OK, the windows were open, and the lawn was being watered, and there's an electric car charging point. Same for my local public library, and I doubt the Sussexes live there.
Driving out in full view of the press doesn't sound like any kind of solid proof that they live there either. It sounds like a pretty elementary form of media manipulation.
You know what really shows that people live someplace? Trash. Lots of trash. Groceries going in and (particularly with a baby) lots of trash coming out, every single day.
If the Sussexes really live at Frogmore Cottage, show me the rubbish.
The fabulous magazine spread
And show me the magazine spread of the Sussexes' beautiful, newly-designed home with a variety of merched Soho House products.
Meghan loves attention - an Architectural Digest spread about one's fabulous home is a standard marker of celebrity - and the interior designer and companies that provided items for the interiors would love the publicity.
No one needs to see the Sussexes toilet or even their marital bedroom, but a glimpse of the reception rooms (like the Cambridge's at Kensington Apartment 1A) wouldn't seem to be too intrusive.
And, of course, the taxpayers of Britain would love to see the $3 million in renovations they have paid for, plus the copper bathtub the Sussexes supposedly financed out of their own pockets.
Celebrities except for this
The Sussexes love fame, and they love sharing photos on their @SussexRoyal Instagram.
Yet there are never any photos of their home, not even exteriors. Perhaps the interiors are not finished, but that would seem to be a perfect opportunity for fun "work in progress" images of the Sussexes chatting with the builders or offering them tea, as the Queen once did.
Meanwhile, the Sussexes are so short of photos the baby they supposedly live with that they released an awkward image from last summer to celebrate Prince Charles' November 14 birthday.
Why?
-----------
Some housekeeping:
We've had some complaints that the 600-comment posts are unwieldy.
However, back when I was cutting off posts at 200 and putting in an "open post" if I didn't have time to write, we got complaints about that, too.
How do you feel, Nutties?
Comments
BBC Newsnight clip of Andrew just released.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1195460235814752256
As far as I'm concerned if there aren't any pictures it didn't happen. Ellen said she met Archie and he had more hair than her, but Harry said at "playgroup" he discussed Archie's lack of hair! BTW, having run a Playgroup I can state with certainty that the absolute earliest a child is admitted is 2, more normally 3. And FFS would those parents allow their baby to mix with ordinaries?
As far as Frogmore Cottage goes there have been no photographs of cars approaching, skip lorries, diggers, scaffolding, builders vans - absolutely nothing. We did have a very excitable report of a buggy being delivered but nothing else.
As for HMQ popping in for a chat - well please!!! People visit the Queen, she doesn't drop by for a chat! Anyway it's obvious that if there is a child they don't have regular access to him.
I'm so disappointed in Richard Palmer. I'd thought better of him.
MoS fabricate and how do we know BI isn't lying?
The Mail on Sunday didn't conjure them out of thin air.
Who exactly do you expect to resign?
"A headline saying : 'Meghan is unlikable because she is biracial', would be racist.
"A headline saying: 'Meghan shouldn’t be allowed to give speeches because she is a woman', would be sexist.
"A headline saying : 'Meghan bought a copper bathtub' is neither."
As I understand it, if you go to a US embassy, it is as if you are standing on US soil for all practical purposes. (I am an American who lived for a time in the UK. Our California home sold and we had to get ourselves to the embassy in London to sign documents and notarization of same. Our visas to the UK were processed by a legal group in New York where we did not have to appear in person.)
Could this have been the trip for egg harvesting in advance of the surrogacy? Is this legal in the UK? Any knowledgeable Nutties out there on this topic?
For all her pretentiousness I cannot believe that it was her intent to have a child without a title. She thought she could pull this off. In this case she was 'so sharp, she cut herself'.
But I look forward to the one below being debated for "truth."
"These included an “analysis” by a so-called handwriting expert that, the paper claimed, showed the Duchess as a “narcissistic showman whose self-control is wavering”.
Will we have M's own handwriting experts claim the analysis was wrong? (Discrediting all handwriting analysis won't work.)
Will M undergo a mental eval to show she's neither a narcissist nor losing control? (Of course, the lack of control was supposed to be when she was writing the letter back in summer 2018.) If she's shown to be an "in control" narcissist now does that make the MoS's handwriting expert wrong?
Promises to be entertaining.
@tatty, my guess you don't have much knowledge or experience of legal actions. Lawyers' opening salvos are often a bunch of malarky. Byline Investigates is on a par with Radar, or even CDAN, Enty & Blind Item. My guess is that the British tabloids learned a lot from Rupert Murdoch's experiences. The MOS would most likely have settled a long time ago if they were truly worried about their liability.
The cameras are only ever outside and sometimes a small telly crew, but that aside, all senior royal christenings are small and private. We’ve only ever seen family and God parents go into the chapel, no cameras inside etc. In the past God parents have been named (for offspring/issues of a future or current Monarch) in the media beforehand.
Harry and Meghan had no reason to be so secretive as Archie’s christening was no different from any other. It was all smoke and mirrors, with them wanting to own and control the narrative for more media attention.
I agree with @Liver Bird and others who quite rightly point out that it wouldn't be the norm to see the interior of Frogmore Cottage as it's a private residence (unless they're hosting, as W&K did with the Obamas, and choose to release photos).
Having said that, William and Kate have always released a few photos of their newborn babies which were taken at their residence, with the exception of Prince George as I think his photos were taken at the Middleton's home. The point being, we've had little glimpses into Anmer Hall and KP, yet nothing with Frogmore. With Archie, all we've seen is his feet with a backdrop of Forget-Me-Nots, Harry's finger and the christening photos.
When W&K first married and lived in Anglesey, I recall photos of Kate doing her shopping at the local Waitrose and accounts of them living as 'normal' a life as they could, going to the local pub, etc.
At Anmer, I've seen photos of Carole taking George to the beach, Kate and George on a farm visit, Kate shopping with the kids at the local Sainsbury's, to name just a few. In short, there's absolutely nothing which might make us doubt that they live there.
Yet we've had no sightings of H&M at or around Frogmore, bar the fake/set-up Bank Holiday pub lunch and now the ridiculous playgroup story.
Frogmore may not be grand, in the royal sense of the word, but I think Harry would be quite content living there, baring in mind he spent many years at Nottingham Cottage which is tiny. IMO they don't live there because it's on a flight path and very noisy plus it's not private enough for Meghan.
I think they may have initially intended to live there but the reality of the noise and the close proximity to people walking past didn't suit them. There'd be a national outcry if this got out after the millions of pounds the taxpayers paid for the refurbishment, so I think they live elsewhere and Frogmore is just a smokescreen. Whether they live together or not, who knows?
As for Archie, they both hold him in a very, very strange fashion and in SA, Harry's interaction with him was very awkward, almost as if he didn't really know him. This is strange because we've all seen photos of Harry with children and he's a natural, at ease and even boisterous. As far-fetched as it sounds, I think they used a surrogate. I'm not convinced Archie lives full-time with either of them... or maybe with Meghan and the nanny and Harry lives elsewhere? It doesn't look like he has a close bond with either parent. I look forward to his 1st Birthday photos and what they might reveal.
Anyway, apologies for the loooong post! Btw, I use Google Chrome and have no issues reading posts and definitely see paragraphs as opposed to a whole chunk of text. I also prefer the new format.
>"These included an “analysis” by a so-called handwriting expert that, the paper claimed, showed the Duchess as a “narcissistic showman whose self-control is wavering”.
Will we have M's own handwriting experts claim the analysis was wrong? (Discrediting all handwriting analysis won't work.)<
I don't see why the handwriting experts can't legitimately give their opinion. They aren't claiming to be a psychologist or psychiatrist and making a diagnosis of Meghan; they are just voicing an opinion within the parameters of their field. These handwriting experts will have said they based their conclusions on how letters are shaped, how strong or weak strokes are, size of letters, etc.
Everyday, many experts disagree. when it comes to opinions I see it much like when someone sues thinking they have a case for libel or slander, well often the suit fails because it was merely someone's opinion.
100% in agreement.
Doesn't the Mail on Sunday only have to prove that she isn't very fussed when she is doing the story planting?
Aren't they sister publications? Surely they can share sources information.
This case may bite her in her padded behind.
.
I think this way is better because we can all still weigh in on stuff.
I do think handwriting analysts can give opinions-- that's why discrediting the field won't work IMO. Court cases are often dueling experts but with handwriting analysis, its usually not a matter of analyzing someone's basic psyche but more likely a forgery issue or emotional duress issue. But I don't know how one could "analyze" M's flourishes and not see something in Cluster B of personality disorders suggested.
Please prove that he was.
Thank you.
>But if the MoS is to be found to have published "demonstrably false" information (or even information it should have known was false), it would seem M would have to show she's not a narcissist and wasn't losing control in Aug 2018 (when she purportedly was newly pregnant)<
I don't know what standards the UK courts use. However newspapers from time immemorial have described people in unflattering terms when it comes to personality and perceptions of their actions and human interactions. For example, look at what is said about Trump with respect to the media describing him in a negative light as to his actions and character. He doesn't sue and I believe he would if he could. Meghan is a public figure so to say she is controlling is an opinion. Saying she is a narcissist is akin to saying she's self-centered or selfish not that she has been clinically diagnosed as one (or Cluster B). I have not read the charges and specifics so 'I am shooting from the hip',
However, in the states, there is great leeway in what can be printed about public figures (hence why many celebrities can't sue for libel in many circumstances).
Also you said;
>I do think handwriting analysts can give opinions-- that's why discrediting the field won't work IMO. Court cases are often dueling experts but with handwriting analysis, its usually not a matter of analyzing someone's basic psyche but more likely a forgery issue or emotional duress issue. But I don't know how one could "analyze" M's flourishes and not see something in Cluster B of personality disorders suggested.<
Yes, that is typically how handwriting analysis is used in the courts. But I don't see the Court will be viewing these 'experts' as 'legal experts' for the purpose of their testimony proving Meghan's psychiatric proclivities. That would indeed be funny to see Meghan up on the stand or her paid legal whores (what my Father would call them such experts whose testimony is for sale). I think the case (or this aspect only) will turn on whether an opinion can be published legally about a public figure.
It would be quite a different matter IMO if the paper publishes a story such as Meghan did not give birth to Archie (and she did). The paper would have to have proof. Melania Trump did successfully sue when it was alleged about certain past sexual activities happened when it did not. The burden was on the publication to prove the facts were true. At least that is what I learned secondhand (I never read original material_.
I hope I don;t get slammed by the poster from the other night!
After the outcry about Frogmore house, I think they would have posted something. Even if it were photos of new roof joists, walls etc. They could have said that the building was very old, found structural problems, etc.
I wonder if that copper tub is real or if it was another of her fishing for freebies posts.
If she becomes truly pregnant, expect bare belly Hollywood style pictures leaked to the press.
I am tired of all the "secret" blather. These two aren't important enough to be privy to any state secrets. This seems so silly. This woman hasn't done anything significant since joining the royal family, nothing significantly positive anyway.
My theory is that I think Harry was accepting of the Queen's offer of Frogmore (after all he got out of small Nott Cott) and Meghan being relatively newly married probably went along with it to be a 'loving spouse' However, I think she decided she really didn't want to live there for the reasons given (noise, etc...) and she started stalling, maybe even changing the renovation plans to prolong completion. As time when on, she became more and more domineering and controlling.and just put her foot down and told harry "Hell no" to living there.
As to, why she would do that to the UK public (becasue of public funds), it is because she is #1 and it's all about her. If she can't even be bothered to simply provide some Archie photos to the public she sure wouldn't want to have to feel obligated to live her life in an unsuitable environment. In all fairness, I wouldn't want to live there with significant jet noise (being Californian myself she probably is a 'fresh air freak' and wants to keep her windows open).
I agree with your points about Nutty. Her posts are thoughtful, fascinating and spot on. However...
May I respectfully disagree about the comments becoming "nasty and tedious"? I find the comments here enlightening, respectful and witty.
I am. New to this blog, but it immediately became a "must read" and I look forward to checking in several times a day. @nutty, you have created something great here...don't change a thing!
And "I am new to this blog..."
Hey, SwampWoman, nice to see you posting here. Hope you & SwampMan are thriving. Fingers crossed Dorian will be the worst you'll see in your area this fall. I know 'the season' isn't quite over yet.
I actually think that the season is over, the weather has changed. (Whistling past the graveyard, as it were.) As for posting here, well, I tend to sit up and pay attention when an unknown Z-list actress ends up married to a prince, has an extremely odd pregnancy, estranges prince from his entire family, openly flouts royal protocol, creates drama wherever she goes, and is defended by some very unlikely people.
I personally would love to live in such a historical building if it was renovated to my specifications: The lack of privacy could be dealt with by putting in lush landscaping and stone walls. Megs having traveled the world should have acquired a sense of esthetic for beautiful landscapes (guess she spent her time in bed and not looking at the sights).
You can use the 'search' function (for the page you're on) to find quotes by Nutty, then ignore the other commenters' posts. So you get what you want to read and others can enjoy everything (wonderful exchange of facts and opinions).
If you want to believe conspiracy stories surrounding Archie’s birth etc., that’s fine. However, it is only since our current Queen that the British Home Secretary wasn’t present during royal births, this was to ensure and verify that no decoys etc occurred, and that the true blood and legal heirs were in line to the succession to the throne.
Just because the British Home Secretary etc., is no longer present during a senior royal birth, doesn’t mean that royal pregnancies and births aren’t monitored and checked for authenticity. For a false pregnancy it would need a lifetime of cover ups and lies. That in itself is ludicrous and it would never stay hidden. I cannot see any member of the royal family permitting it either.
Therein lies the problem. With historical buildings they are protected and some are graded as either grade 1 or grade 11. This means an owner is curtailed from making certain if any changes, and it’s an extremely pedantic experience in order to preserve the original structure and fabric of the building. Meghan would be literally hitting rule after rule with Froggy Cottage.
Completely agree. I do think that certain aspects of the pregnancy and birth were odd, but I attribute that to their desire to control everything and maximise media interest while playing coy.
Slightly off-topic, but a special edition of "Newsnight" wherein Prince Andrew is questioned about the Epstein affair will air at 9 tonight. According to extracts released, he has 'no recollection' of meeting Virginia Giuffre. Classic non denial denial.
I also believe that they did not anticipate so much of public backlash. They were likely over confident and likely in Meghan's case too taken in by the sudden change in social/financial standing. She behaved like a typical neveu rich and got carried away (probably because she got everything she had been working towards her entire life). They squandered their chances. And now they are stuck with the surrogacy rumours they can't refute.
I did known about Home Secretaries witnessing royal births. I understand the practice went back to the controversy over the "warming pan baby" back in the 1600s, and was discarded before Charles was born.
But I'm not so sure the points you make (royal pregnancies checked for "authenticity") apply here. So far as Kate and Diana went, maybe, but apparently neither of them was inclined to turn down using royal doctors anyway. (I suspect most women wouldn't turn down royal doctors.) But if M&H dug in their heels....I agree IF there was a cover up it likely will come out but simply because it hasn't yet, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We've already seen that H&M are willing to do and say things other royals aren't. So an assumption they conformed to royal "rules" about the pregnancy may not hold up. Often we do see people defending things they do, saying the Queen must have approved or they wouldn't have done it (that "it" being anything from wearing an off-the-shoulder outfit to the TOC, suing the press, H calling out the press and others as racist when H&M were dating, M doing the "Mad About Harry" VF story, etc.) But I'm not so sure the Queen approves of many of their actions myself.
It has been reported that both Diana and Kate had to have "fertility" checks before marriage and Diana's hymen was also checked. Do you think any of that is true? And if so, does that mean M was checked for fertility? (Not sure how that's done-- presence of necessary organs & evidence of ovulation?)
Diana, possibly. Kate and Meghan, absolutely not. Aside from the fact that such things would be considered obscene in this day and age, it really wouldn't matter that much if they were infertile - not sure it could be definitely proved anyway, and what if - gasp! - William or Harry had issues? Meghan's child(ren) are dynastically irrelevant,and even if Kate and William didn't have children it would be a disappointment, but not the end of the monarchy given that there are so many healthy young royals about.
But the "dynastically irrelevant" argument about H&M's children cuts both ways. Any "authenticity" checks could have been foregone for the same reason if the couple dug in their heels.
@MissK, thanks for your input and your vote of confidence.
I enjoy the comments - and as a journalist, the more diverse input I get, the better my thought processes. This is why I intentionally don't shut down people who disagree with me, or in fact shut down anyone unless they are unkind or off-topic. You never know where the next great insight will come from.
While I read the Harry Markle blog, I must admit that I enjoy it less than say, the Lipstick Alley "Unpopular Opinions" feed or Anonymous Houseplant's Tumblr blog, which has a variety of contributors. Some of them are full of baloney, but that's OK too. Personally I think Harry Markle suffers from being only one person's opinion, particularly when that person seems very angry.
Finally, I agree with many posters who said that pictures are a bad idea. It would mean that we'd have to put the entire blog on moderation, because there's always some idiot who will upload p(rn or work-at-home schemes, and waiting for me to approve every single comment would slow down the flow of conversation.
They could. But in the case of a surrogate birth, an awful lot of high-level people, including the most senior royals, would have had to be prepared to be lie to the British people about a fairly fundamental matter which would be highly likely - given the number of people involved - to be exposed at some point in the future. That all sounds ridiculous to me.
Anyway, I've explained in some detail before why I don't go along with the surrogacy theories and I'm not going to get into it again here, so I'll leave it at that.
"I also believe that they did not anticipate so much of public backlash. They were likely over confident and likely in Meghan's case too taken in by the sudden change in social/financial standing. She behaved like a typical neveu rich and got carried away (probably because she got everything she had been working towards her entire life). They squandered their chances"
Absolutely this. I've never seen anyone squander so much good will so quickly.
They thought they were going to be the golden couple. Young(ish), attractive, 'woke', dynamic... who cares about dull old Will and Kate? And for a while, that's how it was. Most people were very happy for them at their wedding and wished them both well. And while their popularity was bound to fade over time, especially as the Cambridge kids grew up, they could have carved out a unique role for themselves - the glamorous American duchess and Diana's dashing son with his military background. But they wanted it all. They wanted all the benefits of royalty and none of the restrictions. And people noticed, and didn't like what they saw. Hero to zero in just over a year. Amazing.
Now that MM has blown a lid off by accusing the DM of untrue and inflammatory statements, like connecting her love of avocado toast to environmental devastation, will it come to light all the inflammatory "leaks" from her team?
She is a hypocrite beyond measure. Do what I say not what I do. On the one hand she demands respect and fawning from the press and publuc while on the other she has cultivated a veritable gang of brownshirts and has actively targeted those who criticize her. Comments from the Sugars can be very very disturbing.
I am still of the mind that there was something off about "the birth" of Archie. She was very obviously not pregnant, she publicly refused the services of the Royal doctors, there were no official signatures anywhete and the only document we have seen was an incomplete birth registration form.
We have seen dolls and musical babies. I believe this woman is both audacious and unhinged enough to have perpetuated this great of a fraud. What has shd got to lose afterall. (Very Faustian.) This may be what has the RF hogtied. She may gave caught them by surprise too, it did all happen very, very quickly.
Now they've blown it. Totally. There appears to be no way back. Fascinating case for future study. How not to do PR and crisis management, or rather how not to do PR and crisis management for royals. After all, we see celebrities living and behaving like Meghan all the time. To use one of their most irritating phrases, this whole experience "shines a light" on the difference between royalty and celebrity. In a nutshell - "we're paying for you and you're not here on merit".
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2019/11/15/noen2cgslou82nzpgi0g3mpjebpd6i
Really Megsy, you are suing a newspaper because they said you have a copper bathtub and you don't (and so on)? What a self-absorbed and shallow narcissist you are (in my opinion)!
A reasonable and decent person would have invited the editor of MOS to lunch or tea, pointed out what stories are completely false and suggest (in the most charming way) that perhaps journalists were making up stories (claiming to have an inside source) in order to have stories to publish and thus keep their job (it's not a personal vendetta Megsy and your personal feelings are not a national priority worthy of a court case!).
She is completely out of her depth in the BRF, in my opinion, in terms of class, culture and being of service to the UK and its people mindset.
I find it VERY odd that there has never, ever been a photograph published anywhere on the internet showing any signs of life at Frog Cot, especially since the estate is open to the public and there are always lots of people around. Yet no one ever reports seeing H&M on the grounds. However, if you go to Kensington Gardens on a nice day, there is a very good chance you will see Catherine out there with her kids. People post about it all the time online.
Given the drab and less-than-impressive house, the fact that it is 20 miles outside of London, and the fact that no one has ever reported seeing them there, I think that Meghan, at least, does not live there full-time. I can't see her being happy knocking around in a poky little house in the ass end of nowhere. She may go there occasionally, but I don't think it's where she actually sleeps at night.
Harry might actually live there, but I obviously don't know for sure. The Baby Known As Archie probably lives there with his nannies. But I do not believe that all three of them live there full-time. If they did, someone, at some time, would have gotten a picture of them on the grounds and put it on the internet. Or at least some other sign of life -- servants coming and going, trash, deliveries, smoke from a chimney, SOMETHING. Yet every time I've seen photos of the place, it looks empty and lifeless.
The whole thing with shooting that awful mental health skit with Ed Sheeran in Princess Eugenie's Kensington cottage was just weird. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to show people a glimpse of what their tax dollars paid for, without doing a silly "Look at our copper bathtub!" feature somewhere. They literally could have just gotten a shot of the front entry and sitting at a table in a random room at Frog Cot and people would have been happy, but instead they chose to do just that in his cousin's house and try to pass it off as Harry's place. It was bizarre and unnecessary. And another reason why I don't think the house is their marital home.
@Liver Bird in my mind, there's a significant difference between telling a lie and not saying anything at all. Granted, the pregnancy announcement from BP seems legit but the Queen may have been kept in the dark about a surrogate at this early stage.
What's interesting is the birth announcement saying "Their Royal Highness The Duke and Dutchess of Sussex welcomed their firstborn child in the early morning on May 6th 2019". This is in stark contrast to all three announcements of the birth of Kate's babies as well as Zara's which in both cases said they were "safely delivered" of a son/daughter. Admittedly the announcement of her having gone into labour does throw a spanner in the works of my theory!
Then of course there's the lack of doctors'signatures. I know she declined the services of the Royal physicians but nevertheless, a doctor must have been present? There was also no sighting of them leaving Frogmore for the Portland Hospital which could be because it was the surrogate who gave birth to him. And no sighting of them returning home plus she seemed to be discharged very quickly. My second son was 2 weeks overdue and was eventually born at 2.12am. I was only 22 at the time yet was kept in all day and ovetnight for observation.
I admit the theory is far-fetched but the changing bumps/no bump in NYC plus the secrecy surrounding his birth are what made me consider it. It's also possible that the adoption process was deliberately fast-tracked hence their names appearing on his birth certificate.
So apart from announcing Meghan's pregnancy and labour, BP has said nothing at all. Yes, it would involve a lot of people not saying much or anything at all but not necessarily lying. It's quite possible Meghan can't have children so adoption or surrogacy was their only option. Keeping the surrogacy thing under wraps would prevent the inevitable media quest to discover the identity of his birth mother even though he may be biologically H&M's baby. There may also be a watertight injunction and super-injunction in place.
On a side note, how on earth do I change my name to something other than 'unknown??
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7691877/The-Great-Royal-Bake-Kate-Middleton-teams-Mary-Berry-Christmas-TV-special.html
>Therein lies the problem. With historical buildings, they are protected and some are graded as either grade 1 or grade 11. This means an owner is curtailed from making certain if any changes, and it’s an extremely pedantic experience in order to preserve the original structure and fabric of the building. Meghan would be literally hitting rule after rule with Froggy Cottage,<
Thank you for pointing that out but I was already aware of those restrictions. Maybe that is what soured Meghan on the house as she could not put in a floating floor (as was reported, lol). An interior decorator 'worth their salt' could make a barn liveable and beautiful. Although I'm an American, I love what I think is the English look, lots of chintz fabrics and overstuffed chairs. So I imagine Frogmore could be a very lovely building ona a property good enough for the Queen!
Last night when I commented about how @Miss K could use the search feature to see your quotes I did not mean to compliment you as others did,I have said it before and I will say it louder, a big 'Thank you' Nutty! You provide a wonderful environment for the free and respectful exchange of ideas and facts which is so refreshing as it is so rare.
I personally get a great amount of pleasure here which makes me get mind off my medical condition. Due to a limiting pulmonary problem, I spend a great amount of time sitting quietly in a chair for most of the day. So the liveliness of the conversation here is invigorating. So again 'Thank you Nutty and also fellow Nutters (minus 1.- couldn't help but throw in that jab/joke lol).
Now a reporter has said that there is an electric car parked outside and the windows were open. Yet no sign of any security protection officers or people going back and forth. This looks like a PR stunt to make people believe they live there.
Her PR team got it all wrong when they said Meghan was watching the lawn bowls from her bedroom window. To do that she would have to look through a cluster of tall trees, go down a road, turn onto another road, more trees, along another road, then the wall around the club. What amazing eyesight lol.
The changing stories about the holidays, taking time off, the baby, her appearance - is she pregnant or not. The question is why? What's really going on behind the scenes.
And now PA has come out from the shadows to defend himself. There's a battle going on but it's not the one the public is being told to watch.
So are you saying Meghan is not listed as the Plaintiff on the legal paperwork for the suit? I know there is talk of her having 'backers' but I have never heard a name(s) mentioned. If not, who do you think they are? And why would they back her?
I'm open to believing anything weird when it comes to Meghan. I know of Skippy's vague theory on backers but haven't heard about any other viewpoints on this. Pray tell. lol
Look at the division she has caused in the BRF. Now there is talk of a diary that is going to tell royal secrets? I think there is something fair larger going on here than a rocky royal marriage.
Why are US political figures and celebrities publicly supporting her? A visit from HRC? Ellen? I think all the conflicting information being fed the public is just a distraction. The question is a distraction from what?
1. Security is a big expense and this is funded from tax.
2. All the rest is funded from investments, income from Duchy of Lancaster and duchy of Cornwall and the Sovereign Grant.
3. The Sovereign Grant is a percentage (25% at present because of refurbishment of BP, but usually 15%) of the profits from the Crown Estate. All profits from the Crown Estate are given to the government and a percentage of that is then used to fund the official functions of the Queen as head of state and those in the BRF who support her in this role.
So, in reality, the British taxpayer IS funding security for royals but is benefiting from most of the profits of the Crown Estate. (2017-18 the Crown Estate gave £329.4 million to the government; for 2019-20 the Sovereign Grant was £82.4 million - it is usually less but was increased temporarily to pay for the refurbishment of BP).
Other than the cost of security, all the costs associated with Megsy and Harry are paid from the Sovereign Grant and profits from the Duchy of Cornwall (I am not sure if Prince Charles pays tax on this).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance
What Megsy does not understand is that her sole function in the BRF is to support the head of state (the Queen), and the head of state's life is dedicated in service to the British people.
Imagine if Melania Trump used her position to edit Vogue, launch a designer collection, push her own personal political agenda, and so on - there is nothing to stop her from doing so other than common decency.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent there ... other than the cost of security, the British taxpayer does not fund the BRF in any way and actually benefits from the profits of the Crown Estate. Think of the Queen as the owner CEO of a huge corporation. She ends up pays 75-85% taxes on profits; the 15-25% covers all the costs of her being CEO (not to be accumulated as personal wealth).
Catherine was discharged the same day as giving both with two if not all of her babies. Meghan had Archie early in the morning just like Catherine births. They were obviously medically assessed and approved a to be discharged, but let’s face it, they don’t have to do anything once arriving home.
Regarding how the crown benefits the public so much, well I dare say it is only right in consideration of how the crown reaped their wealth in days of old. Henry VIII during the 1530s confiscated approx. 900 religious houses, of which at that time it was estimated to be 1/4 of the nation's landed wealth. Indeed it was the monasteries that created a successful economic base for the many villages to flourish.
So the crown giving back to the public is only right, too bad restitution wasn't ordered for the appropriations, However, Henry VIII ended up wasting the money on his military efforts or so I briefly read. Maybe it has caused a curse on the BRF hence we see the dark force and effects Megs has caused them (tongue-in-cheek remark).
I totally agree the “birth” was fishy as hell. No one saw them scrambling to the hospital. The birth announcement? Seemed off. Harry’s comment about babies changing so much in two weeks...huh? No one peeped a word? I get that there are NDAs, but still. The “birth certificate “ that came out was suspect as well. And the early morning birth then right home, as others have mentioned. Weird also.
Plus, Harry has always been all about kids. Yet when we see him with Archie, there’s none of that fire.
It’s just weird all around.
We all saw that Archie has an eye that’s a little bit wonky. Perhaps he’s had surgeries to correct it (my nephew did) and that’s why he’s been kept out of photos etc? Maybe the weird meta data corresponds with photoshopping of his face as he recovers? I do think he looks like Harry. But then again, when I was a baby, I did too lol.
I fully believe that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Now the whole Christmas / Thanksgiving, LA or Windsor, Doria here or Doria there....bunch of crap.
Not sure they gave an exact time she was home, you know how cadgy the Sussex’s were. I know Catherine was discharged and on the steps of the hospital around 16.30, after giving birth in the morning, that’s checkable as it was filmed live and on the telly. If Meghan’s discharge time was sometime after lunch (13.30? 14.00?), it’s not that many hours less than Catherine’s discharge time and she gave birth around 7.30am.
"
What's interesting is the birth announcement saying "Their Royal Highness The Duke and Dutchess of Sussex welcomed their firstborn child in the early morning on May 6th 2019". This is in stark contrast to all three announcements of the birth of Kate's babies as well as Zara's which in both cases said they were "safely delivered" of a son/daughter"
That's incorrect. The full birth announcement is still available on the Royal Family Twitter and follows the usual norms:
"Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526hrs.
The baby weighs 7lbs 3oz and The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth."
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1125396713777156097
" Meghan supposedly had Archie sometime in the early morning and then was back home by shortly after lunchtime, when Harry gave that weird "press briefing" by the stables."
How do you know she was back home by then? Harry was back in Windsor, but there's no reason to believe Meghan was. We didn't see her until the cringey 'presentation' 2 days later.
It reminds me of an old joke by a British comedian you don't hear of anymore - Mike Harding. Ordinary working man asks the aristocrat "What gives you the right to this land?" Aristocrat replies " My ancestors fought for it!" Working man rolls up his sleeves. "All right! Let's fight for it!"
Just my opinion from everything I have been reading.
How is this going to reflect on MM if she gets a UK citizenship? Wouldn't it have implications for divorce proceedings, custody, civil litigation etc?
She will not be forced to drop her USA citizenship (right?) but which one will take precedence in legal matters?
Also, in the event of the monarchy being abolished, those estates and all their revenues would revert to the treasury. So taxpayers are paying for them, however you slice it.
Not to mention that the cost of round the clock high level security for - I think - 14 royals runs into hundreds of millions every single year. And this is entirely and directly funded by the taxpayer. Royalists brush this off as an insignificant cost, but it really isn't. It's the single largest expense the royals incur, and efery penny of it is funded by the hard-pressed taxpayer.
Wanting to own and control the narrative has done the Sussex’s zero favours, and with Meghan having told so many lies, people then just start to think there’s no truth in anything she does or says, and again it feeds the conspiracy theories.
@Liver Bird, I might just stomach watching Andrew on Newsnight, but it appears just more of what we’ve already heard. Denials abound again.
That being said Nutty I really miss YOUR insights. I know you are very busy ..but still running this blog maintaining a healthy environment..a big thank you for that!
George was born at 16:24, went home the next day shortly after 19:00.
Charlotte was born at 08:34, went home at 18:11.
Luis was born at 11:01, went home at 18:00.
I found this article from the Huffington Post, which says that English mothers have the shortest post-partum hospital stays in all of Europe, averaging a day and a half:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/24/kate-middleton-leaves-hospital-so-soon_a_23419002/
Archie was supposedly born at 05:26 on May 6, 2019. Harry gave his "press briefing" at 14:30, and Meghan was already home by then. That is a VERY fast discharge for a first baby, especially one born to a woman of advanced maternal age. (That's not a knock on Meghan; doctors consider every woman over 35 to be of advanced maternal age.) It was all very weird and frankly it didn't add up.
I don't know the specifics with regard to America, but I do know that as a general rule, when in the country of of which they are a citizen, a person with dual nationality will be treated as a citizen of that country. So for example if a person with dual British and American nationality enters Britain, he/she must show his or her British passport to do so, and if convicted of any crime, will be treated as a British citizen and not entitled to American consular support. We see this in cases where dual nationals are arrested in one of the countries of which they are a citizen - the other country can do very little to help them or even gain access to them at all.
Not that I'm suggesting Meghan is going to be arrested or anything, just that this is the general rule, and often government depts warn dual nationals to be aware of it on their websites.
The Royal Family's official Twitter feed tweeted that Doria Ragland was "with Their Royal Highnesses at Frogmore Cottage. Her Royal Highness and the baby are both doing well." They tweeted that at 08:49 on May 6, three hours and 23 minutes after he was supposedly born.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1125397137628569602
I suggest you scroll up a bit on your link. The 'safely delivered of a son' part is at the top of the announcement.
It’s certainly too fast in my opinion. I think new Mum’s should at least get to stay in hospital for 2 nights. Only a C-Section would more likely guarantee that these days, private or not.
The nationality of the journalist is irrelevant. What counts is the country where the alleged breach of copyright was published, which is England.
"She may have opened a big can of worms, because she is still an American citizen."
I think that's also irrelevant. You can take a publication to court regardless of whether or not you are a citizen of the same country the publication is registered in. That's not a comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the lawsuit - I still think it's monumentally stupid - just that Meghan's nationality doesn't really enter into it.
Speaking of media management, lawyers are shaking their heads at Uncle Andrew's decision to do an interview with Nesnight over the Epstein affair. I'll watch, but I'm sure it'll be all obfuscation and vague non denial denials.
Fairy Crocodile -- personally, I find it really weird. Why was their birth announcement different from everyone else's, and so late? Why did all of the other ones have doctor signatures, but not that one? Please note, I am NOT speaking as someone who works for the same hospital system. I live in Texas and have no idea what goes on at The Portland. This is just my own personal observation.
It seems like H&M enjoy keeping secrets just for the hell of it and/or just to be obnoxious. Why else all of the secrecy surrounding Archie's birth? Why didn't they release the names of his godparents? Why so secretive about absolutely everything they do, to the extent of having "secret" events and only releasing information afterward? I think it's because they are both obsessed with being in control, particularly Meghan. I've worked in PR/media relations for nearly 30 years, and you couldn't pay me enough to work for those two nightmares.
The poster ("Unknown") I was responding to did claim otherwise however. He/she said that the palace never sent out the usual 'safely delivered of a son' announcement. I replied with the link to the palace Twitter showing that they did indeed make the traditional announcement, and for some reason you responded to me with the bit about Doria.
Edward has been widely regarded as probably gay and no one suggests James isn’t his child.
Fairy Crocodile -- like you, I don't like doing distance diagnoses, nor am I a qualified mental health professional, but I think we have ample proof that Meghan has severe control issues, at the very least.
Here is where you are miataken.
I am not believing "conspiracy theories."
I am believing my own eyes and my own experience of carrying two children to full term.
Actual babies in the uterus do not sway, collapse, fold, jiggle, and squish like that. They are firm, like a watermelon. They are not bigger in month five and smaller in month seven. A pregnant woman at 8 months along, no matter how fit, cannot wear 4 inch heels, squat gracefully to the ground, and rise back up unassisted.
It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and everything to do with things like anatomy and physics.
# posting format: I've been reading the blog on Chrome on my laptop and never noticed a difference between the two. It works fine.
# Frogmore: perhaps Meghan and/or Harry demanded they wanted "Frogmore" and meant Frogmore House and QEII gave them Frogmore Cottage instead. I'm also one of the people who finds it odd there's never been a sighting of either of H&M in the area, except by those "royal reporters" who are clearly getting something in return for writing positive stuff about the pair. All the stories/rumors posted online by locals are saying they don't live there and the reported construction never took place.
# baptism/godparents: perhaps H&M kept it secret because no "big name" wanted to be a godparent to their alleged child? No relative, foreign royal (although I don't believe that's very common for the BRF, in contrast to the continental European royal families), celebrity or genuine (i.e. not paid for) friend. In Meghan's case that's not surprising since she's ghosted pretty much anyone from her pre-Harry days and is only "friends" with celebrities she's never met. The ones she's been seen associating with more than a handful of times tend to drop her like a ton of bricks like the Clooneys.
"So I gave a link from the official Royal Family Twitter feed in which they posted before 09:00 on May 6 that "Their Royal Highnesses" were at Frogmore Cottage. Asked and answered."
Thanks for the clarification. However, I don't take that tweet to mean that Doria, Haz and Meghan were at Frogmore right at that very minute, but rather that Doria was staying with them there.
"The Duchess’s mother, Doria Ragland, who is overjoyed by the arrival of her first grandchild, IS WITH [emphasis added] Their Royal Highnesses at Frogmore Cottage." https://mobile.twitter.com/royalfamily/status/1125397137628569602?lang=en
If Sara L of Clinton "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" fame wrote the announcement, "is with" might not mean "is with" but could mean "was with" and/or "will be with again" I suppose.
But that's a stretch to me.
Why even mention Frogmore? Was this when everyone was supposed to think the baby had been born there? Or when people were working hard to suggest they lived at Frogmore fulltime? (I doubt they did in May myself.)
That's why I'm often in a quandary when reading and writing about her. She doesn't deserve my time, or yours fellow Nutties. But she makes me so damn angry and I worry if we all ignore this the BRF will never do anything about it. If it carries on indefinitely, along with Prince Andrew, we could eventually see the end of the BRF.
Although I'm fairly left-leaning, I don't fancy a republic. I always remember watching the Queen, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret on the balcony at Buckingham Palace for the 60th anniversary of VE Day and thinking that the three of them were also there on VE Day itself. I remember being only inches from the Queen as a child, for her Silver Jubilee and appreciating what a landmark it was. And the lighting of bonfires across the country which reminded me of the Armada. I love the history and continuity we enjoy in this country and I can see the potential, in William's family, for a more streamlined, modern European-style monarchy in the future. I think that would be the best of both worlds.
It's so frustrating watching all these raggle-tailed shenanigans (that word comes up a lot now we have Meghan) in the BRF. Like a dull Hanoverian version of the last days of Ancient Rome. Spoiling everything. William could be a new broom if they gradually give him more scope. That's what I'm depending on now.
Also, for me, it's not the lack of official photos, although that's part of it, it's that there are zero pictures of them from anyone at any time, not even construction trucks or dumpsters. And also the story of her watching lawn bowling from her upper window when that clearly would be impossible, even with binoculars.
"KitKatKisses, I’m right there with you. Having had 3 all different sizes, I KNOW what is possible and what is NOT! Yoga or no yoga:
I wholeheartedly agree with you two.. I am not at all inclined to subscribe to conspiracy theories but any rational person should be allowed the freedom of thought to use their personal experiences, observations, facts, and perception to deduce a reasonable conclusion (that's called ' to Reason').,
I had three very different pregnancies and gave birth to a 6lb8oz to 8lb14oz baby. I was thin. very fit, athletic (limber) and age 34 with my last one but I distinctly remember not being able to squat and pop back up like Meghan did. Also, my belly never shook like jello nor changed size.
T believe a surrogate provides the most reasonable explanation for All the strangeness and secrecy ad infinitum that exists with Megs so-called pregnancy and perhaps the BRF attitude/actions.
Not in order, but some random thoughts:
1. For an overdue baby, Archie was small, very small. It is possible that Megsy announced her pregnancy at a very early stage, lied about the due date throughout the pregnancy, and arched her back and pushed out her tummy to emphasise a bump that was not there at an early stage.
2. Photographs and videos can be very misleading. That day when her belly wobbled? She was wearing a dress with slinky fabric and it could have been the fabric rippling and making it look like a wobbly belly. However, there are quite a few photographs that show an odd-shaped belly, funny lumps and so on, and more than one photograph at the same occasion shows the same things so it is not an optical illusion. Was she using padding? What the photos show is clearly odd.
3. The squatting in stiletto heels, with legs together, while supposedly heavily pregnant is also rather odd. If she has been doing yoga since an early age, she probably has a lot of muscle strength (a couple of yoga practitioners have confirmed this), but when she squats and bends forward, where does the belly go? A pregnant belly is not like rolls of fat that can be squashed.
4. There are many photos of Harry holding children in a normal way, yet him and Megsy hold Archie in a very strange way ... squashed up against the chest. Their interaction with him in South Africa when visiting Arch Tutu was awkward (new parents can be awkward but they had more than 4 months to get used to the baby). They individually and as a couple seem to leave baby at home quite happily and for the flimsiest of reasons. If Megsy is a narc, then she is behaving in a typical fashion, but there are plenty of photos showing how Harry loves children. Maybe he has clinical depression and/or is dominated and controlled by Megsy who makes him feel uncertain by insisting he holds the baby in that awkward way.
5. Megsy does not seem to know how old Archie is. In terms of development, the baby seen in South Africa and the baby Megsy has talked about this month seems to be a month older then his supposed age. I suppose not all babies develop in the same way in the same time frame.
The drama around the birth and christening are typical narc behaviour from my personal experience (it's all about control and domination, even if what the narc says and does or instructs you to say and do makes no sense whatsoever). Harry was probably feeling belligerent after months of Megsy fuming about press coverage of her and winding him up.
Completely agree. I tend to and prefer to watch rather than comment online about her. I do discuss her with some friends and family.
I too would rather not have a republic, but Harry, Meghan and Andrew are doing wonders for it. The Queen knows only too well without public support and apathy along side, they cease to be. The nearest I know of how unpopular the Royals were, was at the time of Princess Diana’s death. I think they are in worse shape at the moment, it’s even worse in a sense, because we have a far reaching and larger audience watching them as well. I do wonder what will happen when the Queen passes.....if we get that far.
I’m recording it, to watch in bite sized pieces.
Maybe 'official' royal PR isn't as smart as we might have thought.
Or words to that effect. Not enough 'ughs' in the world for this.
>>>@ Raspberry Ruffle - quite. All they had to do was a minute at the hospital (I still think that is preferable to just a notice given how little public trust there is in Meghan) and a minute outside the christening, just as William and Kate have done for their three. This would have avoided endless palaver, but of course Meghan likes the endless palaver. Any attention is good. Totally misses the dark undertones. Our 21st century Marie Antoinette.<<<
I know there is a minority contingent here who is of the opinion that Meghan and Harry had a natural pregnancy and delivery at the Portland Hospital and a completely normal, if low-key christening at Windsor a couple of months later, presided over by Archbishop Welby.
I cannot subscribe to this wholesome, normal view for a variety of reasons, but I sincerely wish I could. If things were completely normal in every respect with this pregnancy, birth, christening and the Sussexes' current family life with a six-month old infant, I feel certain we would be seeing a lot more images of this baby and his parents with him.
Meg certainly enjoyed flaunting herself in the limelight during her alleged pregnancy, rocking the extra-large bellies and super-tight knitwear whenever possible just to highlight her blessed condition. Pregnancy is indeed a blessed condition, but in my experience most women do not actively desire to appear *much larger* than they are at any time, pregnant or not, and if they are able, will dress in the most flattering manner possible. Meghan went out of her way from the very announcement of her pregnancy to showcase how blooming she was, often in defiance of normal gestational stages. So there's that.
The daily/hourly announcements from the Sussex camp about desiring rigorous privacy for their child, cautioning the public not to expect the normal complement of photo ops for birthdays and such with this baby AND furthermore announcing that they did not desire a title for their child but wanted him to be raised entirely as a 'private citizen' came very late, after Meghan had already disappeared from public view. The shambolic changing birth plans (home birth with a doula! No Palace doctors! No hospital! No postpartum pictures with the newborn/indefinite period of 'bonding as a family') did not start inundating the public until well into April, scant weeks before Meg's alleged due date.
This leads a reasonable person to ask . . . why would a couple who has had the better part of nine months to discuss how they are going to handle the delivery/presentation of their baby wait until the 11th hour to make these announcements, particularly since Meg was opting to buck Royal tradition in every particular? Refusing attendance by the Royal doctors seems quite irresponsible when one is a first time mum in the late 30s with a high risk pregnancy and a foreigner in the country without a support network besides. Meg was of course free to choose her own doctors, but if she had any doctors attending her, they are keeping their identities well secret--also not standard practice for Royal births. This last-minute flurry of contradictory statements surrounding their birth intentions gives credence to the probability that they had no idea when the actual baby would arrive. This is why Meg's pregnancy went on so very late and was a complete circus at the end stage.
Since Meg was not known prior to her delivery for every refusing a photo opportunity, particularly if she feels she can monetize it and also show up the Duchess of Cambridge, I feel there were other factors besides 'privacy' at play here. Like, they couldn't very well publicize when Meg went into labor or at what hospital if she weren't actually pregnant herself. If they were not sure when they were getting a baby, nor could they pose on the steps outside any hospital with a baby who was not a newborn and where the Duchess had not actually been a patient.
e.
I can only think that security concerns are the primary motivator for forcing Royal mums home the same day they give birth. If we take Meg's hospital story at face value, she was really pushing the envelope. Perhaps she was eager to get home to her floating yoga floor and do some postpartum yoga (AMA) just to prove she could.
Yeah, I am skeptical about this whole scenario. I believe if being parents had been the Sussexes' primary goal--loving a child, making a family, they could have been honest about a surrogacy, even if it meant that their child could not be officially given a title. All the obfuscation about Archie just makes it seem like there is a shameful secret here that is being hidden for material gain. There's no way they have full-time and loving custody of this child based on what we have been able to see so far.
If this is not true and the Sussexes have nothing untoward about their parenting, they could change the narrative in their favor by being more open with images of Archi
I agree. Plus, it's an awful lot of fuss for an awful lot of very high ranking people to put themselves into, for the mere untitled 7th in line. A massive conspiracy theory would be fun, but I believe that what we're actually dealing with is a massively egotistical individual who isn't half as clever as she thinks she is.
Re: the Harry Markle blog, I totally agree with what you said about it suffering from one voice & becoming a bit angry lately. I am curious what’s going on there. I first noticed it when she made an aside comment about Trump in a recent post. It surprised me because many supporters of the RF are conservative, and expressing personal political viewpoints risks alienating a chunk of the audience. Ever since then the posts seem bogged down by detail, and some of the joy has gone out of it. Watching the Meghan & Harry show is a bit like a hate watch - it’s just so delicious to dislike her, and she’s the gift that keeps on giving. It’s fun.
I’m often curious how close some of you bloggers are to the principals in this. I know we’ll never really know, but it’s fun to think that some of you have an inside track. Like @EmeraldCity or Celt News. Or maybe you’re really Richard Palmer ;). So seeing Harry Markle get to be kind of a downer makes me wonder what’s really going on. I hope she’s ok.
This feels more like a terminal decline. A slow erosion of public trust. Maybe it's partly inevitable because we're at the tail-end of the longest reign in our history. People were unhappy about Elizabeth I at the same stage, whatever films may show. The Queen must be using all her energies to do her normal duties, never mind Meghan and Andrew. And as others have said, if Prince Philip was still on the scene things would be very different. They're both too tired and Prince Charles is too weak and self-involved.
There's some interesting insights into Harry in Christopher Anderson's book 'William and Kate'. How Charles effectively left the parenting of Harry to William in the early years following Diana's death, as he was so absorbed by rebuilding his reputation and public acceptance of Camilla. Then, when William went to university - at the other end of the country let's remember - Harry was just left to go to the devil.
The book also makes clear how intellectually limited Harry is, even by royal standards. Meghan's probably the only person he's ever known who looks at him with such starry-eyed admiration. The fact that we saw her turn it on like a tap for a random person recently will have eluded him. How short-sighted it was of the BRF to leave him at a loose end both before and after the army. He's the only one out of the whole BRF who would fall prey to someone like Meghan.
- Archie never stirred during the photo call, even though he was only a 2 day old baby. What are the chances that he would be sound asleep at that time? Newborns stretch, wiggle, open their mouths, flop their heads around...
- Harry appeared to be holding Archie first close to him and then jostling him as if to make Archie move. MM was unusually tense and actually appeared afraid during the conference, as if she didn't trust Harry to say the right thing. She actually appears afraid to me. If they were in fact using a doll, her fear makes sense. Even for her, that's a big con.
- MM stroked Archie's head, a no-no as newborns are not to have their heads rubbed. When rewatching the clip, it is almost as if she is trying to block the camera's view of him. Her dress appears tight and very uncomfortable in the chest area for a mom 2 days postpartum (never mind that it is completely WHITE).
- The 2 of them couldn't hightail it out of there fast enough. Throughout the press conference it seemed they jostled Archie away from the camera and tried to obstruct his face as much as possible. These are just not the actions of proud new parents. I think H&M had no intentions of presenting him this way. They were going to stick with the F-U to tradition and wait and show him for his "christening" or not at all. This is where MM didn't think it through. Of course the public wanted to see the baby after the very public pregnancy. But she can't imagine that someone else is the center of interest or attention, so maybe it didn't occur to her that she'd have to follow through with an actual baby.
- H&M weren't going to present "Archie" but were convinced they had to once the negative PR rolled in. MM probably talked Harry into it. Maybe they decided they could get by with a quick press conference as long as the camera didn't get TOO close. Or perhaps they planned on having the actual baby there but something prevented this. Because if the plan was always to just introduce him a few days after the birth, why did they balk so much and carry on about wanting privacy to celebrate as a family first?
Not smart or bright, we’ve both heard today how it’s seen as the worse possible move by him, and that he’s made things far worse by this interview. Still what can we possibly expect from this pompous and arrogant man? Have you read Fergie’s response about him? Nothing less than I expected there either.
Scroll up and you’ll see a discussion about the short hospital stay. Catherine gave birth to two of her children and was home the same day. Meghan’s was very much the same in that respect, but only in that respect. It’s the norm for most UK Mum’s.
Bottom line, absolutely none of us here can prove one way or another that she had a baby. The trouble with Meghan is that she has no axiopisty. But that doesn't forstall her from asserting things; any idiot can say and pretend things. Just because the BRF lets her do it does not prove anything. If anything I believe they are letting her make a fool of herself and do not want to embarrass Harry (he has enough trouble without public humiliation from his family).
My question is this: are the crowds booing Andrew as he goes about his duties?
My second question is: WTAF?
My third question is: why the incredible glut of brain dead amoral zombies in our collective leadership? Ugh
Bring back 'never complain, never explain'. I really do feel that if Philip were even 10 years younger, none of this would be going on. Not the sundry shenanigans from the Harkles - I bet Philip would have found a way to stop the marriage even happening - or Andrew's total arrogance and lack of self awareness. Face palm. And then some.
I agree, though I think it’s down to a few different factors amalgamating and enabling the slow and terminal decline. In the late 1960s the British public knew very little about the private lives of the Windsor’s and what went on behind the scenes. Slowly and steadily, and mostly to do with the lack of deference by the press, we’ve been privy to their private lives etc, we know more now than we ever did. You know what they say, familiarity breeds contempt!
I do agree with your other comments and points overall as well, I’ve read Christopher Anderson’s a few years back.
Also, if you check Pinterest there are LOADS of informal photo's of Kate & William going back years. I was amazed at a lot of them because i'd never seen them before. Media here in UK have an agreement not to print photo's of Royal's "off duty" or with their kids etc, well for the most part anyway. Pinterest has loads including pics of George & Charlotte with Kate walking in the park beside Kensington Palace or the children with their Nanny, Maria (Police Protection Officer discreetly nearby) & they're not being bothered at all, the photo's aren't taken too close so Kate, Kids etc are not even aware they've been "papped" (or photographed by member's of the public).
You'd think there would be SOME candid photo's of Harry & Meg, anywhere in London, but i've not seen any, only official photo's at their official engagements. I suppose UK journalist's & paparazzi either aren't interested 😏 or have been warned off by SOMEONE, or there are photo's but they're being held back for some reason (?) No idea why, it's confusing - to me anyway lol.
Great comments from everyone again, I do like to read through them after all Nutty's Posts 😊👍
As we didn’t see any photos of Meghan leaving the hospital (or arriving home), it’s anyone’s guess how long she was a actually there for.
It’s way over my bedtime here, gone midnight!
In the Us Weekly article, MM is described as upset that Kate won't do photo-ops with her. If true, Kate knows better and GOOD GRIEF why would she want to, given all of the negative press she has suffered since MM came to the family. I won't even mention the Rose rumor. But the article also describes H&M as "bulldozers" and goes as far to say MM loves attention (we know).
The article mentions the story about MM making Kate cry over Charlotte's flower girl dress, and Amanda Sanders is quoted as saying Meghan "needs to adapt." Is this the bullying she is talking about? Will she go after Us Weekly the way she did MoS?
Just about H&M who I agree pale into insignificance at the moment (who says Prince Andrew can't be useful?) - there's a new article in the Telegraph (pay wall) saying people are urging them to slow down during their break. I'm sure they are. Do nothing is what's hoped for. But one quote really raised my hackles:
>>>>>. A source close to the couple said it was “plain for all to see” that the Duchess had been a victim of a media campaign to “try to destroy her”.
They added: "But this is so much bigger than just that - this manipulation of the British public is endemic amongst our tabloid media and it’s great to see so much support for both Meghan and Harry as they try to change it for the better.
"I think she richly deserves some actual maternity leave and the chance to be with her mother for Christmas, for the first time in a few years.”
The source added that they desperately hoped the couple would be left alone during their break and that their return might herald a change in the way they are treated >>>>>>
It's the "manipulation of the British public" that's so totally infuriating. As if we're incapable of reaching our own judgements after seeing them on our screens or even real life for the unfortunate few. Their actual behaviour. In front of our eyes. And of course we all know it's the readers' comments they want to shut down. The press are kind in comparison. If she could she'd serve every critical member of the public with a summons.
The final sentence of the extract shows they still think the only change that needs to take place is in us, not them. They're past all redemption. Like Andrew. The scale of the charges is far more trivial but the public are showing signs of lumping them all together in a monarchy past its sell-by date.
What bothers me the most is that he expressed no concern for the victims. Also that he said he had acted in a way that was 'unbecoming' and not up to the standards of the BRF (cue mass coffee/wine splutterings). As if it would be more understandable in ordinary folk. He'd be no different if he was living in 1819 or even 1719. A real lesson in the deformative effects of being born into our royal family.
Also, what does this tell us about the Queen's judgement? She continues to allow him prominence in public events such as the remembrance services. He continues to share her car to church on Sunday when we all know that is used as an important sign of her favour, and yesterday she gave the go-ahead for the BBC interview. I don't approve of public witch hunts, but we need him to keep a low profile and focus on assisting the authorities.
In addition to the mother, the baby needs medical attention in the first hours of life. It is also a 47 minute ride from the hospital to Windsor according to Google maps. I’m from the US so I can’t speak to traffic or road conditions in the U.K., but I can speak to the fact that an hour long car ride would’ve been most uncomfortable within hours of giving birth. None of the timeframe in giving birth to AHMB makes sense, including his presentation to the press.
While I fully believe MM had a surrogate who had the baby prior to May 6, I also believe christening Archie and SA Archie are the same baby. It’s his left eye turning inwards that gives it away. I don’t believe they have anywhere close to full custody though. The way she was awkwardly holding him at the polo match and then again in SA made me realize she spends very little time with him.
>In addition to my above post, I have watched the films again from the Tutu meeting and I just cannot believe that Archie is only 4 months old. Maybe Archie is 4 months, but the baby that met Tutu was attempting to stand and looked to be more like 6 or 7 months to me.<
Yes, it is ludicrous to believe that Archie was exceeding the typical milestones for an alleged 4 1/2-month-old baby, from anywhere over a month, but more like 2, 3 and even a whopping 4 months. Such as holding it's head very steady and unsupported sitting up. Turning its head toward someone talking and looking in the direction of a person it fixated its eyes on. Turning to reach out and grasp objects. Sleeping 11 hours straight (per Meg).
If it was just Megs telling us these milestones were achieved we could be skeptical but we have direct evidence of the child's abilities thanks to the video documenting the Tutu visit. So naysayers can't dismiss these items as a vast conspiracy as milestones have been documented/standardized by scientific observations of innumerable babies.
Lastly, more subjective but convincing nonetheless, is how mature and large Archie looked (in SA) according to how old he was supposed to be (and compared to his christening photo just 2 months earlier). And Archie wasn't a big baby at birth.
Sadly, many so-called conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Jimmy Saville, the Hillsbourgh disaster, Cyril Smith just to name a few.
As for the theory of The pregnancy being fake, well there is ample evidence for that. Not absolute proof but a lot of very suspicious goings on.
The 'preganacy' was so odd - from beginning to end. My theory is going towards surragacy. I didn't pay much notice until after the birth. The interview of H holding the baby seemed strange and I couldn't put my finger on why. Now months later I've slowly am siding with the pregnancy being fake.
My other theory is that MM is going to use Archie as a pawn in the separation/divorce. Also whenever the Sussex Foundation is finally set up Archie will be used. Now, I think SS or her backers are probably telling MM to not use Archie. I doubt if Hapless Harry has any say in the matter.
10 lb birth maybe but not 7
No actual pregnant belly goes through the weird changes in shape and size hers did, on a literally minute-to-minute basis. No third-trimester pregnant woman I've ever seen is capable of balancing in four-inch stilettos as she strides around, squatting down, and getting back up without help.
When you add in all of the "birth day" and christening shenanigans, the almost lifelike pinkish thing Harry held during the two-minute show and tell (in which the photographer asked, "Can I get a photo of his face?" and Harry moved part of the blanket one inch for approximately two seconds), the limp, silent body that was toted around the polo field for hours, and the amazingly gifted and advanced baby born to two not-bright people, I can only surmise that Something Is Rotten In the State of Windsor.
I will be honest. I have never liked Meghan. I had no clue who she was until the rumors started that they were dating, and I read something about it in Go Fug Me in which she and her PR peeps were quite coy, in a teeth-grinding way. That turned me off of her right there. Then her behavior during the engagement interview was cringe-worthy, and her bad behavior continued through the engagement (making Catherine cry, the tiara debacle <"What Meghan wants, Meghan gets." Oh, shut it, Harry>).
Her behavior and attitude became increasingly obnoxious after the wedding, and then when the twat smugly showed up to Eugenie's wedding in that outfit she KNEW would make tongues wag, and proceeded to announce her pregnancy at HER HUSBAND'S COUSIN'S WEDDING, that's when I began to actively loathe her. And it's just gotten worse since then.
She is a boil on the butt of the royal family and needs to be excised. Then they need to get Harry help -- rehab, psychiatric care, therapy, whatever he needs. As for the Baby Known As Archie, if he does actually live with H&M, the family needs to get a couple of nannies from the place Catherine gets hers and keep him far away from his toxic parents. Maybe William and Catherine will take him in. Their kids seem happy and normal. And as if they actually know their parents.
Of course, I have no idea what is REALLY going on within the family. These are just my impressions and ideas. And sadly, I haven't received any texts from Liz asking for my thoughts.
Harry and Meghan look uncomfortable and ill at ease when holding and being around Archie. By the time they hit S.A., you might have expected more finesse and a more natural way with him. Meghan didn’t hold him any differently from where we saw her at the polo match. I suspect a nanny or two is doing most of the work, but in the past Harry came across with being at ease with children, but he doesn’t present himself that way with his own son very much, not what we’ve seen to date anyhow.
Meghan is extremely competitive, I think this is why she keeps coming out with these titbits about Archie and his development, she wants a super-baby.
@Ava C, ‘Andrew telling Epstein in person about ending the friendship ... what's getting people is that he took 4 days to do it. Apparently his resources couldn't stretch to a hotel either.’
Truly unbelievable. He could have told him over the phone, let alone a 4 day stay.
Oh well. Anyone fancy a Margharita at Pizza Express in Woking? I bet they'll be busy today!
It’s a whole different kind of pizza, the type that gives you brain fog. No doubt Harry will take a trip there soon, so when asked in the future about his and Meghan’s shenanigans he can come with some similar responses.
2001 isn't that long ago - surely some staff from the Pizza Express in Woking would remember if they served Prince Andrew and his daughter? I doubt royal birthday parties are an everyday occurance in Woking. And we also have the exact date it supposedly happened - 10th March 2001. If nobody comes forward to confirm Andy's account, my guess is it's a big fat lie.
Yes, wonderful, magical pizza. And taking a look at Andy's waistline, it's a fair guess that he indulges in said pizza a little too often.
I couldn't watch the PA interview, he makes me nauseous. But my son did and he said he could the interviewer audibly sighing with disbelief at what the fool was saying. And then, she had to say, "Thank you your Royal Highness". That must have been difficult.
@IEschew 5:21.I hope the allegations that her team fed the media inaccurate stories is exposed. That would be so much fun.
@drabredcarpet. Yes, indeed. How does the monarchy hold on after all of this? Times have changed since Diana. I think the masses are less tolerant and fed up.
Emily Maitlis, the interviewer, confirmed the Queen signed off on the interview the day before it was shown (so Friday). Apparently the interview was recorded on Thursday. I can maybe understand the Queen agreeing to it before it had happened, but not if she'd been able to watch it first. How could anyone in the BRF watch that and think it was OK to release it?
I loved the quiet but deadly interviewing style. Much more effective. A more confrontational approach risks arousing sympathy or indignation from never-say-die royalists.
There's a little comment online this morning that Beatrice wanted a well-known female designer to do her wedding dress but was gently refused as it wouldn't be good optics for the brand. Eugenie looked downbeaten when snapped at an airport too. Those poor girls. Just when I thought they could start building formal roles in the BRF as H&M were too problematic.
I agree with you - although I am not normally a big fan of Emily Maitlis I thought she did really well with this slimeball. Her 'Unbecoming? He was a sex offender!" response will go down in history, and not in a good way for the royals.
As for the queen, I really don't think she's up to it anymore. Neither is Philip, who has always been the real force of personality in the royal family. Sad but true. Charles is weak and although William does seem to have a stronger personality, as yet he doesn't have the rank to really impose himself. So there is no really forceful individual running the show chez House of Windsor. I think that explains so much of the mess we've been seeing recently. Though mind you, the same queen and Philip were responsible for a lot of the Diana fiasco, and they were much younger then. Just goes to show what a ridiculous system hereditary monarchy really is.
Airmiles Andy said he could not possibly have had sex with Virginia Roberts on 10th March 2001 as she claimed becuase he distinctly remembers that that was the day he took his daughter for a birthday party at Pizza Express in Woking!
Yes I beleive Lord Geidt retired or was pushed out 4 or 5 months ago.
As for Andy..... it may have been suprem arrogance that led him to believe the plebs would swallow this. Alternatively, some are suggesting that there may be worse stuff to come out and he's trying to anticipate it by getting his 'side' of the story across, so to speak. I also wonder if Clinton's visit to William was entirely coincidental, given that it took place just a few days before the interview was recorded?
He said he suffered from the condition that stops him sweating. Sounds preposterous, but I read that the Queen has the same problem, which makes her visits to hot climates dangerous, as she could overheat quickly. Her stuff had to watch her all the time. He may have inherited this condition from his mother and it was triggered by stress during his Falklands campaign. So I don't think he lies on this particular account.
I don't like him, his behavior is appalling, his sense of impunity and entitlement brought this disaster upon him but he may be telling at least some truths.
Not good enough. Not near.
What isn't in any doubt is that he continued consorting with a convicted sex offender after he had spent time in prison for his crimes. An action he shrugs off as merely 'unbecoming'. And expressed not one single word of sympathy for all of his 'friend's' many, many young victims.
He needs to be withdrawn from public life without delay. At the very least.
If Prince Andrew thinks he's drawn a line in the sand over the Epstein saga he's in cuckoo land. Whomever advised he did this interview ought to collect his/her P45.
If the old school of private advisers think it’s bad...it’s truly is shocking.
If the royal family have any sense of understanding how people feel and think now, they’ll pack him off somewhere far off to graze. No more public engagements etc. I think it’s a matter of moral obligation for the family now. I’m not holding my breath though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7694537/Actor-Laurence-Fox-slams-stars-wore-revealing-black-dresses-support-Times-campaign.html
Airmiles Andy said he could not possibly have had sex with Virginia Roberts on 10th March 2001 as she claimed becuase he distinctly remembers that that was the day he took his daughter for a birthday party at Pizza Express in Woking!
November 17, 2019 at 3:38 AM
I doubt that anybody would remember a particular day 19+ years ago. However, they (royals) seem to do everything by diaries and schedules where every engagement has to be written down and checked to see if it interferes with a previously scheduled event and, if so, what can be rescheduled. I do not think that they simply discard them, like me pencilling in an event on the calendar on the refrigerator. It would simply be a matter of looking back to see what he had scheduled on that event, and see the daughter's birthday celebration.
If somebody asked me where I was in March 2001, I'd not even be able to tell you in which state I was in or which job I was on (but I can tell you that I was at a feed store in Georgia when the first plane hit the world trade center, who told me, and how the conversation involved wondering why they let private planes fly around those big buildings because we thought it had to be an accident).
As for me, I got back to the office in time to see the second plane hit, knew it was war, called the crews in the field and told them to turn on their truck radios and decide for themselves whether to work or go home because truly we didn't know what would come next. Now, if I had kept my construction schedules instead of burning them after 10 years to keep from being buried in a paper mountain, I'd be able to tell you exactly where I was and the time spent there on any particular day.
Remember that Virginia Rogers has been found to be not credible in the past.
He is so used to women hanging themselves on him (I saw this happening) that he really doesn't care to remember them or wonder what age they were. Just takes them for granted and believes they should be grateful to him for having sex with his royal highness. He is a horrible selfish individual living according to his own "moral code" where sex trafficker deserves more honor than his victims. But I accept he may have told some truths during the interview.
I'm not cutting Prince Andrew any slack mind. Talk about floundering.
Trump is quoted as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy."
And, finally the 13-year old who initially brought charges against Trump for raping her said it occurred at the Epstein mansion in New York. Trump's behavior at the Miss Teen Pageant was beyond inappropriate, walking into the dressing room to ogle at half dressed teenagers. These two men have history, and for my money, it's pretty unsavory. Trump has a history of walking away from people he feels will harm him. How many times have we heard him say in the past year, "I don't know the guy. Never met him." And then we see photo after photo after photo of Trump with his arm around this person's shoulder. And, in fact, if you do a cursory Google search you will see a lovely photo of Trump, Melania, Epstein, and Ghislane Maxwell all looking as pleased as punch, smiling broadly into the camera. In 2018 Julie Brown, the reporter who revived the Epstein case won the prestigious George Polk Award for her reporting on Epstein.
To put this in the context of Andrew, I'm sure he thought, well, everyone else has gotten away with closely associating with Jeff, why not me? Clinton, George Mitchell, and a host of other U.S. politicians are listed on the flight logs. I suppose Epstein's "death" closed the possibility of determining the truth about those flights and what happened on that island. I feel for these women.