Earlier this year, in response to a blind item on Crazy Days and Nights, I predicted that Duchess Meghan would be out of the Royal Family by the end of the year. This prediction was received with a great deal of mockery - you're delusional! you're a racist!, etc.
Now it is December 31. Was I correct? It's hard to tell.
"Family in the US" would presumably be Meg's mother in California, since she has cut off everyone else.
But there's no evidence that Doria ever spent time with the Sussexes during the period, or that the Sussexes were in California at all.
Locals supposedly saw Harry hiking nearby; a local restaurant claimed to have denied the Sussexes a reservation because their security team would have been too disruptive. In fact, one account suggested that the compound had been putting up additional security fencing as early as December 19, roughly two weeks ago.
Here's the thing: do Meg and Harry really need that much security, particularly since nobody supposedly knew where they were?
When Boris Johnson and his latest squeeze can fly economy class on their Christmas holidays, and wealthy megacelebrities like Paul McCartney can stand in line with his wife to buy tickets to a movie (something a friend of mine experienced; Paul turned down offers to let him skip ahead), how much security do the sixth and perhaps the seventh in line to the throne really need?
One of the best security tactics is surprise; if no one knows Duchess Kate is going to be in a particular Waitrose at a particular time, she can pop in with a single bodyguard and do her shopping, as long as she doesn't dilly-dally.
It's hard to believe that Meg and Harry in an unexpected location would need extensive security planning, although they might think they do. As Enty often says, the more insecure and status-obsessed the celebrity, the bigger the entourage.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced they were ever in Canada. The evidence is all second-hand, and there have been no smartphone photos from ordinary polite Canadians (or boorish tourists.)
Now it is December 31. Was I correct? It's hard to tell.
The visit to California
Meghan is clearly not in the UK at writing, although it is difficult to puzzle out where she is and who she is with. Originally, the "six week break", now in its seventh week and counting, was supposed to give Meg and Harry a chance to relax and reconnect with family in the US."Family in the US" would presumably be Meg's mother in California, since she has cut off everyone else.
But there's no evidence that Doria ever spent time with the Sussexes during the period, or that the Sussexes were in California at all.
The Canada stay
Several items have been leaked suggesting that the Sussexes are staying at a private compound near Vancouver, Canada.Locals supposedly saw Harry hiking nearby; a local restaurant claimed to have denied the Sussexes a reservation because their security team would have been too disruptive. In fact, one account suggested that the compound had been putting up additional security fencing as early as December 19, roughly two weeks ago.
Here's the thing: do Meg and Harry really need that much security, particularly since nobody supposedly knew where they were?
When Boris Johnson and his latest squeeze can fly economy class on their Christmas holidays, and wealthy megacelebrities like Paul McCartney can stand in line with his wife to buy tickets to a movie (something a friend of mine experienced; Paul turned down offers to let him skip ahead), how much security do the sixth and perhaps the seventh in line to the throne really need?
One of the best security tactics is surprise; if no one knows Duchess Kate is going to be in a particular Waitrose at a particular time, she can pop in with a single bodyguard and do her shopping, as long as she doesn't dilly-dally.
It's hard to believe that Meg and Harry in an unexpected location would need extensive security planning, although they might think they do. As Enty often says, the more insecure and status-obsessed the celebrity, the bigger the entourage.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced they were ever in Canada. The evidence is all second-hand, and there have been no smartphone photos from ordinary polite Canadians (or boorish tourists.)
Unconfirmed rumors
Ann, a regular poster on CDAN, suggested the other day that Harry was in a combined rehab/mental health facility in the UK. Meg was in North America by herself, she said.
To quote Ann: I'm hearing the Harkle divorce is in process. Markle got herself thrown out of the BRF in record time. Harry's in inpatient treatment in England. The BRF have custody of Archie. The DNA test didn't lie. Unfortunately Markle did and her settlement is going to be considerably much less since Archie isn't Harry's biological son. The whole sad tale should be over sometime in the second quarter of 2020.
(The inpatient treatment was) originally for treating his depression but they discovered he had developed some addiction issues trying to medicate his depression. I'm glad he's getting some help.
This is the very definition of an unconfirmed rumor, but it fits the British Royal Family's proven pattern of never leaving one of its own behind on the battlefield. (See: Prince Andrew.)
It would also explain the ludicrous photoshopped Christmas card, and the lack of other Sussex material during November and December.
And the timing - the second quarter of 2020 - would allow the BRF to say that the marriage lasted for two full years, making the extravagant Sussex wedding look slightly less silly.
It may just be a guess, but it's an interesting guess.
And the timing - the second quarter of 2020 - would allow the BRF to say that the marriage lasted for two full years, making the extravagant Sussex wedding look slightly less silly.
It may just be a guess, but it's an interesting guess.
No respect from the press
Finally, the lack of respect the British press is showing for the Harkles is notable. An article in the Telegraph, often nicknamed "The Palacegraph" because it is used as an outlet for the Royal family and its courtiers, said earlier this week
While for a time it seemed that the idea of Harry and Meghan joining forces with William and Kate as the “fab four” was one of the most positive royal PR stories of the last ten years, we start the new decade with the two couples running two separate courts, the Cambridges’ conventionally Royal, the Sussexes’ increasingly like a Hollywood entourage.
The way they have conducted themselves since their marriage, and the birth of their son earlier this year, has caused considerable consternation among courtiers. The decision to absent themselves from some family gatherings and the secrecy that surrounded their son’s christening, have gone down badly among sticklers for protocol.
The Sussexes have attracted public criticism given they receive money from the Sovereign Grant and are, as such, effectively public servants. Some courtiers fully expect the Duchess to want to go to live in California, not least because she apparently complains about the weather and other aspects of life in Britain; and it is assumed that if she went, her husband and child would go with her.
Emphasis mine. Anyway, that doesn't sound like a Royal Family that is looking to make nice or include the Duchess in its activities in the future, or one that is encouraging the press to show her respect.
Meghan's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday is still in progress - suggesting that she won't get the generous settlement she was hoping for - and its sister publication the Daily Mail is being hard on Meghan as well.
It openly suggested that the Sussex Christmas card was a fake, and then mocked her branding exercise, in which Sussex Royal applied for copyright on "more than 100 items, from teaching materials and emotional support groups to clothing and even newspapers."
The DM didn't seem too worried about the possible competition from Meg.
At any rate, the UK newspapers that play a game of be-nice-so-you-can-get-access with the Royal Family now seem to understand that they are no longer required to be nice to Meghan.
We will punish your family
In an earlier blog post, I mentioned that a harsh story in the New York Post about the high administrative costs of the Royals' charities ("Why Americans are wasting their money donating to British Royal charities") was probably retaliation for Prince Harry's lawsuit against its sister paper The Sun.
Murdoch and his team were saying: get Harry to drop the lawsuit, or we will go after the rest of the Royal Family.
The Mail seems to be playing the same game. It ran an extremely unflattering story about the Queen this week, suggesting that she encouraged the UK government not to close an immigration loophole since it might affect her access to horse groomers.
Today there was another unflattering story about how the Queen wants to build a massive storehouse for her art collection in Windsor, but that the local council was opposed because of the risk of flooding.
Both stories made the monarch look arrogant and self-serving, and both could have easily been sent to the circular file in a time when relations between the Royals and the media were more friendly.
The Mail would like to see the lawsuit targeting its organization dropped as well.
Is Meghan finished in the Royal Family?
To return to the initial question: is Meghan finished in the Royal Family?
The indications are strong that she has not only burned off any goodwill she may have had with the British public, but that the chaos she has created is (along with the Andrew scandal) damaging the popularity of the entire Royal Family.
I think her days are numbered. I wonder if she will ever return to Britain at all.
Comments
Has anyone else noticed how Harry is holding Archie? Normal is what it is. Let's hope he has asserted some kind of authority and put a stop to holding him in that weird way they did (hanging there against the chest with face pushed into chest)!
I still have not seen a photograph where Archie is engaging with either of his parents, but maybe he is too young for that.
Millicent Pfeiffenheimer
I don’t believe the divorce rumors, honestly. I think Harry is still firmly in thrall, though it’s beginning to look increasingly like he’s the only one who is and the rest of them aren’t even really trying to hide it any longer. I also believe they are all in Canada together (Meg can’t afford to let her meal ticket(s) out of her sight for that long) and that they themselves leaked their location when it had been weeks of no one in the press really looking for them and Meg’s rehashed Insta posts celebrating the anniversary of her visiting one of her charities for 45 minutes weren't holding up against the multiple new outings and fresh pics of the Cambridge kids. Part of me thinks this time of them figuring things out is really them just crunching numbers and trying to decide if they can make enough from their various money schemes to tell the BRF to piss off. I wonder if the sudden re-emergence (hellooooooo, we’re in Canada! Hellooooo?) means they’ve decided they don’t have quite the nest egg they need. What if they actually had to pay for their own house and security? HORROR! I think the big battle of 2020 will be between the Sussexes and the BRF as the Sussexes continue to push the boundaries of what the BRF will put up with. For all the “Charles has balls now!” Stories that came out around the time he kicked Andrew to the curb, I honestly don’t think anyone when pressed really believes he has the heart to do the same to one of his own sons. Certainly Meghan and Harry don’t believe it, which is basically what this entire last year has been about.
December 30, 2019 at 8:05 PM
Completely agree with Millicent.
Felicia
Forgive me if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but it seems people are missing the bombshell in Torontopaper1’s latest Tweet.
TP is stating in a cheeky and careful way (which I think caused most people to miss the meaning) that Farklepants at one point during her escorting years was the type of prostitute who would happily engage in “golden showers.” Which totally make sense because Kim Kardashian has always been her idol, and Kim only got famous because of a porn tape her mother aggressively marketed during which Kim receives a golden shower from the rapper she is having sex with in the video. This lewd act became popular after Kim’s video sold a gazillion copies, and more and more prostitutes were being asked to do them. Many had too much pride to shame themselves and degrade themselves that way, but wealthy men, especially many Middle Eastern men, were requesting this and paying extra money for it.
Farklepants was also said by CDAN to have been originally wanting to get on a UK reality show ( she wanted this even more than Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, which she was rejected for.) Obscenely wealthy Middle Eastern men literally “shop” for women from watching UK reality shows. The women sometimes have to agree to become “Dubai porta potties” like poor Lindsay Lohan to make the big bucks, but some are lucky enough to be set up as mistresses. This is what Farklepants was ultimately aspiring to. Plans changed along the way when she thought she could be more “legit” marrying Harry but implement a Kardashian marching strategy while with Harry.
She’s not too smart, thinking that that would work.
Torontopaper hints at photos and/or video evidence of her golden shower days.
Stay tuned!
December 31, 2019 at 7:13 AM
Perhaps that's Meghan's secret weapon to keep Harry entertained in the bedroom...
(Personally, I can't think of a more degrading sex act than having someone else pee/poop (or vomit) on you for their gratification, especially when it's a man who clearly takes great pleasure from it because he thinks you're less than human)
I do believe she speaks Spanish and French. Canadians speak French and English. I also saw her on a late night show speaking Spanish. Jimmy Kimmel I think. Never heard anything about German. However, after she got engaged she said she was trying to learn Italian.
December 31, 2019 at 10:27 AM
After which of her three known engagements was this?
MM can probably manage the basics in Spanish but I doubt she's proficient (let alone fluent) in French. She can barely manage to hold a conversation in her native language without it becoming a word salad.
Sandie
https://www.instagram.com/p/B6v_KOtJinF/
It's the Sussex review of 2019 but it includes a photograph of Harry with Archie. It's a lovely photograph, in colour, and it looks very cold where they are!
December 31, 2019 at 12:35 PM
It looks like the same baby as on the Christmas card (and I also thought that was the same baby as the meeting with Desmond Tutu but what do I know?), but he looks to be the same size as the baby in Africa???
Harry and Archie look happy and healthy and that is great....or is it that she is not in the photo and that's why I like it?? LOL
My best advice when trying to channel the polite behavior is to choose someone who behaves very well (for me, that's Kate) and choose someone who is just ticky-tacky nasty and who you would never, not even for an instant, want to be like. Then, when tempted, visualize both. Sometimes, just that quick mental picture will stop me dead in my tracks. If that fails, remind yourself that revenge is a dish best served cold, and begin work on your recipe.
It may be Canada, but it could also be a couple of miles from my place in WA. I can even think of some coasta-ish towns in OR that look like this. So, probably it is BC, but not necessarily.
Charles has been an advocate of environmental awareness for ever - long before it became fashionable, in fact he was considered rather weird.
However what the Cambridges are doing is changing the narrative to seeking solutions rather than the XR (Extinction Rebellion) pessimism about the future of the planet and we're all going to die.
I don't know how widely the Swedish doomsayer teenager is reported on elsewhere?
To some degree this post supports the theory they are not together?
Far fetched of me to speculate but maybe the royal family is like "this is your son now, deal with it" as they sideline MM, however if they are both indeed hitched at the hip, man I just don't know.
I do think Skippy has lost her damn mind though, I need to swing over there and see what the pic has done to her.
Nutty wasn't saying only young people care, she was saying in order to appeal to young people the Cambridges chose the environment (and also it is a timely choice w/ commonwealth on fire poor Australia).
-JS
It is also in the Sun.
That year in review. Well,she has finally taken on board all the criticism about sussexroyal being all about images of her. That video is all about Harry. Yes, of course she is featured too but the focus is definitely on Harry. They have also taken onboard the criticism about lack of Archie photos. The video ends with a glorious clear, colour photo of Archie. In Canada - I am sure there is a message behind that one. And Archie is now the absolute image of MM at the same age. One of her stans posted a side by side image.
Or this: "According to Jon Wiederhon of MTV News,
"Martin seems to address the helplessness of being in a dysfunctional relationship he doesn't necessarily want to escape. The lyrics are cryptic; the ending lines of the second verse emphasise contradicting emotion: "Come out upon my seas/Cursed missed opportunities/Am I a part of the cure/Or am I part of the disease?"
Seriously.
"The first picture shows Prince Harry standing by a lake in an unknown location, which could be Canada..." LOL
The story says Archie's boots were gifted to them by the Australian Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove.
That video is all about Harry. Yes, of course she is featured too but the focus is definitely on Harry
This says to me that MM had no part in making it. I don't believe she took the picture of Harry and Archie, it is an accomplished and authentic portrait, not something MM is renowned for.
I didn't see the DM caption lol, but yes @Holly, it could be Canada, but it could be so many places, esp in the PNW. It could a lot of places, but it's definitely meant to imply that it's Canada. It could have been done in front of a green screen (that is the cynic in me talking, but since Rach is such Hollywood royalty and all... )
Much as I think the BRF would be better off without Megs it seems Harry is still with her and as others describe...is thoroughly "besotted with her". I wonder how things will go forward from here.on and maybe that will be telling. But it seems none of the many negative predictions are coming true.
They are six months too late for this sideshow to be taken seriously. At least for me. The lies, the photoshopping, the constant attempts to one-up-manship the Cambridges. This woman is a sociopath. And, yes, assuming that what the other posters are saying that this child is the one we saw in SA, babies grow! Who knows when this video was shot. A child at six months looks very different from a child at 9-10 months. That was my main problem with that horror story of a Christmas card. I personally do not believe it’s the same child we saw in SA, and I also wonder why she chose a child that was in a time warp with no evidence of growth WHATSOEVER!. Same amount of hair, etc. I am sick to death of these two. They are liars at best and sociopaths at their worse.
Remember folks, narcs can turn on a sixpence. They can promise the Earth when rumbled - how could we possibly have doubted them? It's all been in our imagination...
That is, until we give 'em the benefit of the doubt, then 10 days/ 3 weeks/ 4 months down the line, everything's just as it always was and we realise that yet again, we've been had. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I saw that my marriage to a narc was in deep sh*t within 2 weeks of the ceremony, when it became apparent that he was only interested in my prospective, but modest, inheritance, my salary and my role as a solution to his servant problem. Oh, he promised to pull his weight but it never happened.
So, 11 months later, having tried everything, I left. It then took me 8 years to get my divorce. I went No Contact and waited for a change of circumstances; my being made redundant worked wonders!
@SconesandCream
That video is all about Harry. Yes, of course she is featured too but the focus is definitely on Harry
This says to me that MM had no part in making it. I don't believe she took the picture of Harry and Archie, it is an accomplished and authentic portrait, not something MM is renowned for.
December 31, 2019 at 3:21 PM
I saw no ©SussexRoyal emblem/watermark on the photo or video. Guess that means MM wasn't involved in the production, editing or posting.
>>>This is the point when I begin to wonder if we're all being gaslighted. Surely we haven't imagined all that ghastliness? If they can seem so perfect now, why not before?<<<
Yes maybe that is the explanation...gaslighting!!
Given that the photo is part of a video, there is no way to check metadata re: location or the date the photo was taken. Convenient.
@Hunter, yes, that is precisely what I was trying to say about using the environmental movement to target the 30 and under segment. The Royals want to seem relevant and useful to the younger generation. Wills is technically a millennial, although an old one.
MM and PH aren't in Florida, but she would fit right in Miami! Ho, ho ho!
Happy New Year Nutties!
Well, the A&H pic is nice and sweet. They look good and healthy. I personally think Archie favors Meg. Except for lighter coloring, I see only her. This baby pic of Meg comes to mind: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/2f/e1/8b2fe170dfa6fa9c8f38b2fc2c761838.jpg
I will preface by saying that I genuinely hope that Archie and Harry are happy, healthy, and safe. What I will add is that as a daughter of an abusive and ill father, happy pics like these rarely tell the whole story. Our worst family moments happened while taking the “happy pics.” Maybe it’s an artistic choice but I wonder why they wouldn’t choose a pic of Archie looking into Harry’s eyes. I also think the placement of Archie’s legs makes me think they have been reading LSA and Nutty comments about why Archie doesn’t do the classic frog-leg position babies have when held by those familiar to them.
I am really impressed by the rollout of the EarthShot Prize. The Cambridges keep highlighting how “antifragile” they are by how they keep getting better and better with all the chaos. A lot of businesses would be smart to learn from their successes. Whatever the future of the BRF, the Cambridges are up for paving a solid future.
I have to confess that it would be a real struggle for me to convict somebody that killed a person that cut into a long line at, say, a trendy and very good restaurant that does not take reservations. If the deceased is above the age of a teen and has not learned better by that point, they are a lost cause.
(If somebody wishes to advance in line, they must ask permission of everybody ahead of them in line.)
Very telling that the claw isn't in the photo. She doesn't seem to be missed.
Not a fan of Coldplay. Chosing a morose breakup song is curious, wonder if it infers PH breaking up with MM or the royal family. Perhaps it is only association with another annoying vegan hypocrite, Goopy's X.
2) The Archie in this most recent photo appear smaller than the South Africa Archie.
3) If Harry has not been self-medicating or abusing drugs, don't doubt that he has been depressed, anxious, moody and so forth. He himself has said so. It is possible a break has helped his state of mind, but unless he has concurrently received intensive therapy, he will return to his negative habits once he returns to work and the U.K.
4) There are two possible outcomes, and two possible outcomes only. Either Harry divorces Meghan and continues to a be a working senior royal, or he renounces his claim to the throne and tries to live a private life with his wife and child. They will not stay married AND have Meghan continue as she has, for years on end.
5) I love Skippy and admire her loyalty, but at some point you have to accept the most logical conclusion. And her conclusions are not very logical.
Happy New Year everyone.
Remember, in the end, all of this matters not at all.
Nutty, I put my money on your original prediction: It's 12/31/19 -- yes, I'm American -- and it looks like Meghan is out. The straight-forward picture she's not in, the appropriate way Harry is holding Archie (not trying to shield his face), the professional "year in review" montage that focuses more on Harry and not particularly on her -- I think the rumors are true. They've separated again, and she's probably somewhere in the U.S., on her own, trying to raise Sussex Royal funding. One DM commenter said something about a "trial separation." I believe this is their second "trial separation" and that this time it's probably the real deal. If they were in/on Vancouver Island, only Harry was seen. Only Harry and Archie are in the picture, and Harry looks better than he's looked for a while. Oprah owns property nearby. Maybe she helped him or them find a secluded property and, in the event, only Harry showed up? Maybe this is where Oprah hoped she and Harry could begin to sketch out the AppleTV mental health special (I may not be remembering this project name correctly) they were supposed to collaborate on?
In any event, I think she's gone, I think it's possible her British visa was cancelled, and I don't think there'll be anything official announced until after Brexit and/or sometime in March 2020, a month others have cited, either in order to give the PM more time to handle Brexit or just because that's the amount of time courtiers estimated they would need to hash out a divorce settlement.
I get the suggested visa cancellation from MajTomiK on the DM comment boards. He came out with it around Christmas, and it was so specific and he was so categorical about it that for some reason I think it might be legit. Also, Meg's various Twitter rants are at times that would be convenient to someone on either the west or east coast of the U.S. She may very well have been in Canada, Toronto specifically, brainstorming about divorce strategies with the Mulroney family, as another DM commenter alleged. But the NY Post article puts her in the U.S. soliciting U.S. donors for Sussex Royal. This would make sense; she's probably trying to negotiate a permanent position with their new foundation as part of the divorce settlement. If any publisher were motivated to break rank and suggest where they really think or know she is, it would be a Murdoch-owned publication. And the only place to really solicit money from wealthy U.S. donors is in the U.S.
Happy New Year, everyone.
I am happy to see that this particular baby seems happy and healthy. As does Harry. However, the child seems very close to a year old. Again the age question lines up more with Feb/Mar as a birthday than May.
Every time I think she is finally done something like this photo happens. Games games and more games.
Happy 2020 everyone!
I do know this latest "happy family" post seems manipulative to me. And if all Harry needed to stop looking so unhealthy, so depressed, so angry, and so potentially drug/alcohol-addicted was a 6-8 week "vacation" from his heavy workload of 200 events a year, no way he'll be able to come back to "work" any time soon.
After all, in first-world countries like the UK and US (where we are generally pretty fortunate) many people work 2000+ hrs a year not counting commuting, plus most have to work at home doing stuff like cutting the lawn, car/home maintenance, etc. And Harry needs an extended vacation from doing 200 chauffeured events a year while his wife needs a break from doing 80? Please.
@Lizzie, ditto to what you said.
@lizzie @Elle Totally agree with the “happy pics” not persuading me. I know enough not to trust them.
That baby seems big for a May baby. Archie was 7lbs 3oz at birth and both parents are shorter then the Cambridges yet he seems to be having a serious growth spurt compared to the Cambridge babies. All the Cambridge kiddos weighed over 8lbs.
Whether it was in that of someone else, or in vitro, I wouldn't like to guess; I wouldn't even put it past her to have made an attempt at cloning Harry. He may not been aware of what she was up to, whatever it might have been.
Premarital fertilisation would account for the mismatch of stated DoB and size of baby.
Incidentally, what is usually referred to as a `birth certificate' in the UK is a` certified copy of an entry in the register of live births'. It's what's recorded in the register that matters, not the bit of paper.
I've only ever registered deaths, for which I've had to take along a `medical certificate of death' signed by a doctor, so I don't know what supporting evidence is needed to register a birth - very often, it seems to rest on the parent's say-so. A father wouldn't mislead a Registrar, would he? Or would he?
If you ask a Scot where HM's mother was born, the chances are they'll say `Glamis Castle, of course' ie the Scottish seat of her father, the Earl of Strathmore. They get a little cross when informed that the birth was registered in Hitchen, Hertfordshire - Shock! Horror! England! The essence is that the parent's word is accepted. The Earl was late registering the birth and did it when he got back to the main home at St Paul's Walden (Presumably he'd been in Scotland for the start of the grouse shooting - but where was her ladyship?)
As for Archie, there must be an authentic, certified copy of the original entry in the GRO register, not necessarily in the Paddington Registration District, assuming he was born in the UK, which itself is not certain.
The new photo of Harry and Archie is so cute! So glad to see the both looking so well!
As for the veracity of the birth certificate, I second what @Mischi said about it earlier in the thread.
The rollout of Archie’s Christening was more telling to me then the actual birth certificate. I am not talking about the photo but that’s a whole other conundrum.
Something that seems to have fell off the radar was the BRF’s breach of CoE law requiring them to register Christenings on a parish register instead of their private royal register held by HMTQ. Archie’s Christening information includes his birth information and should lawfully be available to the public on request. Other royals are in breach but because they publicize their children’s Births and Christenings, they avoided scrutiny.
At a minimum, Meg should have publicized Archie’s Christening and had his Godparents be publicly acknowledged. The royal register and H&M’s private Christening just highlights that the BRF has the wherewithal to breach the law.
I decanted a fresh bottle of wine for the New Year only to find that it had been exposed to acetobacter at some point and was, in fact, a nice large bottle of vinegar. D'OH! Anybody want to drink to MM's health with vinegar? No? Me either. It may make a nice salad dressing, though. After all the goodies I've been making for the grandchildren, I will probably have to eat salads with vinaigrette for the next 11 months.
What's up with Archie's pants legs being two different colors? Is that a fashion statement for kids of which I am unaware? (Probably. I will never be mistaken for a fashionista.)
More
Darling, you are ending the year ALONE because of what you do best. Lie. Nice to see your husband enjoying time with his old friends! Happy New Year!
The scuttlebutt is that he's in BC, or the PNW, with his old buddies, and MM is in LA. The picture looks like Vancouver Island, or the Gulf Islands. A commentator on a local papers comments said the picture was taken in Sannich, as a radio tower is in shot. Just not near the Coastal Mountain Range or the snow capped peaks of Vancouver Island. It was 9C there today, so it's quite mild.
If Harry's with buddies from the UK, my bet is that he's at a ski resort for New Years. Probably Whistler. It's a world class resort, and one that famous people can go about unnoticed under ski goggles, even ones with British accents, as half the seasonal population is Aussie and British. Harry would have lots of posh friends who did their gap year there, and would be very familiar.
As for MM to be in LA alone? Hard to imagine her incognito, unless she is living in shame. It's been noted that they had an unwarranted amount of security, well maybe it was for for their host in Sannich- a Russian oligarch perhaps. And maybe the security is there to keep them in.
I think it was Elle who mentioned the different coloured pant legs on Archie. I was determined to take the photo at face value and not examine it for photoshop fails, but I noticed that too. All I can suggest is that maybe Archie had woollen boot socks on over his lower pant leg.
Poor Skippy. I love her wonderful mix of hope, religion, cute animal photos, and her polite responses to trolls, but I think that photo of Harry and Archie has left her dumbfounded!
I think the color differences on the pants is the lighting.
Happy New Year to one and all!
""You can see the North Saanich antenna/tower in the background on the hill."
you always seem to have things right at your finger tis. Why is that?
I am not a Photoshop expert like your son but I sure know a GIF doesn’t magically happen when you take a photo. You need image-editing software to add layers to the photo Janina claims to have taken so you can add the text and the animation of the glittering ornaments. “Photoshopped” doesn’t just mean digital plastic surgery on a subject.
There are holes to the argument that the photo the DM used is different from the one the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust tweeted. Whomever distributed the image file deserves scrutiny. However, Janina’s criticism doesn’t make sense unless she is saying that while they analyzed the image, they edited it to the point that it gave the result/interpretation that Meg “photoshopped” herself. Anyone with some experience with Photoshop could replicate their results, so I am not sure why DM would care to fabricate their results.
A GIF is NOT a photo. It is technically multiple images or an image with numerous layers. The image someone sees before clicking on a GIF is a default layer they see when the animation is not playing. The edits to a raw image (i.e. Meg’s less blurry face) can exist on any of the layers of the GIF and not necessarily be on the default layer. When the DM flattened the “Christmas Card” or whatever image/media was distributed to the public, they merged all the layers. Their is nuance to the kind of loss of attributes you get doing that but at a high level, you see all changes and a final version of the image file.
@MustySyphone I wonder if there is a way to verify this development on the North Saanich antenna/tower? I am out of my depth with this kind of thing. Maybe there’s room for interpretation. If they are in Canada, I hope A&H are happy and healthy. As for Meg, I do think both the boys would be better off without her. I get the heebie-jeebies seeing her.
If I am right, we can expect another random picture to be released.
(sorry I have been absent, a lot of fires around me means conditions here are really bad smoke-wise and:()
https://twitter.com/dripdro74842947/status/1212277262705446912?s=21
Also, no idea how trustworthy radaronline is, but they are claiming MM feels Kate has deliberately excluded her from Holiday luncheons or something like that...
https://radaronline.com/videos/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royal-snub/
Happy New year to all!!
d.c.: 'Please forgive me if this has already been posted, but @dripdrop on twitter seems to have found the background from the newest Archieficial pic...
https://twitter.com/dripdro74842947/status/1212277262705446912?s=21'
If this is the claim/rumour they are in Turkey: The profile of the mountains are similar but not a match.
'Also, no idea how trustworthy radaronline is, but they are claiming MM feels Kate has deliberately excluded her from Holiday luncheons or something like that...
https://radaronline.com/videos/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royal-snub/,
MM has been on special leave for all through the festive season, and supposedly in Canada, so why wold Kate invite her to Christmas lunch, and what Christmas lunch is this? MM and Harry snubbed the family for all Christmas get togethers, and the televised celebration that William and Kate had was for their charities, with which MM has no connection. (i.e. radaronline is made-up rubbish)
@drabredcarpet - OK- I admit I got the Registration District wrong from memory. I'm still not happy with it.
Yes, it looks OK - but don't look at what's there, look for what's not there.
The authenticating stamp, which I assume should be at the right-hand bottom corner, is missing.
I say `assume' because I don't have any recent Birth Certificates to hand. I have my own original one which has an actual postage stamp (George VI era), cancelled by
the Registrar's initials, to show that the Duty had been paid. Postage stamps have since been replaced by other forms of legal stamps whose presence shows up even in photocopies, as in the family Death Certificates I've recently acquired as part of a legal matter.
I rest my case, m'Lud.
Perhaps a Nutty with a recent family birth in England or Wales (but not elsewhere in UK because they're different) could check this out from an actual certificate? I'd really like to know for certain. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. Maybe royal certificates aren't stamped because they don't pay duty to the Treasury? Who knows?
Most of us can see that the given date just doesn't tie in with the age of the child as we perceive it.
Charade mentions the `heebie jeebies' - how true! For me, it was at Eugenie's wedding. The TV camera focused on MM across the aisle of the choir stalls a split second before she clocked it. Her gaze homed-in like a heat-seeking missile, straight down the axis of the lens to my retina. It was if she could see me watching her, a stomach-churning moment.
I had to pinch myself to return to reality but in that instant I saw how easily a fragile mind, with porous boundaries, could believe that Big Sister really was watching them through the TV. It was horrible. I've watched no end of presenters doing pieces to camera but never before or since seen anything like that. Normal people just don't do that - strange how often that phrase comes to mind when dealing with narcs, along with `walking on eggshells'.
She certainly knows how to mess with one's mind.
I think Meghan does want a daughter. If she really wants that badly and Harry is still fully under her control, she can use IVF methods to make sure that happens (I knew someone very rich who wanted a daughter after 3 sons and there is a process used to hugely increase the possibility of choosing gender and, yes, she did have a daughter).
As a narc, getting what she wants for herself is her driving force and no way would a baby be more important than being rich and famous (even though this may be unconscious in her), but, yes, it was odd that she never had a child or was never pregnant when she was Trevor for so long and then was very loved up with Corey for a couple of years. It makes it seem that she really was just using them.
Dated plenty of other high profile wealthy men? Nope. Trevor and Corey were as high as she got and they are local, not global, and have far less wealth than what she has gained access to via Harry. She was swimming in a very small pool, desperately trying to make it bigger (as seen on her IG and with her PR).
I agree that she was probably pregnant but used moonbumps (otherwise what the heck was that?), and at the beginning of the pregnancy stuck out her tummy by arching her back (lots of photos of her doing this pose way before she met Harry and in some she looks more pregnant than when she was pregnant). Why she gained so much weight between going on pregnancy leave and emerging for revealing Archie and Trooping the Colour a month later is a mystery. Maybe she was comfort eating (we know now that she had been stirring up the pity me narrative for herself and Harry). She has the Markle genes and maybe to stay sim she has to control her intake ruthlessly every day. She is also not tall, so gained weight quickly shows.
I realize that not many people buy print newspapers any more, but they still see them displayed in busy airports. Hundreds of people have walked by that display in the 30 minutes since I got through security. FWIW, I'm in continental Europe, not the UK.
Certified copy of Archie’s birth certificate: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48315300
December 31, 2019 at 6:53 PM
I find it odd that Harry's signature isn't on it, merely his named typed up. In the article it says: "But sadly we don't get to see how the new (possibly sleep-deprived) dad forms the "H" in his signature. The copy of the birth certificate issued for public consumption is a typed-up version of the original."
Which is very odd considering Deputy Registrar's signature is on it, as well the "deputy" addition and written date in pen. If the article is correct in that the certificate issued for public consumption is a typed up version of the original, then those shouldn't have been included either. But if for some reason it is, then it's an edited file because they would have had to remove Harry's signature and replace it with his typed up nickname otherwise the written additions wouldn't have remained on it.
SirStinxAlot
I am not convinced there is a baby # 2 in the making right now. Maybe later. She waited forever to have Archie. Perhaps she didn't want children at all. She just lost all that weight, just to get pregnant again?!? I don't believe for a second that she used a fake pregnancy to force Harry into marrying her. She has no patience, she would have tried a stunt like that before. She has dated plenty of other high profile wealthy men. A stunt like that would have ended her acting career and yachting days quickly as soon as word got around. Words travel fast in HOllywood. Harry really was smitten with Meghan. I don't know if she was actually pregnant with Archie but I 100% believe she used padding to make herself look bigger than she actually was. Add that to her misfit and unflattering fashion choices it was a perfect storm for conspiracy theorist.
Happy New year to all!!
January 1, 2020 at 2:02 AM
She didn't wait forever to have Archie, she knew once she had Harry hooked that this was the moment to hook him with a baby. The first husband, Trevor and Cory weren't big enough players to warrant a baby to anchor the relationship/financial income. She never cared to have children, just look at those ridiculous demands she made of Trevor in case she were to have his baby. It was all transactional to her: I'll have your baby in return for...
And that's how it is with Harry, too. She got him Archie (however she did it) and in return expected the BRF to fund her lavish lifestyle, open doors to her that have always been shut in celebrity land and not complain or criticize how she chooses to spend her time or their/taxpayer's money.
I meant that she didn't waste any time once she and Harry were properly together (i.e. living in the same country) compared to her having several longterm relationships prior to then and at least according to two exes (Trevor and Cory) there had been no actual child planning involved.
Nope, 40 is not forever in biological ticking terms, and Megsy was in her mid-30s when she married Harry. At 40, women still have about another 10 years to have children, and with the help of fertility treatments and even surrogacy, women can extend that time (plus people live much longer so your children do not have to reach adulthood by the time you get to your 50s). When compared with Kate, she left it late to have children, but she still had plenty of time to have 4 children if she wanted to.
Nope, Megsy did not have any relationships with wealthy British men (or any British man at all) before Harry. She flirted with a couple of British men (I think one was a well-paid soccer player and the other a reality star) via social media but she never met either of them. I don't remember their names or even what they look like because they are famous and wealthy in a small pond, not like the kind of wealth and fame Harry has.
As you say, it makes no sense that she told Trevor she could not have children and then made up a contract for him to sign. People make up stories, put them out there and they grow legs and get passed on and elaborated (and the best is when the media cites a source that cannot be named!).
Curious, why you assume everyone discussed is in a monogamous relationship? Wife swapping, orgies, threesome's, bisexual relationships, and extra marital affairs are not uncommon. In long term relationships couples find creative ways to spice up their sex lives. Toys, clubs, open marriage, etc. Just because you prefer monogamy doesn't mean it works for every relationship. I know many couples that have sex outside their marriage. Still happily married.
>>>Can we please stop with the DNA nonsense. Even if Meghan and Harry used a surrogate the child is still going to have Meghan and Harrys DNA. Just look at the baby. How can you not see its half Harry and half a Markle?<<<
DNA is not nonsense, quite the contary (said as a graduate where the earlist attempts to discover/explain it was, UCLA).
No, you are wrong regarding DNA in surrogate is MM & Harry;s. 1. It could be both. 2. It could be just MM's genetic material and donor sperm. 3. It could be Harry's genetic contribution, sperm that is and a donor egg. OR 3. The surrogate child could have NONE of their DNA,
I look at the baby (babies) and am not convinced that I see either of them as baby faces are so similar many times. I've had three children and seen a lot of babies by my age of 67.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-always-makes-same-21193717
'Listing her resolutions, she wrote: "Run a marathon. Stop biting my nails. Stop swearing. Re-learn French. These make my New Year’s resolution list nearly (AKA actually every) single year.'
She confirms that she is not proficient in french.
She seems to have stopped biting her nails, unless she wears fakes.
Off topic, but I am traveling today and Harry and Archie have definitely won today's print media battle vs the Cambridges. Yesterday's photo appears in glorious color on the top of the print version of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. The story about Earthshot is below the Sussex photo on the Daily Mail, and not visible above the fold on the Telegraph.
I realize that not many people buy print newspapers any more, but they still see them displayed in busy airports. Hundreds of people have walked by that display in the 30 minutes since I got through security. FWIW, I'm in continental Europe, not the UK.
I tried to be charitable and convince myself that the latest PR photo release of Archie was because of the uproar that surrounded the photoshopped e-Christmas card but, if it was an accident, it demonstrated that they (Sussexes) were not in communication with the rest of the family.
It also seems strange that England is not an acceptable venue in which to photograph Archie.
Regardless, Earthshot prize should actually do some good (with good PR!) over the next 10 years, unlike anything that the mind of MM can dream up.
Yes, this is a really good father-son picture. Harry is focused on Archie and looks more like he used to look on walkabouts where he related so well to kids (don't know who Archie is looking at, but he looks content). In that SA picture you mentioned, Harry holding Archie against his chest reminded me of how toddlers hug a teddy bear--wondered how Archie could breathe.
I think it was Elle who mentioned the different coloured pant legs on Archie.
Happy New Year! It wasn't this Elle who mentioned it. I'd barely notice if my pant legs were two different colors, but do tell! Which picture?
@Sandie, lol on the article. I love the "and still fails" shade.
And "winning" or not, I think it is petty and selfish of PH & Rach to put out the photo of Archie at the same time as the Earthshot launch. This speaks volumes to me. PH & Rach are not on the same page as the BRF, and every one of their lame attempts to steal the spotlight and compete in negative fashion will inevitably be met with a scarfing from Good King William.
That said, it's also clear that Rach & PH weren't at the top of the BRF Christmas list. A quick spin thru Kensington Royals, Clarence House and The Royal Family IGs, and no PH/Rach/Archie to be found - no Christmas card, no Santa Harry, no happy new year. I think that says a lot.
https://www.swansonsnursery.com/lawn-care-calendar
And this is for BC: http://bur-han.ca/dos-and-donts-of-lawn-care-during-winter
So, don't know where those lawn mowers are, but probably they need to check this out lol:
Don’t: Mow Your Lawn After the First Frost
Grass becomes dormant after the cold sets in, meaning it won’t grow until the weather improves. Cutting dormant grass can lead to long-term damage and even kill large portions of your lawn.
Most grass will become dormant after the first frost – sometimes long before, but you can be certain it’s ready to stop growing after the temperatures dip low enough for frost to form. Don’t cut your grass after this point to avoid long-term damage.
All that said, that photo really could have been from anywhere. I think that the choice of music, no Rach, and nothing on IG or Twitter from the BRF are all interesting. Plenty of reposts/retweets of the Cambridges. It's like the Dumbartons don't exist.
Now I'm going to have to go check out the mismatched pants...
All I can tell about the baby is that he has close-set eyes. Maybe Harry is the daddy. Maybe Ron Perlman is the daddy. (The grandkids would think that having Hellboy as one's daddy would be incredibly cool plus Hellboy probably doesn't eat vegetables or make children do so.)
As the year is 2020, I should add that I trust we are all granted clear vision to see through the hype, confusion and fog of battle to work out what the Heck is Going On!
Hmm. if you are in Canada you can't go to lunch in Britain without a plane ride. What holidays, H&M have been gone since November...British don't actually do Thanksgiving
Yeah, I agree that a baby "looking like" a parent certainly isn't proof of parentage.
I guess the baby we've seen looks like both H&M although I've never seen the "spitting image" of Harry others have claimed to see.
But if donated genetic material was used in an IVF procedure, it's not as though randomly-selected material would have been used. Efforts are usually made to try to ensure the baby resembles the couple who will raise it or at least resembles them enough that there won't be gasps in the delivery room!
...."do any of YOU" believe Markle looks at this blog. Love from Los Angeles."
I know I've addressed a few comments directly to her, just in case. I am pretty sure she reads and submits blinds to CDAN, but let's ask:
@Nutty - what do you think about her CDAN activity?
If Rach does read at CDAN, then she definitely knows about this blog. There are hundreds of comments for each new post, so my guess is that she'd be curious.
I hope she does read here because clearly there are so many issues raised about her behavior and none of what I've seen is racism (although maybe in a few instances, she might be able to skew it that direction).
So for Megs time is running out is she wants a natural conception and birth of a second kid.
January 1, 2020 at 7:11 AM Delete
But that is not true. Also men grow old. There is also a risk for women having children with old men.Both egg AND sperm matter in the making of a baby. Google and you will learn. Meghan is not old. She is not even 40. So I dont even know why you are talking about her as if she is an old lady? I dont know were you live but here in Sweden it is normal for women having children at the age of 40 and after the age of 40.
If you google you will learn scientist recommend "older women" to have children with younger men.Because their "spermquality" is better. Meghan is not old AND she had her baby with a younger man. So...I really really dont think you have to worry about Meghans age. Im so tired of this ageism against women
Thank you Nutty for this blog, it has been interesting and educational for many. A lot of wishful thinking too, but I don't think MM is going away very soon, unless she's found a billionaire. Even as an ex-royal she will probably still get tabloid coverage, which is what she seems to like. The stans and sugars will likely always be interested in if not still so fascinated.
People magazine occasionally mentions how many issues a particular cover sold. I wonder how many tabloids and mags people buy because Meghan is on the cover/front page? Oh I forgot about the PR machine$$. still, I wonder what kind of draw she actually is, whether through fans/stans or the perceived train wreck aspect (You Can't Look Away!)
I can't judge what your doctors tell you in Sweden but I can judge by what my own doctors told me here in UK. Here is the medical advice for women after 35 to understand the risks:
It might take longer to get pregnant.
You're more likely to develop gestational diabetes
You're more likely to develop high blood pressure during pregnancy.
You're more likely to have a low birth weight baby and a premature birth.
The risk of chromosome abnormalities is higher.
The risk of pregnancy loss is higher.
So nothing to do with ageism or sexism, just science and nature taken into account.
So if we are to do a head count: William had: Express, Mirror, one part of telegraph and half of DM. Harry had half of DM and one part of telegraph. The Cambridges are ahead. AlGore, Hillary Clinton ,Sadiq Khan all commented on Will's project as they are part of his partners. I don't know how well it was publicised in the US electronic media though.
Rut, I know English is not your native language, but please moderate your tone. We are a friendly community, not an accusatory one.
Forty is middle-aged for both men and women, even in Sweden.
I’d argue that the Mail is more influential, and more widely read, than the Mirror or the Express. Neither one made it to the non-British airport, for example.
Technically MM is not old (compared to her inlaws). However comma in terms of being able to become pregnant is another story which isn't ageism but as someone else says: science and nature.
According to IMDB, she was born in August 1981.
With googling "pregnancy and age 37", the first listing was from webmd and there are many below it.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnant-after-35#1
The listings go on about how and why the pregnancy was high risk (not so much for the baby - although there is some genetic concerns - but the risk to the mother's body with things like pre-clampsia).
Her age is actually a factor medically (and this was why it was so shocking to have her turn down the cutting edge doctors of HM combined with no doctor names listed on the announcement).
I do understand you have seen women locally who are past 40 and having kids. Great for them. What we don't often see is the technology to create it as many may not want to admit they used it at all or how many statistically this compares to other age ranges*. There can be statistical bias from age as we tend to know many more people of our own age group compared to 20,30, 40 years younger or older depending on your age. (meaning, if I am 40, I am more likely to know more people in the 35 to 45 range than 20 to 30 and 50 up. Yes, I will have friends/acquaintances who are not in that range but many will be).
*Years ago (when Mr AbbyH and I were looking at this for us, in my reading I came across some article about a celeb who went on about how she was able to have a kid at her age (well past 40). The writer was talking with their sister and remarked about it as the sister had been one of the attending. Nope (HIPPA was not a big deal then). It was IVF all the way around. My other comment was that I was not ever going to be a good candidate for it (way too not placid that they wanted me to be).
I also recall that NHS in UK doesn't offer more than just one cycle of IVF over the age of 41, and only if the partners fail to conceive naturally after two years. After this patients have to go privately. NHS doesn't feel IVF will be terribly efficient after certain age.
So unfortunately looks like biological clock is ticking even for royals with all their money and privilege.
@Rut...you are absolutely right, men do contribute to the genetics of a child, but how many 70+ year old rock stars/movie stars have we seen who have had children with younger women? A lot....and the children were perfectly fine. Yes, older women CAN have successful pregnancies later in life (see Brigitte Nielsen, 54 and had her 5th child), but the risks ARE higher and that is all that I believe was mentioned.
On the other hand, people look out and see fields, I see cotton, sorghum, soybeans, etc. and do not understand how others can't see the differences when it is so obvious.
"The risk of having a Down's Syndrome baby is higher in women over age 35, which is why an amniocentesis is done."
Correct. It is also done to detect Spina Bifida.
@Mischi, I believe the study found the age to be 35 for schizophrenia and over 40 was "higher chance of a child on the autism spectrum." it's very interesting, thanks for sharing.
If you look at your family trees you'll likely find that women had far more kids, but higher mortality rates back before birth control. Plus, medical care and diagnosis was not as good as today, so more babies would die because no known cures.
Another interesting this looking at family trees is how the parents would start out having a lot of boys then as the father aged, few if any boys and far more girls. Looking at my family charts going back five or so generations, most had at least 14 kids and the same boys first six or seven then all girls after that.
The main problem I have with moms who opt to have babies later in life, like after age 40 or so is as the parents age it's much much harder to physically keep up with the little munchkins, LOL. Those little ones are fast and always on the move, so best to have kids when one still has the stamina and energy to handle it. As a grammie, I thank my lucky stars that we always play pen trained my grandkids so they couldn't run me ragged.
https://ve.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_q3fqlsEemM1yoxm7d.mp4
No way Meghan could top this and so she got attention by the announcements (if there had been no announcements about privacy and family, no one would have been offended and they could have sneaked in and out of hospital without being seen, as many royals do), the contradictions, the showing the baby in Windsor Castle (all about those iconic photographs for history) .... it is probably not conscious but when a narc can't have all the attention they play these kind of games.
The BRF do not ghost family members, no matter what happens, but they may exert more direct control over the Sussexes in their official roles. (Were they pushed to go on this long break ... a nightmare for a narc who fears she will be forgotten so all those ridiculous posts on IG talking about glory days and pithy quotes, and finally bringing out Archie ... or is Meghan fed up with playing the royal game with his family, because deep down it pushes her buttons of inadequacy, or does she need to isolate Harry completely to control him?) If the senior royals do exert more 'oversight' over the Harkles, Meghan won't like that at all and it may just push her to leave (the way you treat Harry is not love Megsy, so you won't stay for love).
I don't see @tatty and @drab as "Markle stans". I see them as contrarians presenting a different take on things. It's not necessary for us all to have the same opinion, as long as we are polite to each other.
Does Meg read this blog? I have no idea, but I do know she has lots of time on her hands and enjoys reading about herself.
Human advancement is strange. Generally, before contraception, women had more children and went on having them throughout their fertile years, so unless intimacy stopped women did have babies in their 40s, but an alarming percentage of children never made it to adulthood (my Mom came from a family of 10 and only 6 made it to adulthood). Now, when we have various methods of contraception, women use all kinds of interventions to have children later in life and the advancements in medicine means the survival rate is much better (so, good to delay and build a solid foundation for career, finances, relationship and home environment, which is much better for children, but geez, some people take it to the extreme!).
I work in medicine and would like to add this: The term for pregnancies after age 35 in the US is “geriatric pregnancy.” Nice, right? It’s just a fact that a woman’s reproductive system ages faster than the rest of her. Eggs begin aging the second a baby is born. It’s a case of biology taking longer to progress than society. I guess one could call biology ageist, but its functions are physiological, not conceptual. We can debate the concept of calling anything that takes place in a 35-year-old “geriatric,” though!
For example, this excerpt from a 2019 study by Rutgers University that reviewed 40 years of research on parental age:
Infants born to older fathers** were found to be at higher risk of premature birth, late still birth, low Apgar scores, low birth weight, higher incidence of newborn seizures and birth defects such as congenital heart disease and cleft palate. As they matured, these children were found to have an increased likelihood of childhood cancers, psychiatric and cognitive disorders, and autism.
*I also didn't see anything wrong with her tone, by the way, as a lot of "regular" posters (most of whom are native speakers) are much harsher on a semi-regular basis and/or can behave rather hysterical out of the blue when someone disagrees with them.
** Astrisks mine, in the article the "advanced age" is mentioned as 35-45 years and up.
Jen
I think it is fair to say, that while medical advances have allowed us to live longer, our ancestors who started their families earlier (teens/early 20's) had the right idea. Although, I imagine that many of the developmental disabilities we see today were there then but not known.
January 1, 2020 at 8:58 AM
It was pretty much the only opportunity our ancestors had, considering many of them were very dead before they reached the age of 40.
Yes, of course. I wasn't implying that it was a choice, just said it was the right idea.
And remember, just because something is feasible, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Some women who get pregnant after 50 need the help of hormones, and it's been reported that these can cause cancer. Remember John Edwards, the American presidential candidate? He and his wife lost a child and she then had some IVF to have another at a relatively late age. She died of breast cancer and it's been reported that it was the hormones that triggered that.
Also, "test tube" children have shorter telomeres and more DNA mutations than children conceived naturally.
And so on...
Which reminds me - Danja Zone said the Sussexes don't get invited to parties because they start fights with each other in the presence of other people. You can imagine how well that goes over in the genteel circles of the British elite.
I am done having kids personally, but I know people who have had babies in their early 40s and are fine. When I was 33 I told a colleague of mine I hoped to have children, and he gave me a look and said I'd better get to it then.
I attended a Catholic school and the school was teeming with children whose mother was in her very late 40's or even 50's. But that was in another era when infertility wasn't such a big problem. I think there's a term for those late Catholic children, but I can't remember it at the moment.
You can go to google maps and click on satellite or one of those world satellite apps and see the whole area. Please excuse if this has already been discussed.
525 Towner Park Road
North Saanich, BC
I think it was pretty widely accepted Elizabeth Edwards used donor eggs for her late pregnancies (at 49 and 51.) But you are correct, talking heads, including some doctors, did blame her cancer on the hormone treatments needed for successful implantation. Of course, John's girlfriend, Rielle, managed to get pregnant at 43. I don't know if she'd had previous pregnancies but that was the first one to result in a child.
I'm not sure why reversing menopause would mean more eggs are generated. So far as I know, females are born with all the eggs they'll ever have. Even if menopause was forestalled, the eggs released would be older whereas sperm are manufactured as needed. (But even "new" sperm made in an old body can have problems as others have said)
I wanted the marriage to be a success; I hoped she would be right for him and I expected her to be mature enough to cope. Samantha seemed ghastly & probably out for money but her mention of narcissism rang alarm bells in my mind. As I've said before, I've been driven almost to breakdown by people like MM but held onto my sanity just long enough to get help and learn it wasn't me, it was them. Also,I had to learn what it was about me that attracted them.
So I watched her with interest. I was not reassured by the engagement interview - too full of herself. Even so, I gave her the benefit of the doubt, despite the reports of her demanding nature and filthy temper aka rage, up to the announcement of her pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding. That was the clincher for me. Narcs cannot stand anyone else being the centre of attention - they have to steal their thunder. Samantha was right.
I had a pair of narcissists at my first wedding - one, a bridesmaid, made herself sick from 6am on but insisted on following me up the aisle, me expecting to hear her vomiting on the vicar's new carpet behind me. Her sister, getting married herself a few days later, wore not only all white but also the orange-blossom-and-pearl-headdress intended to secure her own veil. I've also had a narc F-up my Degree Show when she was supposed to be helping. (The narc husband was no2; third time I was very lucky).
Being brought up by a mother with narc tendencies to be `nice' and to `see the best' in people did me no favours. I had weak boundaries and despite my misgivings and gut feelings had been too trusting, too willing to make allowances to keep `friends'.
These horrible people do exist; they are predators who lack authentic selves. There's an empty space in them where their souls should be. Once, we might have described them in terms of the presumed colour of their hearts but that's not allowed now.
I reckon I'm a realist too; it's just the paradoxical nature of the problem - if you've not had the experience, it all seems so bloody unlikely. After all, everyone's fundamentally decent , aren't they? Aren't they?
Frankly, the more I can make people aware of the existence of these b*stards, the better.
All we really know for sure is that everything surrounding Harry, Meghan and whoever this child is, is not what they want us to think.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/uncategorized/1481079/scientists-reverse-the-menopause-and-turn-back-the-fertility-clock-for-older-women/
The other hard part as a kid with older parents is when at school, like open house, or PTA or school carnival, other kids would ask me if my parents were my grandparents. Shriek! It didn't help that my dad had full head of gray hair by the time he was 45!
However, the upside of having older parents, when not explaining to mom that all the other girls wear bikini underwear (7th grade!) and makeup, and nylons... is that my parents were less stressed, more patient, and were more able to afford the little things for me like summer camp, dancing lessons, music lessons, etc. than they could for my older siblings. So I hope that older parents these days are able to understand how important it is for their kids to fit in with the other kids.
About the age gap between my siblings and I, people tend to think that if there's a wide age gap that the kids are disconnected, (like the gap between Megs and her half siblings). That's not true. My siblings and I have always been very close and care for each other unconditionally. It really depends on the kids. I've seen lots of siblings close in age who never get along, so it's really not about age gap. The reason Megs doesn't get on with her siblings is because she's incapable of sharing her dad's love and affection with her siblings. Plus, it's quite obvious that her dad always put Megs first and caused a huge amount of resentment and rivalry for the other two. That must have been very hurtful for Tom Jr. and Sam. The same results would have happened if Megs was born ten or twelve years earlier.
Like, let’s check in in a month and then we will have seen how they came back and got back on schedule. Gert’s Royals has already identified the event which they will likely attend at the end of January. I’m not sure if it’s her or another RR who said the BRF doesn’t really get started until mid January. The expectation from the RRs that I read is that they will be back on the diary by the end of January.
Do you see anything wrong in Harry and Megs conduct or do you think they are behaving impeccably? And thus our dislike and criticism are totally unjustified?
I am not having a go at you, this is a genuine question.
The media are still in their pockets, just as they were when the whole world knew about David and Wallis whilst the UK were kept in blissful ignorance.
The end of year message from the BRF is clear, the Cambridges are shifting to the forefront and the Sussexes will be sidelined (somewhat) and future appearances will continue as we have seen: secondary Remembrance Day balcony for MM, riding backwards in the carriage at Trooping, no presence at diplomatic receptions/state banquets. Unfortunately I would not discount another official tour in the near offing from them.
I do not think the Sussexes have quite burnt their proverbial bridges with "the firm."
Although I would love to say Meghan is definitively cast out with mealy-mouthed Harry trailing his idiot backside behind her; but alas, that would be entirely wishful thinking on my part.
They are indeed today's Duke of Duchess of Windsor MK2 but the BRF is going to keep them in the fold for the foreseeable, not the least of which to have some hand at stage managing their power base. MM might consider leaving but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon in this drama.
In this saga welcome to the new year, it will be much like the old. Different strategies, same result.
Thanks for the link. It mentioned egg "recruitment" whatever that means so I looked further.
It doesn't appear it's universally accepted that what's happening is the growth of new eggs with
Sfakianoudis's procedure:
https://www.regmednet.com/users/2807-curtis-asante/posts/12813-can-and-should-we-use-wound-healing-treatment-to-reverse-menopause
"The treatment is believed to facilitate the release of eggs that weren’t released before menopause rather than increase the production of eggs, since it is still generally accepted that women are born with all their eggs. However, a recent article published in The Guardian suggests that women’s ovaries can actually grow more eggs."
Guardian link:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/07/evidence-suggests-womens-ovaries-can-grow-new-eggs
Many of the patients Sfakianoudis has treated were in their 40's and either in perimenopause or early menopause. That does make the point that all women can't get pregnant easily in their 40's. So I do think MM's clock could be ticking at 38+.
I think they have their place in the RF and while they do things differently, I do think if they listen, he could pull off this folksy, down to earth, hands on Diana type of approach with her in the background supporting him. If she tried hard, she could do that but I think she most likely doesn’t believe she needs to change her approach.
I dislike the idea of multiple Archies(seriously, where do people get multiples babies who resemble each other), everything is photoshopped (like the Christening photos), talk of wigs and weaves, saying the birth certificate isn’t real (when it is), and giving the idea that no journalist or anyone other than random people on small internet blogs have found the truth and know what’s really going on.
I do read a tarot blog which is mostly for missing people and she has interesting readings on them: that it will be bumpy and bumpy for a long time with them, but that they could do well and bring out good in the world if they can get their approach straight.
http://empathysinsights.blogspot.com/2018/05/prince-harry-and-meghan-wedding-and.html She has several readings on them.
I am a realist but I’m also am empath. I don’t believe in tarot, but I also think this lady has a strong intuition and insight.
My thoughts are wandering so I’ll stop here.
I just don’t know enough about the topic to have an opinion on it.