Prince Charles received his last official job promotion in 1969, when he was crowned Prince of Wales at Caernafon Castle. He's been waiting for his next bump up, to monarch, ever since.
Charles' big moment may be at hand. His father Prince Philip is reportedly bedridden, and his 93-year-old mother, Queen Elizabeth, might have trouble continuing to keep up with even ceremonial occasions once the man she calls her "rock" has passed on.
The Queen's upcoming 94th birthday, on April 21, might be an optimal time to announce a regency, in which Charles would formally take power without his mother having to formally advocate.
Last week Clarence House once again confirmed that Charles' wife, Camilla, will take the title Princess Consort after he ascends to the throne - not Queen Consort. This will avoid conflicts with fans of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
So, just one other thing that needs to be gotten out of the way - the Sussex mess, particular the situation with Prince Harry's son Archie.
The host quickly changed the subject - perhaps there is a super-injunction against mentioning the matter - but its clear that Bower isn't the only one who has questions about where Archie came from, or perhaps if he exists at all.
Archie's unusual size - huge in July at the polo match when he was supposedly 3 months, then seemingly the same size when papped in a carrier in January at what would be 9 months - is also mysterious.
And the news that Archie would not be joining their Sussexes for their final round of Royal engagements didn't put any minds at rest.
The seventh-in-line to the British throne has now not appeared in public since September.
Was Bower's "slip of the lip" intentional in order to put the Archie question on the agenda? If so, was that "slip" planned by Buckingham Palace and perhaps even approved by Prince Charles?
There is certainly public interest in the matter. A DM article about the decision to let Archie remain in Canada while his parents visited the UK garnered more than 8500 comments in 36 hours.
Harry and Meghan are scheduled to attend the Endeavor Awards this Thursday, and then on Friday Harry will open an auto-racing museum with Lewis Hamilton. (Is that environmentally responsible?)
On Saturday, the two of them are supposed to attend a concert at Royal Albert Hall (Will Meg be boo-ed?), and Meg will supposedly do something on Sunday to celebrate International Women's Day.
After that, there's nothing left but the Commonwealth Service on March 9, where they will (uncomfortably) appear with the rest of the Royal Family.
Charles is not going to let anything ruin his big moment.
If there are reveals to be made, he would rather have them sooner than later.
Charles' big moment may be at hand. His father Prince Philip is reportedly bedridden, and his 93-year-old mother, Queen Elizabeth, might have trouble continuing to keep up with even ceremonial occasions once the man she calls her "rock" has passed on.
The Queen's upcoming 94th birthday, on April 21, might be an optimal time to announce a regency, in which Charles would formally take power without his mother having to formally advocate.
Ducks in a row
Charles seems to be getting his ducks in a row for a potential change in status. He has spent the last few years instructing William on how to run the Duchy of Cornwall; William now takes his own children out to enjoy farming in the English countryside.Last week Clarence House once again confirmed that Charles' wife, Camilla, will take the title Princess Consort after he ascends to the throne - not Queen Consort. This will avoid conflicts with fans of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
So, just one other thing that needs to be gotten out of the way - the Sussex mess, particular the situation with Prince Harry's son Archie.
A slip of the lip
Prince Charles' biographer Tom Bower, appearing on Good Morning Britain on February 24, said that among the reasons the media disliked Meghan was, "When she didn't tell the truth about Archie's birth, when she tried to deliberately confuse people about the time of birth."The host quickly changed the subject - perhaps there is a super-injunction against mentioning the matter - but its clear that Bower isn't the only one who has questions about where Archie came from, or perhaps if he exists at all.
Archie's unusual size - huge in July at the polo match when he was supposedly 3 months, then seemingly the same size when papped in a carrier in January at what would be 9 months - is also mysterious.
And the news that Archie would not be joining their Sussexes for their final round of Royal engagements didn't put any minds at rest.
The seventh-in-line to the British throne has now not appeared in public since September.
Was Bower's "slip of the lip" intentional in order to put the Archie question on the agenda? If so, was that "slip" planned by Buckingham Palace and perhaps even approved by Prince Charles?
There is certainly public interest in the matter. A DM article about the decision to let Archie remain in Canada while his parents visited the UK garnered more than 8500 comments in 36 hours.
The Sussex Final
As of March 31, the Sussexes are no longer officially part of the Royal Family, although in fact their public duties appear to be ending this week.Harry and Meghan are scheduled to attend the Endeavor Awards this Thursday, and then on Friday Harry will open an auto-racing museum with Lewis Hamilton. (Is that environmentally responsible?)
On Saturday, the two of them are supposed to attend a concert at Royal Albert Hall (Will Meg be boo-ed?), and Meg will supposedly do something on Sunday to celebrate International Women's Day.
After that, there's nothing left but the Commonwealth Service on March 9, where they will (uncomfortably) appear with the rest of the Royal Family.
The former Royals
Once the Sussexes are no longer "Royals", what will the Royal Family be willing to disclose - or let others disclose - about Archie?Charles is not going to let anything ruin his big moment.
If there are reveals to be made, he would rather have them sooner than later.
Comments
As for Meg's plans. I don't see of any face time with HMTQ (looks like lots of holes where it could be easily fit in). It would interesting to be a fly on that wall if that happens.
If he doesn’t exist, MM is in a real pickle as she will surely at some point need to produce him to the public again as she will be well aware the world thinks he doesn’t exist. The slip up from Tom Bower was I think intentional and approved by PC, Tom would know all about keeping things private but let that slip. The fact “Archie” had no title given to him when he was born makes it seem like something is off (making a very long list). MM would never refuse a title.
The Cambridge’s have made it clear they are not involved in the “Archie” mess by remaining very distant. If nothing was off I can’t see them keeping their kids away from their cousin just to be spiteful - that’s what MM would do.
I think eventually the British media will get the go ahead to spill the beans about “Archie” and it will be big, I think they already know but have a relationship with the RF so they don’t just dish the dirt without the green light.
Archie - I agree things need to come to a head sooner rather then later - maybe this is why both the dumbotons are being recalled back to the up to “finish their commitments”.
Prince Charles is said to bear the imprint of the last person he talked to. He is massively affected by a martyr complex that even surpasses his son Harry, and I expect is where Harry got it from. Meghan just added the finishing touches, whereas I expect Kate alternately jollied William out of it or told him to brace up. Prince Charles is essentially a self-pitying ditherer.
On the good side he seems to have an engaging way with the public, I like his priorities for the Duchy of Cornwall and am not ashamed to agree with him about architecture, although I suspect we are both wrong.
I think the BRF are dealing with the Sussexes very cleverly even though the pace is frustrating to us lesser beings. However I don't know who to praise for this. If it is the Queen, then I hope she stays actually at the helm instead of notionally. If it is Prince Charles, then bring on the regency. If it is the Palace's grey men, it doesn't matter whether we have a regency or not as long as they are not ousted, as Lord Geidt was by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew.
Speaking of which, we know of one person who must be dreading Prince Charles' inevitable and approaching rise.
And Donald Trump agrees with you both - he's recently ordered that all future Federal buildings be constructed in traditional styles, as opposed to modern ones. :)
For many years the talk has been that William should be the one to be king next - the responsibilities he has taken on indicate a preparation for that role. Charles isn’t the strongest of personalities and I don’t know what cans of ruler he will be.
The RF know more about Charles' health than we do. Perhaps they know that his reign is unlikely to be long.
Even his name worries me. 'Charles' is a doomed royal name. What were they thinking of?
Has there been any talk of him taking a different name to reign, the way Edward VIII and George VI did?
It will be interesting to see which Royal reporter gets this scoop.
They've been very generous with Dan Wootton lately, and as "executive editor of The Sun newspaper and host of talkRADIO's drivetime show" he would be a very useful person for Charles to have in-pocket.
@Nutty
Interesting and well thought out points.
However, all the royal biographers say whatever is best in the interest of the person who pays them. Not having read any of Tom Bowers books, I am hardly in a position to crit, that being said , the statement he made about " not being honest " about Archie's birth is so very powerful. I doubt Andrew Morton would have had the courage to say that!
So, for a biographer to punch that out , yes , that was a deliberate punch , definitely not a slip of the lip.
Andrew Morton and Penny Junor should take heed. I dislike reading biographies where the writers paint instead of writing.
IMHO - Charles will be King. He stated that he will serve in his future role as the heir apparent. The Regency is HMTQ's way to give Charles more time on the throne in the remaining years of his life. Remember, Edward VII only served 10 years, after his wait to ascend the Throne. Perhaps, again, IMHO, if HMTQ goes for a Regency, Charles will become Prince Regent, opening the way for William to be installed as Prince of Wales. IMHO - this is something HMTQ would love to live to see.
As for Archie - I am stunned that MM would leave the boy in Canada. There must be some bad juju that MM would inflict the boy's absence on Charles, HM and PP. Plus - the latest DM article, "Meghan will feel "trepidation"...." is a load of malarky. There is something going on - a final set down amongst the primary players, or at least one (PH), as to a final warning/ the rules going forward etc.
As to Archie's origins becoming public information....there is a kraken awaiting.
I squizzed through Andrew Mortons latest book on Markle, and ended up not taking it home. That was maybe 6 to 8 minutes of squizzing. Too sycophantic and too many missing pieces. And totally not captivating , I can't blame him as he had an uncaptivating main character to write about.
Now, if Tom Bower actually writes , about Markles dishonesty , and goes on to elaborate just as well as what is written on social media sites , for sure ,that book is going home with me.
I agree. We all know how much Kate loves babies!! the fact that she didn't try to even cuddle Archie makes me look at that situation sideways. That is a huge RED flag to me.
I don't understand why H and MeAgain are leaving their child alone so frequently. Is Meg afraid the Rf is going to snatch Archie away from them if she's in the UK? They could do that if she leaves him home alone. And, can anyone explain why they keep calling him "baby Archie"? is that his official title? At 30 years old, will he still be "Baby Archie"? That is driving me nuts! Sorry Nutty, I meant Crazy!
1. Meg actually birthed Archie from her own body, and he is demonstrably the son of Prince Harry. Leaving aside all the oddities of the way Bump behaved for 10 months, the FUBAR show that was the birth roll out and Meg's unbearable coyness about her birthing plan, doctors/midwife/home birth, etc. was just her spinning things out for attention. She gave birth at the Portland in record time as was reported and was home in Frogmore in time for elevenses. The delay in the birth announcement was because Meg had instructed Sara Latham to sit on it until the U.S. morning shows were on air.
Items to ponder: No signatories on the birth announcement or birth certificate. No medical professionals of record. No gun salute to announce the birth of Prince Harry's first child, a big deal given the affection in which he was (emphasis on WAS) held; no title for the baby. If everything was on the up-and-up, there is no reason HM should have withheld these things . . and we do not believe for a New York baby shower nanosecond that Meg did not go through all this just to insist that her son *not* receive a royal title and all the perks attaching thereunto.
2. Archie is Harry and Meg's biological child, carried via surrogate for the couple's own reasons, and this fact was not disclosed to the RF in a timely manner.
Items to ponder: The unconventional/unprecedented way Archie was brought into the RF may have ruled him ineligible for a title/gun salute, since Meg did not give birth to him and his actual time/location of birth is, to put it lightly, hazy. However, a biological child of Harry's is still a cause for joy within the family. So why does no one evidence joy? Why is William keeping his family at an Arctic distance as though Archie were a carrier for Ebola? What should have bonded the brothers even firmer now that both are fathers has driven a wedge wider than a football pitch between them.
3. Archie is a surrogate product of Meg's egg and an unspecified donor. Possibly Markus Anderson. Possibly someone she picked from a catalogue due to a superficial physical resemblance to Harry.
Items to ponder: Right after the wedding, Markle took a solo trip to Toronto to 'visit friends', leaving her brand new husband behind. Meg's fertility clinic where she purportedly had her eggs harvested after her marriage to Trevor broke up is in Toronto. She may have even had embryos stored there, not just eggs. In any event, Harry seemed to be broadsided at the announcement of her pregnancy that he had been in any way involved in this process.
4. Archie is a product of surrogacy from neither Meg nor Harry's DNA, possibly purchased on the black market.
Item to ponder: the website domain name 'Archieharrison.com' was registered before the wedding, IIRC. Almost like Meg was *absolutely certain* that she was 1. going to have a son, and 2. going to name him Archie Harrison. Most women have at one time or other fantasized about names for future kids, but splashing out money on a domain registration is a bit beyond fantasy. More like, 'Plan in motion', methinks. She wanted an Archie Harrison so she ordered herself one. Perhaps.
There is no way that MM would not capitalize on merching the baby, holding the baby over everyone's head, talking endlessly about the baby....
the way she held whatever child that was, doll that was...none of that speaks "mother"
leaving your kid - repeatedly for weeks at a time...on another continent...with non-relatives...
no freakin way.
There cannot be a baby Archie.
From a distance these two look like very mismatched people.
Charles must b e very upset and disappointed in his youngest son. He had M's number when he called her tungsten.
If Archie (I am sorry, but the idea that any American would name her child Archie, which brings to mind two non-real, made up characters - Archie Bunker, the tv bigot of the famous “All in the Family” or Archie, the homely freckled red head cartoon comic book character. Why not Archibald, and the nickname Archie? Archie is not royal sounding, to say the least) was born via a surrogate, even with his HAMS DNA, he cannot be seventh in line to the throne, or 109th, for that matter. Archie must have been born of M’s body. Then there is the question of DNA. The entire pregnancy, birth and baby are mixed up, or made up, or a bunch of lies, or one big lie, and has too many loose threads.
Yes, you took my #5 option:
5. There is no baby Archie currently (or ever) residing with the two tossers officially known as his parents. I believe Meg attempted to obtain a baby, whether via surrogate or adoption, because she needed an anchor baby in the RF, but was either unwilling or unable to be pregnant herself. If able, far too impatient to let nature take its course. It's not impossible for a 37 year old woman to get pregnant naturally, or possibly with some fertility shots/medication. For her to conceive within two months of her wedding, wham, bam, given all the new stressors she was under is not *likely*. Doctors advise couples to try for a year before concluding they require fertility help. To conceive at her age so fast would be pretty unusual. Not impossible, though, which is how MM could get this ruse rolling.
It could very well be that the RF is apprised that Harry was not able to father kids, which they have kept private, perhaps from Harry himself, and if so, doesn't Rachel have egg on her face? If they have proof either through DNA or Harry's medical records that there's no way Meg's claim that Archie is Harry's can be valid, then unbeknownst to Madam, she doesn't have this card to play. If Archie is not of *Harry's* body, then MM has technically committed adultery. She says she gave birth to Archie and they are both sticking to that story, because the alternative isn't attractive at all.
Further items to ponder: Harry's asinine 'birth' announcement in front of the Queen's stables . . clandestine, sneaky as hell, and Haz a gibbering, babbling nervous wreck. That whole interview just exuded deception from start to finish. Approximately 30 hours later came his cryptic comment that Meg rushed to cover up: "They change so much in the first two weeks." Yes, I imagine newborns do; however Harry was presenting his son to the world as a two day old newborn, so where'd that comment come from?
Lies, so many lies.
Registrant Org Novocast
Registrant Country gb
Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC
IANA ID: 146
URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com (unremarkable, this is just the internet provider, however it is a US based provider, which I would expect a UK)
(p)
Registrar Status clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
Dates 749 days old
Created on 2018-02-12
Expires on 2021-02-12
Updated on 2020-02-13
Tech Contact —
IP Address 184.168.221.44 - 407,902 other sites hosted on this server
IP Location United States Of America - Arizona - Scottsdale - Godaddy.com Llc
ASN United States Of America AS26496 AS-26496-GO-DADDY-COM-LLC, US (registered Oct 01, 2002)
Domain Status Registered And Active Website
IP History 31 changes on 31 unique IP addresses over 2 years
Registrar History 1 registrar
Hosting History 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 2 years
Website
Website Title None given.
Whois Record ( last updated on 2020-03-02 )
So of interest -
Registrar Status clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
Dates 749 days old
Created on 2018-02-12
Expires on 2021-02-12
Updated on 2020-02-13
Archie's Birth date is recorded as 06 May 2019 - so this is either the longest pregnancy ever or something is a little fishy.
Doing some more digging, yes I feel the the nutty blog secret agent ;)
Created on 2019-05-08 - more in line with his birth date.
Expires on 2020-05-08
Updated on 2019-07-08
IP History 9 changes on 9 unique IP addresses over 1 years
Hosting History 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 1 year
Also, for the record--I don't think he looks like either of them, and am especially amazed at those who think he looks like his "mother" as an infant. Not trying to start a fight (ever); just don't see it at all. If either of them is an, uh, embryo contributor, I would say the "father." (Can't bring myself to type their names : )
It also irks me that she is trying to make us buy that she was pregnant--the no-bloating, the popping right back up after crouching, the white dress postpartum, not to mention the floating moon bump--I know it's been said before but I am just adding my opinion as someone who had two miserable pregnancies and two excruciating deliveries with incisions. It just.doesnt.ring.true, Rachel.
My biggest issue with Archie’s birth: No one saw activity at Frogmore. MM was supposedly taken to the hospital and back home, no one saw this even though RRs were everywhere. Not a single story from the hospital, you would think something would slip out by now. Press was camped out at all possible hospitals, yet not a sign of them. MM supposedly gave birth and was home a few hours later, I suppose that’s possible, but still.
The Queen not attending the christening speaks volumes to me.
She didn’t attend Louis, but this is supposedly Harry’s “first born” child.
The excuse, the Queen had a prearranged trip to Sandringham planned, rings hollow.
Meg would have given her false teeth to have HM in the photos.
@Animal Lover
Yes, Charles had her number from the start
Tungsten, known as one of the toughest things in nature,
super dense & almost impossible to melt!
There is no way they know it and he wouldn’t. It’s his body for f’s sake. That would be violating every rule in the book for a doctor to do something that invades a patient’s privacy or knowledge.
I think it’s either a surrogate, but more and more that’s there’s no baby, or an unknown reason they don’t want people to see him.
Though I doubt that Harry is unknowlingly sterile - you underestimate the ability of the RF - or any family for that matter to hide facts from their own.
I personally know someone whose parents were told something similar when the child was about 10, they chose not to share it with the child...who then grew into an adult and did not find out until age 30. Prepuberty - it wasn't a topic to discuss, and post-adolescence, the subject never came up.
The ‘Harkled’ And ‘Markled’ Reality Show
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/03/02/the-harkled-and-markled-reality-show/
@Nutty
Thanks for another great post, Nutty.
I can't wait for some answers to the enigma wrapped in a swaddling blanket that is Archie.
I don’t understand how things compute in Meg’s mind for her to poshly abandon her baby across continents? Didn’t she try to address the backlash she got the first time. Now again? The way she’s “mothering” Archie, I would prefer it if he was a doll.
The more and more I think about Meg and her aversion to having Archie in the UK, the more I think something is very wrong with him. I just wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Essentially the IP lookup identifies who registered a website -:
ArchieHarrison.com -
Registrant Org Novocast
Registrant Country gb
Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC
IANA ID: 146
URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com - This is the internet provider
Created on 2018-02-12 This is the date the website was registered - 12 Feb 2018.
Expires on 2021-02-12- Date the registeration expires
Updated on 2020-02-13 - Registration has been changed in some way
The information below is the metadata attached to the hosting provider
IP Location United States Of America - Arizona - Scottsdale - Godaddy.com Llc
ASN United States Of America AS26496 AS-26496-GO-DADDY-COM-LLC, US (registered Oct 01, 2002)
Domain Status Registered And Active Website
IP History 31 changes on 31 unique IP addresses over 2 years
Registrar History 1 registrar
Hosting History 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 2 years
Website
Website Title None given.
Whois Record ( last updated on 2020-03-02 )
Other domains in the name of ArchieHarrison has been registered and looks to align with his apparent birth date - all except this one.
Thanks for the domain information, with interpretation!
There are side-by-side picture comparisons of Harry and Megs' baby photos to Archie, enough that, whichever side of the fence one leans to, one can see the resemblance to either one of them.
Harry became an angelic looking baby by six months or so, but in the earlier photos, he was a homely infant. He kind of resembled a squashed orange toad in his mother's arms at his christening. By the time he was the age Archie is now, he was very cute.
I lean toward the maternal contribution being more likely of the two for a few reasons:
We know that Markle had eggs on cold storage in Toronto and paid a visit there within weeks of the wedding.
The baby we have seen presented as Archie has a marked strabismus, as does Meg, and this tends to be an hereditary condition. It's not terribly uncommon in babies, but the fact that he does have that wonky eye throws a wrench in a theory that he is not genetically related to Meghan. It's actually features of Tom Markle that I see in Archie, specifically his little nose, but it could be argued that babies and old men all share resemblances. Winston Churchill used to joke that every British baby looked like him.
It's not very likely that Meg would have shopped for a baby with this specific defect, particularly since she's likely to be sensitive about any perceived flaws in her Narc facade of perfection. But it would lend credence to Archie being 'hers'.
What doesn't lend credence to him being hers is his complete lack of hair, or very sparse, extremely fine straight fuzz that we have seen. Meg is very fair, for being half-black, but her natural hair is 100% African. I would expect to see evidence of black hair on Archie, because this gene is very dominant. I have seen dozens of biracial children of all skin tones, including very fair. All hair colors from blond to red to light brown. Eyes in all colors including blue, green, hazel and copper. I can't remember an instance though where the child of half-African heritage had fine, stick straight 'white' hair.
Archie as we know him looks like a 100% Caucasian baby. Harry *could* be the paternal donor, but if he is, why were the couple having screaming rows in Australia over the pregnancy, according to AH staff? Why was he disbelieving that she was in fact pregnant? If they had decided together to pursue surrogacy, Harry would have been involved in the process. He acted like he'd been sandbagged. That argues against his genetic involvement to me. Also arguing against his genetic involvement is his oddly distant/aggravated demeanor around the baby, and his discomfort holding/touching him that we saw at the polo/SA. The picture from 'Vancouver' shows Haz looking happier, but that was a bit of a one-off.
Despite the unauthorized circumstances under which Archie joined the family, if he is without question Harry's and that has been genetically proven, I can't help thinking the rest of the family would be more invested in him. I know William has no intention of being merched as part of any group photos with his family & Archie, but one would suppose there would be private visits with the baby so he could meet his cousins--unless Harry is deemed just as untrustworthy as his wife with private photos/video of any such meeting.
Both have proven in spades that they are untrustworthy but I really think Archie is at thte heart of the frostiness.
If Archie turns out to be a baby model who was hired by Meg to simulate a family relationship after her planned surrogacy adoption fell through . . I really hope we get some clarity on this soon for our sanity.
M<y unproven theory is that Megs shackled Harry by saying she was pregnant, a quickie wedding (before the elaborate one) and either she lied (hard to believe, I know) or she lost the baby, so in a panic they acquired a surrogate. Sounds a but wacky but with this whole drama anything is possible:)
Mother i/o grandmother
abdicate i/o advocate
I love your posts and topics - always so thought provoking or insightful. Thank you so much for providing us with this forum.
I think Tom Bower’s comments may actually be pretty innocuous, the Sussexes did outright lie to reporters about Archie’s birth, sending out a release saying Meg was in labor when the baby had already been born and then failing to send the announcement of his birth to all reporters, many of whom read about it on their phones while on the way to Windsor. I think most RRs are still pretty steamed about that, it was a spectacular and unnecessary own goal on the part of the Sussexes but while they were still in the royal fold reporters had to just swallow it. Now, they can actually say “they lied” and Tom wanted to do that. It’s not like either of the Sussexes have ever shown themselves to be particularly smart or savvy (despite Lainey’s many protestations that Meghan is just brilliant at PR), but if indeed there is more mischief afoot surrounding Archie’s birth than just two bitter, not terribly bright people trying to run something based on their “instincts” and therefore failing miserably, then to set fire to all their royal bridges and peace out of the U.K. with two fingers in the air, leaving behind their darkest secrets in the hands of people they clearly despise is a level of stupid that even they haven’t shown before. If so, I. CANNOT. WAIT.
>>>The Queen not attending the christening speaks volumes to me.
She didn’t attend Louis, but this is supposedly Harry’s “first born” child.
The excuse, the Queen had a prearranged trip to Sandringham planned, rings hollow.
Meg would have given her false teeth to have HM in the photos.<<<
I have read that the Queen was ill for Louis's christening or she would have been there. Even if she just had a cold, she wouldn't have wanted to risk giving it to the baby.
The Queen was in Balmoral in early July last year for pre-scheduled garden party receptions for local dignitaries/charities. The invites had already been sent and it had been on the diary for a year. Meg did not consult with BP before announcing the christening and put HM in a bind. Cancelling the garden parties would have entailed inconvenience to a great many people, all for the whims of Harry's wife.
Before I knew the extent of the scheduled activities in Scotland, I'd assumed that HM had perhaps manufactured an excuse to be away at Balmoral in order to avoid being in Windsor at the same time. Plausible deniability. But apparently it was a snafu in scheduling engineered by Meghan, and one of the items that contributed to the strains between HM and the couple.
If Meg purposely chose a day when she knew HM would not be in residence, but rather hundreds of miles away in Scotland, and would not cancel her plans . .that begs the question . . why? Why would it be in Meg's interest for the Queen not to attend the christening? Furthermore, why schedule the christening on a weekend when the Archbishop of Canterbury was in York, chairing an ecclesiastical summit? I'd be shocked if the Archbishop performed the ceremony as advertised, seeing as HM was not in attendance, and he himself was engaged 300 miles away?
Things that make you go Hmm. Especially when that christening photo was faker than a 3-bob note.
Speech by the Queen on her 21st Birthday, 1947.
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
I've never believed reports that PH was sterile. For medical information that sensitive to have leaked out somehow in the British press about him -- no, I don't believe it ever did and I urge others not to believe it either! But I believed the CDAN report that PH has a love child in the U.S. because I think that tidbit came from MM herself. IIRC, it came out at the same time as the allegation that Diana was illegitimate, specifically that her bio father was Lord Goldsmith and that she was a half-sibling to Jemima Khan. Diana (or at least her nose) resembled Jemima, IMO, and it really explains how she was the only decent looking member of her family. (The Spencers just aren't winners in the beauty department.)
I do think there's an Archie, I do think he's their biological child, but I also think MM didn't get prior approval to use a surrogate and thereby fell afoul of the specific British laws governing royal children and births. She's dodging a bullet there for sure, and I think HM's specific reference to Archie in her last New Year's address was an attempt to reassure everyone that whatever MM did, HM is not going to enforce that particular legality. But I don't think the RF feels the same about MM's faking a pregnancy in front of the whole country. I think that was a step too far, and again, MM just didn't have the intelligence to realize it.
Why has she left the baby in Canada again? Clearly this is directed at HM. She's going to make ERII take her to court for the kid and fight a potentially devastating public battle over custody. But like a lot of other Nutters have said, I think MM is out of her depth when it comes to her understanding of such a custody battle. I can see either Canada or the U.S. allowing the child to be seized and making up a good-enough legal reason when they get to that point in the road.
I really can't wait for the BRF to "unleash the Kraken" against MM -- she's made her fellow Americans look both trashy and ruthless -- and I think it probably will start with Archie, somehow, some way.
This new DM article (something like "Queen says H&M will always be welcomed back") -- I still believe the long-time DM poster who claimed MM's British visa was revoked. If MM should try to come back with Harry or overstays her tourist visa, I can see this being an impetus to release the Kraken. (Then the RF wouldn't have to arrest her on an immigration charge which will be hard for them to do and still look like the good guys.) I don't think BP is being honest with the public about why MM left to begin with, and I think the British press knows it.
everyone pretends the account was "hacked" and this never happened... but it did.
personally I believe the BRF has the Archie baby, whatever his provenance, and it was a dare for her to even try to "bring" him since they know she doesn't have him
And, as a slap in the face and another control behavior, I also wouldn’t put it past her and 40-Watt to pop up with Archie in a photo op with some celebrity in the near future.
She had him purely to cultivate the image of a doting, nurturing mother (See? i’m just like Diana!) for public consumption and facade management, as a way to forever set het name in the history of the RF, and now that she has weaponized Archie, as a bargaining chip.
Because he is only an object to be used, she has no problem leaving him with a nanny so he can serve his current purpose to punish. It’s not as if she will feel little Archie tugging on her heartstrings all the from Canada. She’d need a heart for that.
Re the most recent article, Queen says Harry and Megan always welcome back.Queen and Harry had a four hour lunch. Does that seem strange. This was not a state dinner, but a lunch. Do you think it involved long discussions about finances, divorces, lodging, family changes etc. was that why so long... or did they just have a really long chat over tea about old times.
@HappyDays I agree. She’s weaponized the baby. There are many families in which a young man or woman has become entangled in the grasp of a controlling narc, and if a baby comes, they use it as a weapon. It’s happened in my own family, and it’s heart wrenching. I feel for his family and fear for Archie.
@WalkHumbly: It’s a quite common behavior, and it indicates a level of meanness, cunning, and selfishness that any normal adult would’t even think to approach.
I’ve watched a parent essentially charge their mother-in-law to be able to see her grandchildren, by telling the grandmother that she’d see her two granddaughters more often if she got a new kitchen, then a new car, and then a trip to Disney for her family without grandma being invited on the trip she paid for!! Once the girls grew up, the narc mother lost her bargaining chips.
I also remember one case where the mother and child went for Thanksgiving with her parents in Florida. The husband, who is a doctor, joined them for the holiday. When the holiday was over, the mother said she wanted to stay a few extra days with her parents. Instead, she served him with divorce papers, refused to return to their home state with the baby, and tried to keep the husband from even visiting his own child. The courts forced her to allow him to see the child, but she stayed in Florida for months and dragged out the divorce for. FOUR years. Two weeks after it was finalized, she announced her engagement to her next target, er, fiancé.
Meghan used every trick in the book to snag Harry, and she will use every trick in the book, including using Archie, to get what she wants, or at least try to get what she wants.
@Crumpet: The Queen pretty much had to say Meghan would be welcome, but she well knows that if Harry returns to the family fold, it will be without Meghan.
Meghan never intended to live in the UK and in her mind, waste her star power on the likes of pet shelters, women without jobs, and a cookbook, and I don’t believe her narcissism would allow her to return to the UK and pick up as a working royal. She views herself as much better than that, plus her bridge to the UK has been more than just burned. It has been nuked. I seriously doubt if she’ll ever show her face again in the UK, except for court appearances for media and other lawsuits, and a divorce from Harry, which would likely be a truly spectacular war of the Windsors.
I wonder if PH has any idea what has happened to him? Does he know yet how awful she is? Everyone else in the world sees it. According to HG Tudor, who writes about narcissism, it may take a while. I wonder what he thinks about the public’s reaction to what they’ve done.
Remember, these are great grandchildren, and I think it was only the great grandson who was the future heir who got a title before HM changed it. I think it went back to the days when people had much larger families, and one of HM's grandfather's decided there were way too many prince and princesses wandering about. I think Charles intends to streamline things even further, so it may well have been his suggestion to let Archie be a plain Master.
Lady Louise (Edwards' daughter) had (has?) quite severe strabismus (the first surgery didn't even help it), so it runs on Harry's side, too.
I agree that newborn Harry looked down right frightening, sickly, even, but eventually grew to be adorable.
Lastly, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Doria had a white grandparent, so Meghan is not even half black. And she could have taken far more of her father's genes than her mother's, so she'd have a boatload of white genes to pass along to Archie. Two of my paternal great grandmothers were Eastern Band Cherokee, and my father, as well as several of my brothers, look like they just strolled in off the rez. I am red-headed and blue eyed. I got my mom's British and Norwegian genes. (Along with my father's British genes) I look like one of my mother's sisters and one of my father's sisters. All this to say, you never know how the genes will fall. I do think Archie ( if he is their genetic child) will have much curlier hair as he ages, since Harry's is sort of thick and curly as well.
I believe that HM issued Letters Patent at the time of Catherine’s pregnancy with George that all of William’s heirs to come whether male or female would be styled HRH Prince or Princess. At the same time it was declared that females would hold equal place in the succession, so the crowd was prepared that if Charlotte had been born first, she could have been Queen. The issuing of Letters Patent ahead if any Cambridge issue was viewed as a mark of favor by the Queen. She could have left it for Charles to bestow, as he still could for Archie, or I should say would have, most likely prior to recent events. Very doubtful it will happen now.
The fact that Lady Louise also was afflicted with strabismus is a indicator that it’s pretty common in babies. I had it too, though mine developed later.
Harry’s hair texture seems to have completely changed during adolescence. All through his childhood, his hair was perfectly straight. It was straight at 13 years of age, but seems to have become curly and significantly coarser over the next few years. Quite an unusual change, it would seem, for hair to go from stick straight to curly in a couple of years… But that’s what happened. Harry and his former best mate Tom Inskip have this kinky red hair in common, like twins from other mothers. That’s why if Harry is not the genetic father of Archie, I don’t think it would’ve been at all difficult to find a man who looked very much like him to create Archie. I suppose Harry owes his hair to Earl Spencer though the Queen’s hair is naturally curly. Harry’s… At least what he has left of it looks more scrubby and nappy these days. It’s ironic that Charles, who is ridiculed for going bald at 32 has managed to hold on to most of his hair, unlike his sons.
Given the sheer amount of Rachel’s natural hair, it would be unusual for her kid to show no evidence of her genetic contribution on his head by this stage. But how would we know really? We’ve only seen the child known as Archie in one photo since September, and he was all bundled up with the hat pulled over his head. I’m not counting Christmas GIF baby because I don’t know who that was. Or what.
JocelynsBellinis said...
If MM is so worried about Archie's welfare, why did she leave him alone with a nanny, and maybe Jessica, in an area that has had it's third 4.0 earthquake already this year?
I know that they have probably moved on, but it has been suggested that Archie is still in Saanich, so, of course, we must believe what she says, right?
Saanich News
44 mins · ·
"On Monday morning the third earthquake with a magnitude higher than 4.0 in 2020 to hit B.C. coast On Tuesday morning the third earthquake with a magnitude higher that 4.0 in 2020 to hit B.C. coast
Monday morning earthquake was the third with magnitude higher than 4.0 to hit B.C. coast this year"
Wouldn't that be highly concerning to most new mothers? Wouldn't they want to make sure that their child is with them at all times when the ground is literally shaking beneath their feet?
At some point around puberty I guess (?) her hair started to go curly and now as an adult she has a full head of very curly dark curls.
Basically I remember her getting a perm and having curly hair forever after (it wasn't the perm, her mom had curly hair too.)
Still blows my mind as one of the oddest things I've seen. Asked her about it and sure enough the curls are natural.
To me, this small, seemingly insignificant detail, is a very big red flag. This is also one reason why I believe, if there's an Archie, he does not come out of Meghan's body.
In my opinion, Markle did not want those doctors to have access to her body, period. Because if they did attend to her, they would immediately know she was not pregnant. If she were really pregnant, do you think she would forgo the prestige of being looked after by the best doctors, the royal physicians themselves no less? No, I think she was terrified the Queen's own doctors would find out she was not pregnant, that's why throughout her 9/10 months of "pregnancy," she was never checked by them, and when it comes time to "give birth," she didn't use their service despite being a geriatric first-time "mother."
In my opinion, if Archie exists, he was born of a surrogate. Whose DNA? I don't know.
One last thing, it was telling as well that suddenly, back then, Markle was BFF with Amal Clooney. Amal herself was involved with a cloak-and-dagger pregnancy, with many thinking she was pretending to be pregnant but that her designer boy-and-girl twins were actually born via a surrogate. Amal would have been in a perfect position to help Markle engineer a pretense pregnancy but birth via surrogate con.
And I totally agree about Harry's hair. Stick straight and fairly silky-shiny looking while he was a child, then suddenly it got so bushy looking! Very much like the current Earl Spencer's. Red hair can definitely deepen/dull as you age, as well. Mine was strawberry blonde when I was very young, but in all fairness, it may have been because I was outside more as a child, and there was some sun bleaching going on. One of my cousins' hair went from carrot to rust as he aged. The change of texture is odd to me, though. Mine has gotten somewhat curlier after menopause, but I think it's only because I have lost so much, and it isn't near as heavy! But Harry's looks much coarser, not just curlier. But then Bea and Eugenie's hair has changed quite a bit, too. I swear I saw a pic years ago of Diana carrying Bea on her shoulders and Sarah carrying Eugenie, and Eugenie's hair was every bit as red as Sarah's, wile Bea looked to be more strawberry blonde.
Thanks for the christening info, I forgot about Balmoral!
I’m still convinced that if the Queen wanted to be present, she would have been.
Yes, the Succession to the Crown act, letters patent, were submitted by parliament in 2011.
The act allowed those in the line of succession, regardless of gender, born after 28 October 2011 absolute primogeniture.
King George V issued letters patent in 1917 which limited the use of Royal titles.
The children of the sovereign, grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line,
and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
Archie could have been given his fathers title Earl ofDumbarton.
Nothing happens by accident within the British Monarchy.
Great thought goes into each of the titles bestowed!!
I just can't imagine Harry going along with it, but I guess he could have.
I do think Archie is H&M's genetic child, because even Nutmeg can't possibly be that stupid. Although someone here did raise the point that perhaps the BRF don't do DNA testing for fear of what might come out! (The Lord Porchester rumor, Hewitt, etc.) For the record, I absolutely believe Harry is Charles' son ( he looks like PP to me) but I have often thought that Andrew doesn't look like the rest of his siblings. They all have that long narrow face, and his is much broader. (But then again, so is Her Majesty's. She and Andrew got the Teck genes!)
Edward VIII's names were 'Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David' and while he was called David by those who knew him personally, he was called Edward as both Prince of Wales and King. So I can find anyway (not obvious as he was actually usually referred to simply as the Prince of Wales at that stage as his life).
George VI always disliked his first name Albert. He was born on the anniversary of Prince Albert's death and I expect the formidable Victoria, still in mourning, loomed over the parents as they made that choice. Albert has never been used for an English or British king and of course Prince Albert faced strong public opposition to any sign of aggrandisement on his part. He was resolutely kept down and his true value was not properly recognised until after his death. Despite that public change of heart, I don't think King Albert would have gone down well for George VI's subjects. There was also a great need to bring stability to the monarchy and country after the abdication and 'George' was a royal name especially suited to the still very Hanoverian Windsors.
In addition, it would be difficult to come to know the current Prince Charles with a different name as King as we have known him as Prince Charles for over 70 years. Of course when he was born his parents couldn't have expected his unprecedented, seemingly endless time in the public eye as the next king as George VI wasn't expected to die so young. If not for that, Charles could have spent much of his younger life more quietly, with far less pressure.
It's sad to think how contented the Queen was as a young naval wife - she has said it was the happiest time in her life - brought to an early end by her father's illness and death, which was hastened by the abdication. Yes I know he was a heavy smoker, but he was also a tremendously sensitive, anxious man with a speech impediment, which meant he would be fighting a personal battle every day of his life as king. I believe he did give his life for his country and he was placed in that situation by his supremely selfish brother. Shades of Harry. I am always moved when I remember that Winston Churchill's wreath for George VI simply said 'For Valour'.
I've gone OT about George VI but his example guides the Queen every day of HER life. Never underestimate the effect of that. Especially now.
Your tribute to George the VII was awesome. HM had a truly wonderful man to learn from, none finer.
Harry's hair color seems to change from darker to lighter, and I suspect that he colors it sometimes, but since he's let himself go, he hasn't kept up with the coloring. He's also turning gray, diluting the color. He also may have stopped coloring it because he's losing so much hair. He's going so bald now that he needs to shave it off like William did, but vanity is getting in his way. It's all a part of his refusing to believe that he's now
middle aged, this doesn't fit the cool, hip youthful image he's trying to portray.
Maybe MM can get him a yak wig?
If Archie is real, I wonder how he'll feel when he gets older that his parents decided for him that he is not a royal. He may want all of the trapping that go with it, and he could resent Harry and MM for making that decision for him.
As for HMTQ, I don't think she would ever step down. She would consider that a shirking of her duties. Charles will become king and then William. I don't think HMTQ will mess with the line of succession. I just hope that William decides that his family travel separately in case of an air or train crash.
******************************
You and me both. (And I suspect 10s of millions of others, too!)
I also wish Catherine would suck it up one more time and toss us a set of twins, just to be safe.
I didn’t know about Churchill’s wreath.
I agree, King George VI gave his life for his country.
His speech impediment would have compounded his already anxious self, and more.
Can you imagine having to address the nation whilst stuttering.
He was a good King.
The Queen has lived her life guided by the church, & her fathers example.
I agree, the Queen will never step down.
She made her promise to serve for the duration of her life.
She obviously didn’t realise that she would reach this age.
She will allot more duties to Charles, & William.
But will remain Queen until her death,
or health/mental well being declines.
God Save the Queen.
The “Kings Speech” & the “Darkest Hour” portrayed Bertie well.
Despite being thrown onto the throne, & given his insecurities,
Bertie fulfilled his role with honour, & loyalty to his people.
He was a much loved King.
So possible scenarios in my own humble opinion, including these 2 points:
1. they used a surrogate, with their sperm & egg: why would Harry agree to this even before they married? why the rush?
2. they used a surrogate, her egg, she got sperm from somewhere: why would Harry agree to be tricked into this?
3. they used a surrogate, neither one's DNA: why would Harry agree to this?
4. they 'got' a baby somewhere: why would Harry agree to this?
5. there is no baby: why would Harry agree to pretend that there is a baby, when there isn't one?
You see where I am going with this people?
Why on earth would Harry agree to any of this insanity? He might be stupid and thick as a plank, but how can any man, especially such public man, from such a public family, collaborate in such extensive deceit and lies that can possibly psychologically damage an innocent child?
I. JUST. DON'T. GET. IT.
But WHY, oh WHY, would any reasonably sane man agree to any of this?
I don’t get it either!!
I do not believe she was pregnant.
As for the rest, hey it’s Megs world.
Nothing this petty, parvenu does would surprise me.
As for Harry, he sold his soul, & everything else,
to live in the “Echo chamber of Megsies Mind”
@Hikari my red hair has changed colour during my life time being a much lighter shade when I was younger however it has not become either straighter or curlier keeping a slight wave at all times
Ian’ Girl Lady Louise’s strabismus according to her mother is associated with her premature birth. The Countess of Wessex suffered a placental abruption and had to be rushed to hospital for a caesarean section; both mother and child suffered severe blood loss and Louise was transferred to the neo-natal department of St Georges Hospital as a precaution
The resurrection of the Stuart names (Charles & Anne) was tempting Providence.
I still believe that the last photo of `Archie', in `his father's' arms in the mountainous landscape with water (which one of us identified as being in Turkey) shows a little girl.
There's nothing masculine about that face -little girls often look like boys, not the other way around. The 2-eared hat `looks like' the one worn by H's friend's daughter, because it is the original hat on the head of the original wearer.
What's the betting that, if there was a surrogate, she came clean, not wanting to be involved in the charade, and surrendered the child to the RF? (not if she was a friend of Meg's tho. Btw I agree that the Lady in Brown was Talia Wotsername).
There are new names contributing to this blog so I'll say, yet again, the `birth certificate' is highly suspect.
It may have said that it was a `true' copy of the Register entry but that's printed on the form anyway. Don't believe the statement - without the Authenticating Stamp, normally added at bottom right-hand side after the form's completed, it is meaningless. Proformas are available on line if one wants to fake it.
I've only ever registered a death - one's say-so is not enough. Third-party evidence, the Medical Certificate of Death, with the Dr's signature, is needed. I cannot I imagine the procedure for a birth is any different.
Presumably, H would have had to take some sort of `medical certificate of birth' to the Registrar. A father's say-so might be accepted with regard to his relationship to the baby but not to the actual fact of the birth. If no independent evidence wasn't required, it'd leave the door open for non-existent children to be registered with a view to the parent's making false benefit claims...
Further more, I gather there is a considerable amount of other official paperwork associated with producing a child in the UK nowadays, given the State Benefits due. Whereas the RF would probably waive the cash, can you imagine MM letting it go?
Would someone with experience of this please confirm?
I also recall talking to friends about what a H&Ms child might look like. The conclusion was that it was nearly impossible to predict its skin tone, given that this in not controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance, for which probabilities may be calculated, but is multifactorial, controlled by a larger number of genes. We don't know what recessives MM might carry.
What was certain though, was that the child would have curly hair.
It's been a chess game between the BRF and Markle ever since. The Crown always wins and Markle and Co. severely underestimated the BRF. I wonder if the truth of "Archie's" circumstances will ever be made public and have been leaning more towards No.
Though, perhaps in this case the crime will outweigh the scandal. I do hope the little baby, whatever his origins, is in a loving home.
Here are possible answers to a few of those scenarios:
>>>1.They used a surrogate, with their sperm & egg: why would Harry agree to this even before they married? why the rush?<<<
Harry agreed because he desperately wanted a child and was "besotted." But he didn't necessarily agree to the timing of the pregnancy. And more likely, he may have thought the plan was for IVF for MM. (Which I suppose could have happened, square, swaying, folding, shape-changing bump aside.) She could have told him anything about why IVF was needed for her to become pregnant. Age, some abnormality...Whether he's dumb or not, it wouldn't be that surprising for him to lack specific knowledge about women's fertility. Many men do. And he doesn't strike me as a particularly curious person.
Their "giggles" at the wedding about children seemed odd. A minister mentioning to a couple "be fruitful and multiply" isn't unusual and most couples don't overtly react unless the couple is VERY young or the "multiplication" has already begun. Obviously M was not pregnant with Archie at the wedding. Embryos could have been on ice though with Harry thinking they'd be used many months down the road vs two months.
>>>2.they used a surrogate, her egg, she got sperm from somewhere: why would Harry agree to be tricked into this?<<<
Harry wasn't told his contribution wasn't used. He made one and thought #1 was the plan.
>>>3. they used a surrogate, neither one's DNA: why would Harry agree to this?<<<
He didn't agree. He thought #1 was the plan.
Once it got started, if it wasn't done according to Harry's agreement or understanding, it was too late for Harry to stop it. It would be hard for many men to admit publicly they'd been made a fool of (or even admit it to themselves.)
Harry had gone all out for MM before they married---trip to Botswana, defense against racism before anyone knew who MM was, Diana's diamonds in ring, practically begging people to like her (Everybody hug Meghan!) And Harry had been warned by many family members to slow down (or in Philip's case, stop.) He'd have hated for them to be right while he was wrong as he's been "wrong" for much of his life. So he willfully closed his eyes except for occasional odd remarks (are you really pregnant, is it mine, babies change so much in two weeks)
I too am leaning towards a no reveal of Archie.
For the simple fact that BP can use the truth, to shut Megs up,
in a divorce settlement.
I believe the reason Harry went along with the surrogacy is by the time he figured it out, he was in too deep. If he spoke out the optics would have been very damaging to the BRF. So he went along. The BRF did as well, but maintained distance and plausible deniability.
"In too deep" should be a key phrase in this blog. This has happened or we think this has happened many times since Harry and Megs first met. Another one is a faked pregnancy to rush Hapless to the alter. By the time Hapless found out this was a lie, it was too late to call off the engagement and wedding. Or too late for Hapless to man up and do so. Or Haplesss weighed the pros vs cons and decided to proceed. He might have thought, "She lied to me, but this will be the last time, I really really want a family like my big brother. It is embarrassing that I don't, my old friends do" "Tom Inskip looks very happy and she must have lied to him sometimes"
Megsy has gotten him in too deep on five or more occasions. Every "in too deep" means a Megsy lie. While Harry is/was a Royally sheltered dunce, so is/was an open book to the conniving Miss M, with his minimum lies and no huge ones. A very dark/one sided picture.
"You never marry an actress, you step out with them" - Prince Phillip's advice to Harry that was rejected.
Not only the nation will never accept Markle, now Harry lost respect altogether. A bit late to start a second major rehabilitation campaign for him. Even if Queen knows Harry has mental problems surely she can't expect it all will just be forgotten? No, she appears to put hapless Harry above the nation and this doesn't look good.
Archie - something is deeply wrong with this child. Secrecy about his birth, looks, limp behavior, reports that he could sleep all the way through long flights - all are major alarm bells. His "mother" would never miss a chance to make money and adoration off him, so either Harry blocks all his appearances or the child has health issues.
If Harry stops Archie's appearances then why? This seems to stretch as far as blocking his contacts with grand - grandparents, grandparents and cousins. One thing is wishing private life for the kid and another is removing him from his family altogether. The whole thing is bizarre.
I think most babies have a point at which they have a strabismus while their eyes are figuring out how to work. Mine had it at around 2 months, I think? Also, babies lose all the hair they were born with at around 5 months and they are bald for awhile. It's really distressing as a mom but it does grow in (completely differently) a few months later. So if I remember right my baby was bald from about 5-8 months?
And I also do not believe MM birthed Archie. Mostly due to her non-issues with balance and wearing 4 inch heels. There are probably at least 20 instances we could all list but one that stands out to me is when they met Tutu. Meghan was walking up a stone staircase in her heels, holding Archie, and did not use the handrail or worry about balance at all. She walked confidently up the steps. But at that point my balance was still off and the hormones gave me so much anxiety about dropping him or falling with him in my arms. I cannot imagine gliding up steps in heels without even slightly using the handrail or looking about me to make sure I don't drop him. Lots of instances like this that make you scratch your head, like "huh....".
At the core of this is disloyalty. In a constitutional sense. For a start, how on earth could Harry ever regain the loyalty of the armed forces, regardless of the honorary nature of his commands? It would be a joke. There he would be, in uniform, every Remembrance Sunday before the cenotaph, remembering those who gave their LIVES. Whereas he flounced off after a mere 18 months because everyone didn't love Meghan and we wouldn't allow them to crassly commercialise his family.
Moreover, the public have been accused of racism and of being toxic. As have the media, who have also been made to look idiots while performing their customary role for royal births and other royal events.
Everywhere you look they have made enemies. The word traitor has been used for Harry and you can see why.
If the recent reports that Queen told Harry he and his grifter would always be welcome back are true than I think the real power behind the throne was Phillip all this time. Queen appears completely lacking leadership, self respect and willpower without him.
Translation here is -- "Harry come back anytime but leave Megsy behind in stages" "We will do the utmost to get Archie back for you" The Queen and BRF are not trusting and stupid with M anymore. Today the BRF is 100% cynical about Megs, like the DM and Nutty commenters/ The BRF has learned that Samantha and the DM rabble-peasantry were right all along.
You live and you learn.....
>>>I think most babies have a point at which they have a strabismus while their eyes are figuring out how to work. Mine had it at around 2 months, I think?<<<
True. But normal "crossed eyes" or wandering eyes in babies typically straighten out by 4 months of age. https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/eye-and-vision-problems/glossary-of-eye-and-vision-conditions/strabismus
Archie was still showing a turned-in eye with Tutu when he should have been close to 5 months old (although he looked older and appeared to be trying to stand.) And both eyes seemed to turn inward in that bizarre Christmas card when he should have been 7-8 months old.
I like your name too.
And think you are spot on about balance. No amount of yoga can make a heavily pregnant woman sit down on heels (knees together!) and get up unaided.
Her constant hugging the "bump" may have a simple explanation too. If you wear a heavy fake belly you want to make sure it stays in place. On rare occasions she didn't cradle it it appeared to shift.
With my first pregnancy, I started showing around 3 months and had to produce my scan pictures to prove to relatives/friends that I wasn't carrying twins as nobody believed that I could be showing that early with a single baby. The bump just kept getting bigger and bigger, by 6 months I'd be getting comments on the baby being due any day and weird looks when I said there was a while to go, and by the time I was ready to give birth I was humungous. Although I had this massive bump, my stomach still *felt* flat - it honestly felt like I'd got the most toned stomach I'd had in my life, I'd be randomly surprised to look down and see this beachball sticking out. Because of this, I'd still occasionally try to do things I could do before I became heavily pregnant, the funniest one was trying to slip sideways past my ex through a checkout in a supermarket and only realising I wouldn't fit when I was physically stopped by my size lol
While squatting was technically possible until the end, by 6 months it was impossible to do it without looking like some sort of constipated frog with my knees out to each side while holding on to something to stop me toppling forward, and towards the end I even avoided that as it was so uncomfortable and touch and go whether I'd actually be able to get back up again without help. Heels were a complete no-no as I couldn't keep my balance and even simply bending over or doing anything requiring flexibility was problematic.
My second pregnancy I carried completely differently, I had hardly any visible bump out front and just looked "fat" to anyone who didn't already know I was pregnant, which was kind of depressing when I told people I was 8 months pregnant and just received a raised eyebrow in response. It was a completely different experience and I had none of the balance or bump-in-the-way issues. During the second pregnancy I was able to do a lot of other things I couldn't have done during the first without any issues (I could even squat without looking like a frog lol), which was kind of lucky as I had a very energetic toddler to keep on top of by then. My first was 7lb5oz, my second 7lb13oz so the size of the baby didn't have anything to do with my bump size or positioning.
I know it's just personal anecdotes, but this is what makes me think that Meghan could well have been pregnant and still did what we saw her do, I think it's plausible that she wasn't happy about how she was carrying it and decided to use the moon bumps so she at least actually looked pregnant. It also still doesn't explain the weird dates and everything else that seemed off about her pregnancy, but I think it could be a possible logical explanation for the squatting, heels, moonbump etc.
I also remember exactly when my hair changed; I'd had it cut from bum-length to chin length to make it easier to deal with while pregnant and the ends refused to lie flat from the day I had it cut, I'd assumed it was just because all that weight suddenly wasn't there any more and it'd go back to how it was when I grew it back out - those sticky-up ends just turned into curls as it grew.
The only way for her to have been stopped would have been public disclosure of her scam - which would make Harry look stupid, weak and p-whipped. Once the RF missed the first opportunity - then even they were "in too deep" and couldn't stop her without making themselves AND Harry look stupid and weak - and disregarding his p-whippedness in which he still believed (and may still believe) that he was "in love"...
This will not end until Harry is fed up and willing to expose the whole deck, thus ending the relationship in public.
My middle brother had thin straight hair from the time he was a baby straight through to middle school. He became a swimmer in HS, and they used to shave their heads in order to be faster through the water (and not have to wear a cap). As his hair grew back in, it grew in thick and coarse like a brillo pad. Puberty can do some crazy things to your body and one of them is change your hair.
Now my older brother is the ginger in the family, and as a toddler he had strawberry blonde locks and as he got older it got deeper red. He used to have super thick hair too, and now it's pretty thin (and he's got a big bald spot on top, not unlike harry). Both of his kids are ginger's too, and they are beautiful reds. Youngest was more blonde as a toddler, but is now full red.
I think that lines were drawn in the beginning of the Queens reign.
Philip would take control of family matters, the Queen, with her aides
would deal with the Crown.
Philip has loyally supported the Queen throughout their married life,
her confidante.
He would/does offer advice, and on occasion try to steer her decisions.
But ultimately, I believe, the decisions are hers.
Harry was visibly tense and sweating when he saw Markle's entourage enter the room at Invictus. Justin Trudeau gives a textbook example of 'nonplussed', mixed with 'Oh, shit.' Perhaps Haz had been regaling him about his GF from Hell. Now Jussie is Megsy's bestest bestie?!?
Seriously, what does this woman have on all these people? JT and Haz share in common a fondness for grossly insensitive historical cosplay . . I could see JT cozying up to Harry--his Royal guest in his Commonwealth country, and them being similar ages and sharing what they think is entertaining at costume parties. JT would earn brownie points with the Queen by being friendly to Harry. But where does Megsy fit in? Is JT now BFFs with the 'pair' on Twitter because they are now a package deal?
At the time, the narrative was, "Here's Prince Harry unveiling the love of his life, American starlet Meghan Markle to the public." There was even an announcement the next day (where she's wearing the huge white boyfriend shirt and the jeans that looked like they'd been set upon by a pack of rabid badgers) to the assemblage that a 'special young lady' was in the audience for Harry--cue camera zoom to Markle, striving for boho chic and looking like she'd been dragged out of a ragbag backwards. Whose idea do we think that announcement was?
If Markle had pushed her way into Invictus--she was so obviously not there as a guest of Harry--MA had obtained tickets--in order to tell him she was pregnant and he had to make an honest woman of her, it was a nice touch to bring her mother to add to the pile-on. Her mom and her pimp, nice.
But Haz's face was not one of a man who'd had intimate knowledge of her recently. He looked like he was in danger of pooping himself. Even if they'd tied one on for auld lang syne at the Inskip wedding, that was back in April. By late September she would have been very pregnant, and she was demonstrably not rocking any sort of belly at that time. Certainly not at the wedding either, which was seven months further into the future. I tend to disbelieve the theory that Haz had reconnected with her over the summer between Jamaica and Invictus, because he should have looked happier to see her, or given her an invitation himself if she was back in his life.
Those that had the power to shut her down in the early days should have taken a deep breath and steeled themselves to 'look stupid & weak, racist, etc.' She had no real power to hurt them until they gave it to her in the form of a Royal wedding and title. Now she will be like a virus they won't be able to eradicate from their lives. There's always "Archie". Because rewarding her for her scam with everything she wanted has not succeeded in NOT making them look stupid, weak and racist . . . they are still facing those charges, 2+ years on, only far worse.
What a godforsaken mess it all is.
Yes, I know he claimed to have taken her there but an early Harry Markle post demonstrates that M hadn't thought things through and checked dates against her IG account.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/meghan-caught-out-lying/
Apparently, when they were `in Botswana' was the time that M was at a chum's wedding in NYC, with the photographic evidence put online by her own hand.
Not sure if I've posted the following already - apologies if I have -
I read one report alleging that M was trying to get H to cut himself off from his family. She was said to have argued that `if she could do it for him, then he could do it for her'.
How sick is that?
I agree that it all goes back to the Invictus Games where Ma Ragland and Markus ambushed him. The photos are on Harry Markle.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/invictus-games-conspiracy-team/
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/is-markus-threatening-harry/
`The important factor in a sham marriage/civil partnership or a marriage/civil partnership/durable partnership of convenience is that there is no genuine relationship between the parties’
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/846190/criminal-investigations-sham-marriage-v2.0-ext.pdf
That is, both partners conspire for sake of benefits – immigration status/money – it is the authorities who are defrauded.
Sometimes though, it is the partner who is defrauded – one has every hope and intention of it being a genuine marriage, the other hasn’t. For example, unknown to one partner, the other turns out to be already married.
Or a fraudster marries with no intention of fulfilling the role of a marriage partner. It was just to get to get a servant or his/her hands on the other’s money. Proving the lack of intention is the very devil. (That’s what a narcissist did to me. I left within the year but it took nearly 8 years to get divorced – as a `litigant in person’ he blocked every legal move I made without cost to himself. Looking back, it seems like a bad dream but I got through it)
It's telling that Doria was spotted with Gayle and Oprah at a recent event. They're waiting for things to move to the next level for the interviews that vilify the BRF as racist.
This is what I mean about Markle being a virus they are never going to expunge. She's not going to stop until she's dead. It's not like this is going to be over after they get divorced. That will drag on for years, in the courts, along with the weaponizing of Archie. Markle will continue to poison the well against the RF wherever she is, whether Harry is with her or not.
He's going to be destroyed eventually--it's already underway--but she'll crawl away unscathed like the cockroach she is.
She can never be trusted not to spill what she knows, if she in fact knows anything bad against them . . or to not spread lies and poison for sport. This is the very air she breathes. There are no 'terms' which she will abide by, not if she can milk money and attention from breaking them. This is going to be a never ending nightmare for the RF for decades to come, I fear. William will be facing off with her in the future, most likely over the corpse of his estranged brother.
If she'd been denied entre into the family 2 years ago, any tales she told would be from a jilted girlfriend with an agenda . . .without the BRF scrubbing her past as Harry's fiancee, it would have been a lot more open to scrutiny than it has been, and she would have discredited herself. Especially if her blackmail relates to Epstein and Andrew, ie., Meg 'knew' Andrew herself, perhaps. Right now, the worst secret I can think of is Andrew or another member of the RF (Harry) implicated in a murder. But if they had cut this grifter off at the knees before she could hide herself behind the protection of the RF, she would have been a lot more vulnerable. Now she's fortified herself, and they've given her the fortification. After all, she's the mother of a royal baby (!) so they can't just cast her off without a soft landing. She's gonna have them over a barrel til the end of her days.
Even if, from my point of view, a best case scenario, and Rachel tops herself with drugs, she will be enshrined in memory as the latter-day Marilyn Monroe and conspiracy theories will swirl for years and years. Her schemes would never have gained this kind of traction if she'd remained out of the circle as a jilted former lover of Harry. That's not exactly an elite club. But now she's a Duchess and the mother of an heir and those things can't be taken away . . maybe on a technicality, but not in the popular mind.
The BRF put the tools of its current pain into her hands.
Epstein had toned down his operation after the Florida charges. Oprah is heavily involved with David Geffin, look into him when you have time. It's all connected to trafficking and Epstein's operation. Andrew is eyeballs-deep in it.
The DC Madam was also connected to Epstein, she also suicided by hanging herself in her shed. She had a very valuable little black book.
BTW, Epstein's flight logs have been published on the internet for nearly 25 years, I saw them around 1998 or so. It was always considered conspiracy theory.
Harry's dalliances with substance abuse are also well known. The cover-up in Vegas is already out of the bag. Short of Harry using his position of diplomatic immunity to head up his own drug cartel, revelations of Harry's drug use would be a non-event. Harry does not have the mental nous to head up his own drug cartel, but he is vulnerable to exploitation from people who do. Thing is, if Meg is so well-versed in potentially devastating criminal behavior, how would she know, unless she was an active participant herself? By knowing what she knows (if it is in fact anything) she damns herself by admitting that she was also part of the shadow world.
If Meg had information or was perhaps a witness to a fellow yacht girl's death by misadventure during sex games with a Royal, that might be enough to compel a marriage, but whatever happened, the BRF is rueing giving in to her now.
>>>What Botswana trip?
Yes, I know he claimed to have taken her there but an early Harry Markle post demonstrates that M hadn't thought things through and checked dates against her IG account.<<<
True. I've read that Harry Markle post. But H&M have been so "fluid" with dates I'm not sure that discrepancy matters. And there is this sort of thing:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4174187/prince-harry-puts-arm-around-meghan-markle-while-travelling-to-destination-popular-for-proposals/amp/
Exactly. She's a malignant narc. She will, however, move on to her next mark which I predict will be US politics. There's no where else for her to go and she won't stop hustling. It's who she is.
One last thing, it was telling as well that suddenly, back then, Markle was BFF with Amal Clooney. Amal herself was involved with a cloak-and-dagger pregnancy, with many thinking she was pretending to be pregnant but that her designer boy-and-girl twins were actually born via a surrogate. Amal would have been in a perfect position to help Markle engineer a pretense pregnancy but birth via surrogate con.
@empty space: I’ve been thinking the same thing.
It might just be coincidences, but when Meghan suddenly went back to Canada just over two months after the wedding, I thought it was a bit odd.
But then, still in August, when she and the 40-Watt Prince went to visit their “good friends” the Clooneys, it caught my attention, because I knew Meghan was trying to download a baby/bargaining chip/little insurance policy as soon as possible.
I wondered if she had gone to Canada for some sort if fertility-related treatment, and then when the visit with Amal Clooney in Italy happened very shortly after her jaunt back to Canada, the alarm bells started going off for me.
I think that at a minimum, Amal Clooney’s twins were IVF. For someone her age, I truly thought she’d be pregnant sooner than almost 2 1/2 years after their wedding. After all, George certainly is no spring chicken himself, and the sperm men produce after about age 40 contain more genetic defects than that of younger men.
It would not be one bit surprising if it eventually comes to light that the pregnancy that produced Archie was not a usual standard pregnancy or that genetically, he is not a product of an egg from Meghan and sperm from Harry. I think Archie is genetically at least half Meghan and Harry, but which half, which creates a situation of a massive intentional deception.
Archie could very well be 100% their genetic child, but born via a surrogate, which brings up the “of the body” issue, and another intentional massive deception of the RF and the public.
Narcissists like Meghan think nothing of lying. It’s second nature to them, so as far as I’m concerned, no lie, deception, misrepresentation, or facade creation is out of her reach.
It's behind a paywall.
Meg gave Catherine a wide berth during her fauxgnancy because you just can't pull the wool over the eyes of an experienced mother who has carried and given birth to three babies. Catherine and William *know*. So all the tales Meg spun about the Cambridges trooping over to Frogmore to visit her while preggers and after the baby was born are complete hogwash. All lies, along with all the other endless streams of visitors to the uninhabited and likely unfinished Froggy Towers.
William and Harry have barely spoken or seen each other since Harry's wedding, and then only under duress, like shared engagements or church services with the family. The notion that Kate and Megs are trading mum advice over scones in FroggyCott while they look indulgently on at their progeny is beyond ridiculous. When W. & H. were ambushed while on tour after the 'birth' and forced to say a few words, it was funny yet painful to watch. After a minute of the most stilted giggles and groping for what to say that wasn't a bald-faced lie, Wills practically dragged his wife to the car to get away from the interrogation.
Not the demeanor of a happy uncle, absolutely no way.
Disregard the obligatory babbling and look at their faces. Kate is smiling, but when William is speaking, she completely drops the smile and her eyes look sad. While Kate is speaking, smiling like the trouper she is, Will is contorting his face like he's in some kind of abdominal pain. It's torture for both of them, but they carry on. That's professionalism.
With the differing viewpoints as to whether the Queen's custody of all grandchildren includes great-grandchildren, are they, or at least Smegs, keeping Archie out of the UK to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Queen to step in as guardian? Just something to consider.
A night at the Met Ball, a role in a superhero movie…? So much for the quiet life, Meghan!
CELIA WALDEN
Part one
official engagements as working members of the Royal family CREDIT: BBC/PA
So Meghan Markle is reportedly attending the Met Gala in May. Because where better to celebrate your newfound privacy and “space” than at the “the party of the year”, “the Oscars of the East Coast”, “the Super Bowl of red-carpet events”?
What could be more perfectly suited to anyone fleeing “intense scrutiny” and “commoditisation” than an annual mega-bash to which anti-commodification activist Kim Kardashian once turned up dressed in a nude-effect wet-look Mugler dress? A celebrity Pavlova, where the 225 assembled photographers will take an estimated 50 shots a minute, before blasting millions of images out into the ether?
Although why this is more appealing than a royal visit to the Mumbles Lifeboat station in south Wales is anyone’s guess.
According to sources at the weekend, Markle is to leave Prince Harry at home for the night, so “she can establish herself once more in Hollywood”, attending the Met Gala with Vogue’s editor, Edward Enninful. This makes about as much sense as a woman who craves the quiet life asking her LA agent to find her a leading role in a superhero film, “something that pays big” – which is exactly what one Sunday paper claims Markle has done.
As the Sussexes fly back to Britain to complete their final official engagements as working members of The Firm – and come face to face with the Royal family for the first time since The Statement, the long, petulant Instagram post from a fortnight ago in which they whined about dropping plans to use the “SussexRoyal” brand as there was no legal case to stop them trading on the name abroad but, okay, they promise not to – the pair may have no choice but to brazen it out.
Anyone with the gall to question the Queen’s authority in this way might not find that a problem. “Who made you Queen?” the statement effectively sneered, “you don’t own the word ‘royal’.”
I’m not sure the Sussexes will understand just how colossal a miscalculation that statement was, or how transparent the motivations beneath the legalistic jargon were until they’re confronted both by the Queen, and a great British public that is increasingly bemused by the couple’s conflicting words and actions.
Reduce the statement to a human level – without all the titles, castles, formalities and traditions – and it’s more shocking still. After all, you have a young man and his wife turning on a 93-year-old grandmother at one of the toughest moments of her life.
You have them disregarding the pain and sadness prompted by Prince Philip’s ill-health, Prince Andrew’s involvement with a paedophile and her beloved grandsons falling out – all because they have a brand to promote. Is there any way back from that?
Had you asked me a month ago, I would have said yes. Despite the acts of clumsiness and the missteps we’ve witnessed over the past two years, I would still have said yes. So they invited a bunch of A-listers that they’d only met once to their wedding. How many of us would do the same if we knew George and Amal would actually come?
Was their dispensing of certain Royal traditions really so bad? The insistence on Archie’s christening remaining private and the setting up of their own “breakaway” website? Harry has always been his own person. At this point, one could still push a convincing narrative that these two were “breathing new life” into an outdated institution.
Certainly, many will have understood the couple’s decision to wage war against the British media, and tried to tune out the cynical voices in their heads when they went on to try and manipulate that same media to their advantage.
But the precise moment the couple began to lose the public’s sympathy wasn’t when they chose the hospitality of a billionaire in Vancouver Island over that of the Queen at Christmas, or indeed when they decided to make the desired “break from royal duties” permanent.
No – that moment can be charted back to a lament the misty-eyed Duchess of Sussex made in the ITV documentary charting the couple’s African tour last year: “Not many people have asked if I’m OK.”
Because that single sentence managed to eclipse everything the couple were in Southern Africa to highlight – from the 1,000 minefields that have yet to be cleared in Angola, to the abject poverty in Malawi and HIV-hit children in Botswana – and make it all about Markle.
We can only ever guess at what’s going on inside other people’s relationships, and it may be unfair to blame Markle any more than Prince Harry for these recent missteps. But one thing is certain: neither the words nor the sentiments in The Statement appear to be those of a happy young couple, revelling in the joy of each other and their nine-month-old baby.
and their nine-month-old baby.
And I worry that something is unravelling behind the scenes. Because if their intention were really to enjoy a quiet life, why would they care about a title that can only ever be used for professional profit and status? Why would the team of LA-based agents, lawyers and publicists be necessary and the showbusiness parties and blockbuster film roles so appealing?
Anyone can tell them that you don’t need those things or grand branding to live a serene and peaceful life. But solid family relationships? They’re essential.
Was that the right one @Animal Lover? Lol should have checked that first!
Thanks to all of my fellow Americans who gave a lot of very good reasons for Trump not paying for Harkle security. I hope they're right!
If we elect a Democratic president, things might change. Not only did Democrat Jerry Brown clear traffic off of a California highway for Hillary Clinton when she was in LA for a fundraiser, (a fundraiser, not a rally for the plebs), but Dems also are really into the victims of racism narrative for almost anyone, even ex-royals.
Kate & William in Ireland today. Kate is lovely in green. What Megs doesn't realize is that the royal protocols for dress when on royal official visits are all about showing the hosts respect. You're honoring your host by being appropriately dressed, (hats, nylons, etc.). You're also meeting public expectations for royals. The queen reportedly told one of her staff that her guests wanted to eat on her gold tableware, when he suggested that the goldware wasn't suitable for keeping food at the right temperature. HM knows how to be a people pleaser.
Great comments on the Archie debacle. I have to agree with those who say the RF will probably keep schtum about Archie, but use whatever secrets are there to manipulate Megs. I would love to know the full story though. Too many red flags about the fakency!
One of my pals in college got such a piercing (god bless him) and apparently between the swelling and intermittent boners, his penis would swole up against the piercing too much and he had to take it out. dumbass.
Gonna make it short and sweet. There's a lot of chat upstream about Archie's name.
I thought I had read when it was first announced that Nutmeg had stolen the name from Prince George when she found out he had an alternate name he called himself, as toddlers often do, named: Archie.
Actually just googled that. Tons of stories about it out there.
I must say I'm truly impressed at how Catherine has held her place and performed her role over time. I have tremendous respect for her ability to set her sights on Will, respectably playing the long game since her college days. She may or may not have "aspired" to marry royalty but with her "performance" I couldn't pick a better candidate if I'd tried.
Every time I see that pic I also see a little girl. It annoys me. Her face is not the same face as SA Archie and I don't even do babies!!
@Superfly - agreed, none of it makes sense which I think is why we are all here, rubbing our hands together in eager expectation of SOME sort of explanation. It's truly a juicy mystery.
I believe (as previously stated) the BRF confiscated the surrogate baby and has continued to manage his care during this time. Lord knows what their longterm plan is for this poor child. I do believe there is a child somewhere but not under the care of HAMS.
If so that is just SO #UCKED of her... Also WTF kind of name is Archie??? Archibald would have been infinitely more appropriate.
We all saw the amazing closeness, love, warmth and attachment to his parents in SA with Tutu didn’t we?
I'm fascinated to hear your first hand account of how differently you carried those two babies (of similar size) and how differently your body reacted to the experiences as well. That's just such a trip and it's really important for all of us (especially us no-baby ladies) to recognize what a weird range of experiences a woman can have.
Meghan is still full of shit and never carried a baby though. Remember Jessica Simpson's pregnancies? Okay she is short-waisted with a different body type than Megan but I remember her tottering around on ridiculous heels while bulbously pregnant and... it wasn't exactly a smooth walking gait, more of a balance-stomping straddle.
Ummmm - did you miss the entire Royal Sussex debacle?
Because yes, she is that stupid. That's why all of this is so gosh-darn entertaining! :D
Also, You CAN’t BEND OVER!!!!! You have to sort of bend sideways as there is a solid baby in there that is not made of rubber.
I agree that Archie looks like a Markle. Check out Tom Jr.'s baby pix.
As for the hair,Meghan is first of all not half black, because Doria is actually bi-racial. There are many white people in her family tree. In fact, most African Americans are genetically bi-racial because of slavery rape and mixed marriages going back decades.
Thus, Meghan is somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 white. Lots of black babies are born bald or with thin silky hair. Plus, Harry has frizzy hair now but it was straight as a kid. Archie's hair is brown not white just very sparse (and he doesn't seem to grow from the pictures we've seen.)
I live near the epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak in the US.
Believe me no one is paying attention to these twits.
The news is all about the virus and the economic fallout including the stock market falling.
People are scared.
M is so self absorbed I wouldn't be surprised for her to do something stupid to bring the focus back to her.
Leaks about wanting a part as a super hero just resulted in ridicule or non-interest from the public.
So either "Archie" is their son carried by Markle or he is Markle's and an unknown father's carried by a surrogate. I think those are the only two possible theories.
I am firmly in the "Markle didn't give birth" camp. Tin foil hat theory is that the male contribution is MA's.
You mean abdicate? LOL.
IF Harry had been willingly to help her undergo IVF (a big IF since he would/should have been acquainted with the huge can of worms that would open) . . there's no logistical way that he could have fertilized Markle's egg in Toronto from London. Surely the viability of his donation would depend on the father being on the premises at the time. Since Haz was left behind while MM went to Toronto eight weeks or less after the wedding, under the guise of visiting 'friends', I don't see how he could have been involved as a genetic donor under lab conditions. Unless he traveled to Toronto during the engagement period and there were some embryos created for implantation later. Firstly, I don't see Haz agreeing to fatherhood via this method . . too much expense and uncertainty, not to mention lying to his family. He was probably assuming that they would have kids the natural way, in a year or two. Surprise!
If he'd been the contributor, it doesn't seem like he'd have acted so blindsided by the pregnancy announcement and it REALLY seems unlikely that he'd have agreed to get this ball rolling even before the wedding. These things point to Haz not being the father, in my mind. I get no sense from him (or her, either) of ownership of this child.
I agree that Archie looks like a Markle. Check out Tom Jr.'s baby pix.
As for the hair,Meghan is first of all not half black, because Doria is actually bi-racial. There are many white people in her family tree. In fact, most African Americans are genetically bi-racial because of slavery rape and mixed marriages going back decades.
Truth! Doria is bi-racial herself. She might have native American blood in addition to white. My guess is Doria is about 60-65% African heritage. This puts Megs at about 32% but she sure looks like 25%. Right again about Obama who is about as bi-racial has you can get with a 100% African father and a 100% white mother. btw- There were a few slave owners on his mother's side from Kansas or nearby.
Lastly, back during slavery days the race mixing was slave owner man and female slave. But it is very wrong, very uninformed to call this all forcible and rape. Many times the female slave wanted to move up in the world, move up and away from grunt work in the fields and wanted the same for her offspring. So she become the slave owners concubine. Or one of his sons concubines. A bit like Megsy moving up by marrying her higher status Prince of the Hapless.
Also, she is a spoiled brat who wasn't getting her way in I guess anything, no separate court, no use of the family jewels and on and on. This was her control the baby as only vicious and petty parents do, there is not only parental alienation there is also familiar alienation, which is what she is doing and since she leads her husband around on a choker chain its no surprise he's staying in Canada, while she twists the screws into her in-laws once again. She thinks she is going to checkmate them into giving whatever it is she still wants money, security don't know. But she isn't as has been already shown a chess player but rather one who can barely play checkers.
I still have my doubts if she will even show her face that would be quite brazen even brave so to say and she's shown more than once how much of a coward she truly is in all aspects of what has gone on since Jan 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbxWoMX1ZdmVNY94w5ekCYU-u0_42gqBw
That video makes me cheer! Love to see that heifer get smacked down.
@thosethatdo
I agree. She is a sniveling coward. No way she will show.
I predict a pap walk that she spins to say Archie is in too much "danger". He probably is of course, but only when she is home.
Welcome to you both, and to all our new nutties!
Hikari's description of Harry being ambushed at Invictus is wild. There's the stalking Harry to Jamaica and crashing the friend's wedding. The RF including Harry had to know it was Meghan who leaked their courtship info to the press to score herself Vanity Fair.
This snotty little never-was actress had denied her blackness and ignored her mother as she clawed for Hollywood fame. It was white daddy on the edge of show biz she waxed poetic about until she got her hooks in Harry. So why are the Markles expunged and Doria the preferred parent? For a woman who gladly passed, why the Afro-centric wedding? What the hell was Oprah doing there?
Other Nutty posts led me to the theories about Meghan spying on the RF and leaking to the press. She pushed the William cheats with Rose story to deflect from herself. And then blamed Victoria Beckham for leaking something else.
The pregnancy and Archie post birth - all of it's bizarre. The South Africa melt-down in which Harry seems unhinged and Markle utterly ungrateful. Off to Canada to finish plotting and scheming the Sussex Royal $billion empire which had been in the works for at least a year.
How did the RF let Meghan happen? Until recently I thought she was just one of those really damaged beauties - sociopaths who use their looks and their tricks to get what they want but are never happy. I'm beginning to think there's more to it.
I wonder if it started with Meghan wanting to be a STAR! but some puppet master has a far darker plan. Because of Meghan, the UK has been defined as a deeply racist country over non-existent "media" attacks. The RF is under siege for even entertaining that M&H&A need $20M in annual security much less who is paying for it. How did Markle infiltrate? It's pulp fiction.
HARRY SAID: In the dreadful engagement interview, "this woman is capable of anything."
I thinks once she realized what she got herself into she just had no "F**ks to give and started doing with she wanted and I think it started when they were removed from the Garden Party that rumor's say she crashed with her husband that they were not supposed to be there and used Harry being completely besotted with her to get away with all the things she pulled. Remember what Meghan wants Meghan gets in her own mind.
I think Markle and Co. hooked Harry with a fake pregnancy that ended between the engagement announcement and the wedding. HM and the BRF were hooked in via blackmail (Andrew) and the race factor. It was decided the only way out was "through" and Markle had to destroy herself publically. All about the optics.
It's telling that Doria was spotted with Gayle and Oprah at a recent event. They're waiting for things to move to the next level for the interviews that vilify the BRF as racist."
Yep, I'm with you right here. 100%
I'm a relative latecomer to commenting publicly on this bizarre debacle, although I've been watching from afar since I saw snippets of that ridiculous wedding. Wow. What a dog and pony show of epic proportions that was. At that point I had not even seen the engagement interview. The wedding alone sent all manner of alarm bells ringing in my head and I thought :
1. What on earth does MM have on the royal family?
2. MM has some heavy hitter backers to have helped her stage this obnoxious baloneyfest.
I had not wanted to believe MM faked the pregnancy but she did. No pregnant woman and I mean NO pregnant woman cradles her belly or flips open her coat to reveal said preggers belly for effect the way MM did for 10 months. And no weight gain in ankles or face ( until she hid prior to baby's birth ) ? No pregnant gait? The wobbly , always leaning to the left belly ( including the post partum fundus which was WAY too high ) ABSOLUTELY None of it passes the sniff test.
And there is simply no way MM would not have accepted a title for her child. Nope. No way. Look at how she has handled not being able to brand her Sussex with Royal?
So what I'm wondering is was their departure to Canada encouraged by HM? If Harry won't leave her and the RF can't come clean about the surrogacy and how MM bamboozled ( or tried to ) the public then perhaps sending them to the tundra was the only solution ?
So much strangeness.
If MM is so worried about Archie's welfare, why did she leave him alone with a nanny, and maybe Jessica, in an area that has had it's third 4.0 earthquake already this year?
I know that they have probably moved on, but it has been suggested that Archie is still in Saanich, so, of course, we must believe what she says, right?
Saanich News
44 mins · ·
"On Monday morning the third earthquake with a magnitude higher than 4.0 in 2020 to hit B.C. coast On Tuesday morning the third earthquake with a magnitude higher that 4.0 in 2020 to hit B.C. coast
Monday morning earthquake was the third with magnitude higher than 4.0 to hit B.C. coast this year"
Wouldn't that be highly concerning to most new mothers? Wouldn't they want to make sure that their child is with them at all times when the ground is literally shaking beneath their feet?
I lived in San Francisco during the 1989 earthquake, and my first child was born in 1991. I did not leave him in the city if I had to go over one of the bridges - I either took him with me, or got a sitter in the suburbs I was visiting (had to do this for a wedding once). So, MM leaving Archie alone in Canada is insane - because of earthquakes, paparazzi (?), terrorists - everything!!!
tells him and used the "I really didn't know much about the RF." I can see the tears and the innocent look that says I'm sorry , I didn't know. And who knows how that plays into the pregnancy clown act but I'm betting knowing something about Andrew is key. There were times I saw her and don't think she was pregnant. And she got puffy faced and gained weight after she " delivered". This could easily be explained by an effort to conceive normally after making sure there was a kid as fast as possible. So she would've started hormone treatments and that's why she's gained weight and looks more pregnant now than before. And these hormones she is taking can be to help natural conception or to ready her for in vitro.
You know about earthquakes then, and so does MM, having grown up in LA. I've been knocked off my feet (while holding onto a door frame for dear life) during an earthquake, pictures bounced off the walls, huge pieces of furniture tipped over, glass broken everywhere, even house foundations destroyed, etc. That was a 6.7, IIRC.
The area that Saanich is in, is just waiting for "the big one," like the SF quake in 1989 or larger. Several 4.0s is in such a short time very concerning. It is also concerning that the mansion they're in is on a bluff, and a large earthquake could send that house right into the water.
There is no way a rational parent would leave their new baby with these series of quakes going on.
Sorry you had to experience that '89 quake, and I'm glad you made it out alive. It was horrendous.
I will never understand how this chick got into the BRF; blackmail seems to be the only explanation to me, and I agree it could be about Andrew. But why wouldn't she have already started playing it? The Dastardly Duo dropped some serious cash on the Sussex Royal domains and trademarks, and I think that was her main goal, aside from a title, so why wouldn't she have reminded them about her little secret when all this was being negotiated? Why all the hissy fits and snotty IG posts if she had the BRF by the short hairs?
Could it be that there are enough wee Cambridge's between Harry and the throne, so the BRF were simply not as concerned by Meg as we assume they would be? And they may have underestimated how tacky she'd be, but all the signs were there and I have to believe they had her measure pretty quickly. I think her race does impact the moves they make to a degree, but I am starting to think that the Nutmeg and Ginger really aren't as important to the BRF as they ( and we) think they are (aside from the natural family ties.)
no other excuse makes any sense at all to me.
also, when the RF does leave their little ones, the little ones still have family close by in case of emergency, queen mum & margaret were around for the babies. boarding school is still in the UK where there is plenty of family around.
there’s no one in Canada, the baby is alone with a nanny. very odd. the baby doens’t seem to be with dora, if she’s out galavating with gayle and oprah. very very odd.
and i agree, MM doesn’t seem to have a maternal, nurturing bone in her body. my guess is harry the handbag spends more of his time being a house husband, assistant, pinky, to MM’s world domination goal brain.
Harry is the textbook version of a victim of narcissistic abuse - I.E. someone with an unusually high empathic quality, combined with abandonment issues (loss of his mother and lack of attention from his father) giving him a particular vulnerability that renders him the ideal candidate to be sucked into the cycle of abuse.
And she sucked him in real good. Love bombing him at the start to quickly create a feeling of dependency and obligation, then using every other trick in the narcissistic handbook to keep him confused, fearful, and completely under her control.
The Markle claw is an overt example of the control she exerts over him. Her literal refusal to let go of him in pubic demonstrates this.
Harry, like any other victim of narcissistic abuse, has no idea what is happening to him. He understands he’s not being treated very well by his wife, and his faculties are being stretched to their limits by the chaos she inflicts on him daily, but he doesn’t identify it as abuse. And since he’s already firmly under her control, and therefore rendered powerless, she can do whatever she wants and there is nothing he can do to stop her.
I think this relationship will go on for years. Markle is not about to give up her only chance to fulfill her grandiose aspirations. She sees both Harry and Archie as mere extensions of herself, there to serve her needs, and she will systematically destroy both of them as she seeks to satiate her requirement of narcissistic supply, which without it she would not survive!
I'm sure it's heavy on her heart that she and Philip may not see Harry again for a long time, if ever, as you say. It's heavy on my heart, as I can empathize with how they feel. The most important thing is Harry being well and growing into a fine man, which he can still do. I hope he will wake up sooner rather than later, and will have the courage to tell the truth and do the right things.
Is The Queen’s PR Playing A Dangerous Game With The People?
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/03/03/is-the-queens-pr-playing-a-dangerous-game-with-the-people/
I disagree with you about her puffy face at TTC - she did not have a puffy face when she walked down that red hallway with Harry to present babydoll Archie, but she did have a puffy face weeks later. That doesn't make sense.
As for IVF, it is not a long process (30 days) - all my recipients got pregnant within the first try using a healthy egg & healthy sperm. I think it can take longer if one of the two participants (in a married couple for example) have a fertility issue.
Or maybe all my ladies just got lucky but I did ten of them.
Whatever reasons Hairy wanted out of the RF...nobody knows except him. What happened between him and her since the day they met, nobody knows except him and her, what’s going on now, whats going on behind the scenes, nobody knows.
All we can do is come on here and share our thoughts on what we think, based on our gut instinct, what we believe in the things that are printed and social media read, what we see.
I don’t like it when people come on here and express their opinion as and “absolute”!!!! Because they think Baby Archie LOOKS like Hers/Hairy’s, then that baby is absolutely their own biological baby.
Because Hairy LOOKS like Prince Philip there is NO doubt whatsoever Charles’s is his biological father.
“. Try to take that to a court of law...........”he HAS to be his biological father/mother because he LOOKS like them!”
Show me FACTS!!!!!! results from unbiased labs that Hairy is Charles biological son and that Baby Archie is Hairy and/ or Meghans biological son. Until then....I put NOTHING past these two as I believe there are some kind of deep, dark secrets that the RF seem determined to keep buried!
I remain puzzled by H&M going along with things that are obviously far from what they wanted (Sussex Royal, their foundation, remaining half in, half out as Royals, Frogmore Cottage, etc) if they have some hold over the BRF, though.
There is a new theory on the street. See for yourself here: https://twitter.com/youallknowme999/status/1233508648728616960
In summary, BASICALLY they say:
Harry lost his shit 3 years ago and threatened the whole family with some type of exposure
Hillary Clinton, the Obamas, etc - all these people are close with the BRF (!!) not Megs
Sara Latham & Co were hired to do Foundation Wizardry for the entire royal family (not just H&M) to prepare for the future when the BRF is no longer relevant (hiding money, tucking things inside of things)
There is an imposter Harry they say.
They call them Real Harry (RH) and Unreal Harry (UH) - this will help decode their other tweets
Unreal Harry has a full head of hair and is an American actor with a few procedures to look more like RH, apparently his British accent isn't very good though
Teeth on UH and RH are different they say
- no commentary on eye color between UH/RH (for those of you wondering about Hostage Santa)
Rachel (MM) and the BRF are in cahoots on all this
They (BRF/MM) provide him drugs to keep him managed
Theory would support the concept of the BRF paying for massive misdirection and MM's PR everything
There is a piece I missed - something promised to her if she carries out the whole mission to fruition - not sure what, haven't milked the whole thread yet
What is the reason for all this? To get unstable Harry out of the public eye and away from the BRF who he is a threat to on account of his own stability.
They insinuate all of this public brou-haha is to take attention from Prince Andrew's scandals and to generally entertain the public (it's also good for W&K obviously which is good for the BRF).
It is a new wild theory - serious shades of TP & DD with a HEARTY DOSE of Skippy, depending on how you look at it.
Wanna head down that rabbit hole? Check out @youallknowme999 on Twitter then head over to DD's replies thread to see people talk about what they think of this new theory.
THE PLOT THICKENS
@pluckychickenheart
Re Oprah, Doria... yes, I am sure the Royal Family is racist and mean tour/video with MM will be out this year...remember just before the wedding the announcement in the press that Oprah and Doria were going to do a royal family is racist interview, but it did not happen...maybe it was just to further ensure that Just Call Me Harry and Hi, I'm Meghan [remember that is how she would introduce herself to the masses during her introductory tours] made it down the aisle, and now, perhaps, it will be to ensure MM gets a huge settlement or security paid by the Royal Family...
Domain names. Another possibility is that someone named “Archie Harrison” reserved those domain names for himself. It is not uncommon for people to buy their name.com to assure that no one else uses it. Domain names are cheap; I think I had 7 or 8 for my business at one time to make sure no one else could use it (It was a fabulous name.). So I had .org , .edu, .biz, .info, .com
As others have mentioned, it is not uncommon for someone’s hair to change at puberty from stick straight to some degree of curls. It’s happened several times in my family.
@hunter @hikari
Surrogates: Viscount Weymouth, heir to the Marquis of Bath, had their second son by surrogate. His wife had a medical problem during her 1st pregnancy. The egg and sperm belonged to the Weymouth and they went to the US for the end of pregnancy and birth. They thought it was really important to have an American surrogacy because the law strictly favors the genetic parents and not the surrogate. They said in England the surrogate can change her mind during the 1st six months after the birth. Only then can the genetic parents formally adopt the child in England. There are several YouTube videos about the family and estate. That is where my information comes from. So, the Markles would mostly had the birth in the US, not England, assuming they even would have checked the law.
Thank you, Nutty. I enjoy this blog so much, but have a lot of trouble posting because I use my phone.
Am I correct in that Oprah contacted Doria before the wedding, (invited her to tea/dinner/ yoga/all three to secure an invite to the wedding?
Did Oprah know Doria or Meghan prior to the wedding announcement? Were they besties from way back when?
I want to comment further on this BRF Theory - ("the call is coming from inside the house!")
If it is true the BRF is running a long term game to restructure royal assets while banishing (and delegitimizing) Harry from the UK, this would explain how a number of "insiders" have said the entire game plan is far bigger and far more reaching than anyone is guessing at.
If these "backers" of MM are actually BRF contacts, this all fits in much more neatly with the other claims that "who" MM was didn't matter, it was simply the role they needed her to play (isolating Harry from his friends & family). She has gone a bit off script but nobody seems to care too much as long as the mission (neutralize Harry) is accomplished.
I can't add any baby-relevant details from this theory, I didn't see anything specific to Archie but based on my assessment of "those people" I would say MM started going "off script" pretty early including the baby which was likely a surrogate in some combination of our above theories. AANNNNDDDD then that would again feed back into the idea the BRF confiscated the infant and is keeping him in-house and under cover.
If this theory were true (I'm just reporting), it means Meghan could still totally be the narcissist we assume (hence going so far off script). But it would ALSO mean the BRF really doesn't GAF what happens to her in the long run, as long as their goal of securing their long-term wealth and banishing/silencing Harry is accomplished.
Her party of "backers" would play along supporting Meghan's story as long as they got a cut of the restructured monies.
It also could explain all these claims that they spent so much time apart and were rarely together, if the BRF were somehow facilitating this madness.
It's a wild theory but they all are.
And also explains how they would so thoroughly cleanse the internet of her past deeds since these things can be quietly handled at the government level (Obama was president when this started).
They say he is trotted out at events for hand-shaking and hee-hawing and photos. That real Harry has barely been seen over the last few years.
If there is an imposter Harry, he is only a small cog in this story - mostly just a dude playing a pretty cool part.
Whoa. I mean, on one level it sounds absurd.
Yet at the same time... it almost makes sense.
So fascinating, thanks for sharing- I live for this kind of dirt.
WWG1WGA ;)
And regarding "Imposter Harry"- I can't list how many times I've read in these comments that sometimes Harry seems like a different person- his hair, his cadence- all of it.
Wow- love the food for thought- thanks!
Interesting theory. That said, if they'd wanted to get rid of Harry for some reason, wouldn't it have been easier (and cheaper) just to pack him off to Africa and not let him come back?
Some lovely conservation project in Botswana or Kenya, surrounded by bodyguards to make sure he stayed there.
And, even better...if needed he could have been trampled by an elephant--getting its picture taken, just to make sure, he stayed in Africa! I think we have entered the Heart of Darkness here or just gone down the rabbit hole... I think if the Queen was willing and able to tolerate Andrew's indiscretions all these years--decades, the past decade or so of Harry antics...who knows!? Truth is stranger than fiction.
I'm a Scorpio, what can I say. I do not take well to being threatened.
JohnSmith4
"Oh puleeze- Meagain Markle is the epitome of the Edina Monsoon school of fashion."
Anybody know why the DM sometimes asks you to disable your ad blocker? It makes reading the DM impossible.
It’s possible that Hazza got some bad drugs and lost his sh*t, or that in addition to being stupid he also inherited his mother’s mental volatility. But three years ago, the campaign by ELF to turn Harry into a PR coup for the family was working brilliantly. If he did lose his shit, That coincided exactly with Meg entering his life. This was way before the engagement, so if he was being a problem, a nice long term assignment in Africa would’ve gotten him out of the public eye nicely. By catering to Markle, the Firm has not only discredited Harry, but themselves in the process for seeming to fall for Meg’s con, or not give a toss about the damage she inflicts. The longer this drags on, the more the 93-year-old Queen looks doolally and weak. Also doesn’t explain why Charles has catered to them with every material thing. They could’ve insured that Harry and Megan would’ve buggered off sooner into obscurity by refusing the sham of a wedding in the first place.
As to “Impostor Harry”, I think she has definitely employed him for some long range fuzzy shots off getting off private jets and simulating Bank Holiday pub lunches. One of our sister bloggers has posted a side-by-side comparison of the ears of real Harry and Unreal Harry. Totally different shapes. You can copy facial hair and even noses, but ears are distinctive to each person. I think that’s why Archie’s hair is usually covered up...Hiding the ears and other distinctive features like the shape of his head or the amount and texture of his hair.
S
She knows she can’t carry a film as an actress. People won’t be able to get past the fact she’s Meghan Markle.
Oh.
My.
God.
THE NARCISISM.
Apparently that was a source from her camp.
Most actors I've met in person are painfully narcissistic (to the point of being psychotic, it's almost pathological with some people). But this is a whole other level...
I mean wow? Just wow?
She can't carry a film because she thinks she's too famous now. (Most people I know wouldn't recognise her in a line-up!) Who says that?!
I mean yeah most working actors can't get the bums-in-seats because they're not the main attraction. But to actually say you're too famous off-screen. I can't. I CAN'T.
And I will never get over the sight of Beyoncé & Jay (two properly talented individuals) tolerating her while Harry pitches her for a voice over gig.
Bey & Jay looked so *polite* and *civil* in tolerating her 😂😂 it was the best thing about the whole video. Watch the video again and see the looks on their faces.
Also, does Disney not want her because Hollywood & Americans are just as "racist" as the English population/royal family?
Seriously.
Brave for Windows and Android. For Windows I like the ublock origin ad blocker on Chrome, but when DM objects to this I use Brave.
No ublock origin for Android but you have Brave >>>>> https://brave.com/
Thanks! I'll give it a try!
It’s possible Harry’s hair texture changed naturally from straight to coarse. However, there is also the possibility he perms it to make the thinning less obvious. I know a guy who does that. I think there was an article about Harry doing treatments to deal with his balding. He seems to be having a harder time with his aging than Wills is.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/pagesix.com/2020/03/01/prince-andrew-reportedly-let-supermodel-sit-on-queens-throne-at-buckingham-palace/amp/
Apparently PA let the super model Caprice Bourret sit on the throne and let her steal a vase of some sort to mail to her Mom. Her dating PA made Harry jealous because he had a calendar with her at Eton.
That last tidbit tells me exactly who that anonymous source is. I wonder if we’re going to get a drip-drop of more stories like this from Meg. I had to look up who Caprice Bourret was. I guess I’m just not too kool-4-skool as Meg is.
Diana trust.
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/611607185803411456/show-me-the-money
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!
MM and HM do not need any money from HM or C. They already have it. Approximately 30 ml. between them, so they can draw off of that what they need for “Security Protection”. They can get a monthly stipend. It is all that easy. Just one thing, Megan does not want that. She is not saying a word about security costs. She wants all the pr she can get re: the 20ml. price tag everyone is talking about. What Megan wants is not for anyone else to pay…she wants the Royal Family Trust broken and Harrys money, which is the bulk of the money they have, released to them to pay for what everyone says they need …20ml. You see she needs that to pay her off in the divorce. She is going to a community property state, California, and she wants her house and her half of the money. I can hear it all now…“after all it is our money…Diana left it to him…you owe us what is ours and we will fight to the death to get it.” As it stands right now, Harry’s money is in a BRF Trust that is not considered part of any marital assets, so in a divorce it is like it does not exist. Megan’s plan? Break the Trust (or I will write a book?)… and get Harry’s Trust money, then move, buy the California house, then get the divorce, the child support, the alimony, and finally clear the table of any money that is left. In Megworld, all rules (i.e., Trusts) are made to be broken. Simple…except it isn’t.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1250571/meghan-markle-news-joan-collins-film-actress-prince-harry-disney
MEGHAN MARKLE has been rumoured to be considering Hollywood film offers, but one person who doesn't appear to buy the news is legendary actress Joan Collins.
Former Dynasty star Joan was spotted by paparazzi coming out of dinner in Los Angeles with her husband Percy Gibson when she was asked for her thoughts on Meghan’s search for a blockbuster film deal. The actress was seen to visibly laugh at the question before proclaiming: “You’ve gotta be joking!”
TorontoPaper has been claiming my last sentence for over a year now I think.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8073239/Spitting-Image-returns-Celebrities-including-Prince-Harry-set-mauling.html
@Charade - I tend to think imposters are a ridiculous suggestion but I was also easily duped by Meg's deep fake porno on Celeb Jihad and perhaps I'm naive how possible it really is.
If so, the stories of baldness treatments would support a total replacement of Harry by this full-haired imposter but that's some crazy talk in my book.
You know where I draw the line???
Sure I'll sign on for satanic baby eaters (as a concept outside this story), but I DRAW THE LINE at lizard people.
Never go full lizard people, that shit's just cray.
(no lizard people mentioned lately so I think we're okay)
I don't disagree, I don't know what the hell is going on.
I don't believe the "Working Actress" blog is Meghan.
How does a person go from this: http://workingactress.weebly.com
To THIS??????: https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/
Yes, humans change. But not THAT MUCH!
I will never ever believe that working actress blog was her. Nope, nope. I think some other properly hardworking actress who just wanted to act was behind it.
Last night I was mulling over another aspect of the Archie saga, the birth and the aftermath.
I don't buy that there wasn't a female doctor available (the mention that Meghan "didn't want a male doctor"). In this day and age there are numerous competent female doctors and if there wasn't one already on the payroll surely the RF could have arranged for it to happen? If they were worried about complications, well there are competent females in all levels of the medical profession. I gave birth in the late 90's and both times my standard birth teams were all female. My first labour had unexpected serious complications that required a couple of consultants to attend (not sure if I have the terminology correct, but I needed someone with more expertise than the standard midwives) and one of them was female. If it was possible to have a female consultant attend a birth on the NHS 20+ years ago, I don't accept that it wasn't possible a year ago in the private sector, especially if it was planned to have a consultant on call in advance which I think it would have been due to it being a first birth at her age.
At the time of the birth I could understand a new parents' wish for privacy, so the not posing on the steps immediately after the birth wasn't a big issue for me. I honestly thought that they were going to take some personal photos during their "family time" to release to the media on their own terms, or at least that's what I'd have done. If they were paranoid about people seeing the interior of the house, it could have easily been angled so all we saw was a swaddled Archie and the inside of a moses basket, or either one of them holding him in a closely focused shot that didn't give away much background detail. They could even have hired a professional photographer and used one of those portable background screens behind them if they didn't want the plebs to see their wallpaper. I think the general public would have been ok with something as simple as that (I would have), instead of the WTF circus we ended up with. Imagine the public interest if they'd released a photo of Harry changing Archie's nappy? That would have gone down a storm and gained so much good press with the "modern husband" angle.
Re: waddling. I'd forgotten about that part! Yes, I waddled with my first, I waddled so much it was ridiculous lol they could have used my picture to illustrate the word "waddle" in the dictionary. My second though, I may have had a slight waddle but it wouldn't have been anything like the first as thinking back I don't really remember doing it. I lived in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere with no bus service and used to walk miles into town and back along country lanes pushing my toddler in the pushchair at least two or three times a week right up until a couple of weeks before my due date so I was very active (by that stage in my first marriage I may as well have been a single mother for all the "help" my ex gave me, for him the kids were "status symbols" to show off when they were behaving and the day-to-day stuff was nothing to do with him), I'm not sure I'd have been able to do as much as I did if I was waddling too badly. Perhaps all of the walking and other excercise I was doing combined with the disappointing non-bump reflected on my posture or something and kept the waddling to a minimum?
....and now I've typed the word waddling far too much and it's started feeling like a word I've made up haha does anyone else have that happen?
Now there are new theories to dissect. Thanks nutties! I do think what's presented to the public is far from the truth and we are being played.
The latest lame attempt to leak information that Harry and his grandmother kissed and made up despite his despeakable behavior is an argument in favour of this view. The Queen is not some granny from the Midlands and her precious spoilt brat Harry is not a regular guy next door. He and his wife attacked the whole nation, accused people of racism and acted so divisively I would constitute it as destabilizing behavior. By all accounts they plan to continue spreading their "racist" narrative abroad.
To hope manipulating the nation will solve the problem of Harry's attitude is a big mistake.
As for the latest praise for MM by Hilary Mantel - madam is overrated in my view. I read her Wolf Hall and there are better books on the subject. I would ignore her, as typical Megsy's fan base probably don't even know who she is.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1250538/meghan-markle-news-ice-cream-coolhaus-prince-harry-sussex-royal-family-latest
Coolhaus, a women-founded ice cream company based in California, celebrated Women’s History Month, by launching a royal inspired coffee flavour sweet treat. In the ad for the new flavour, the brand name-checked the Duchess and labelled her a “Queen.”
The advert read: “Ice Cream fit for a Queen. Call us, Meghan”
In the run-up to International Women’s Day, the ice cream brand will donate an unspecified amount of proceeds to Myna Mahila Foundation, an NGO charity that focuses on period poverty in India.
Meghan previously visited Myna Mahila Foundation in 2017 and wrote a piece for Time Magazine entitled: How Periods Affect Potential.
-----
I also spotted this earlier. I was reading an article on tulips and saw a text link titled "What links Gwyneth Paltrow to Royal potter Josiah Wedgwood?" so followed it out of curiosity. Turns out Gwyneth only has a short paragraph in the article but it surprised me to learn that she got paid $1m just for wearing a bracelet. I wasn't aware that celebs actually got paid that much for wearing stuff, I'd assumed they just got to keep the items.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50005890
Why else, for example, would the jeweller Anna Hu reportedly pay the actress Gwyneth Paltrow $1m (£820,000) to wear her diamond bracelet to the Oscars? She must have hoped to recoup the cost by inspiring purchases from the "middling people".
The BBC article links to this one, I haven't read it yet but apparently it's the background behind the reports of payment:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/03/hollywood-fashion-stylists-rachel-zoe-leslie-fremar