What do you think of the birthday video of Archie?
I’ll be brief since I am writing on a phone, but the poor little kid looks miserable and seems to have no connection with Meghan.
Your thoughts?
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
(beaming bleached LA smile) "Look at me world, look at me on my son's first birthday, look at me mothering him, like such a great mother. I don't even care about my hair, see? We read BOOKS, world, and we have such great fun together, him and I, me, myself and me, his mother, mothering him, as you can see in this video. Have you noticed how little I care about my hair? Oh yeah, it's also his birthday, which is the day I, myself and me gave birth to him. Me."
Given they had plenty of days to choose from to shoot a video I'm surprised this is the best they could do. I also thought when Archie started to smile/laugh at one point he was looking at someone outside the camera range like maybe the nanny. Think we saw that in SA too.
Not convinced he's a redhead either for all the PR about his red hair.
really casual, her look and the baby's.
He looks very uncomfortable and miserable in her claws.
He does not look like a happy baby, content to sit with his mom for even 3 minutes.
I don’t think that was actually Harry’s voice on the video, but I could be wrong.
Why does everything they do always have an agenda?? The ‘please donate’ at the start of the video is really tacky.
Today should be about Archie, not Megs mugging for the camera. Also, Archie’s outfit was really sad.
Mute the sound and watch the vision. There is absolutely no connection between her and the child, that is not her baby.
Zero engagement (where have I heard that before?).
Also, she was far too loud and forced. Reading to your child is a conversation, not a lecture. She was lecturing (and hectoring).
I agree with @ Lizzie. If they had multiple days (or at least multiple takes), one would think that they could’ve come up with something better. Also, I was looking for the ‘tufts of red hair’ that Ellen Degeneres mentioned.
I know most people mock the way George was dressed ("the ghost of a child killed in the Blitz") but I think it's perfectly appropriate and a little smocked shirt and button-on shorts and knee socks would have gone a long way here.
(My brother was dressed like that and I had the little smocked dresses and cardigans like Charlotte, so I'm biased. Also, now that I think of it, when we were children, it wasn't that long after the Blitz! : )
"really casual, her look and the baby's."
Yes, intentional contrast, I think. California cool, not British stuffy.
I was surprised she allowed that grey stripe of hair to show. Alot of us are sporting a similar "skunk look" but we've seen them driving around just to walk their dogs. And even grocery stores carry hair dye.
He looks much older, and just like Thomas Markle.
He did not look at her.
I think she dressed him like that to look younger.
2. Archie looks feisty and malcontent in Meghan’s arms, I agree. However, that is not so unusual for his age (which I suspect is older than 12 months), so I find it hard to conclude much other than that Archie is distractible so far and may not become an avid reader. Surprise! But it really could be his developmental stage.
3. I love kids, but in this case I’m more interested in the surroundings. The environs are not at all Meg style. The floor-length curtains are a thick but not necessarily high-quality brocade (forgive me but they have a fairly low-rent sheen about them). The walls are that same ochre color. The tightly upholstered furniture looks like hotel/rental property furniture. None of it is the chic, upmarket, airy white look that Meg embraced in her Toronto days. She must be aching to get out of whatever environment they are in.
4. The kid gives someone a winning smile, so that is at least nice to see.
Its also too long, awkwardly long.
It seemed like she was blaming him, even as a defenseless toddler. And making sure he knew.
She also looked more concerned he was dropping the books. At that age, who cares?
Baby independence: grab the book, drop it, she picks it up and he grabs it again.
I was thinking about the is this the same kid we saw in SA and the technicalities of if they did have some exclusive use of Baby X for a year. I think, that if that is true, then the covid stuff put a wrench in that. Eh, in Hollywood, there are a lot of people looking to get their kid into the business and this might be easy money when over half of LA is out of work.
I will have to rewatch it but people are making interesting observations like the background and camera focus.
"The video is for Save the Children, which is a legit charity that has some strong backers I respect (e.g., Jennifer Garner). IMO, it is a big score for the Harkles to be allowed to rep for them in any way, shape, or form. How did they manage it?"
Princess Anne has been very strongly associated with Save the Children in the UK since 1970. She served as UK president until 2016 when she stepped back to be a royal patron. In 1990 President Kaunda of Zambia nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize because of her work with the organization.
https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-organisation/our-patron-princess-anne
* It is very clear that Archie is used to being read to, and he is used to active reading. Some parents do this instinctively, but it is easy to learn. (Meghan spends a lot of time finding woke quotes online but it never occurred to her to learn active reading skills! Of course not, because that would benefit Archie and put the focus on Archie ... what about ME!) This is good that Archie has a caretaker who reads to him in an active way. (To the person above who thinks Archie is too young for reading ... most definitely not!) Archie has a good nanny taking care of him.
* Meghan has no clue about active reading and does not read with Archie. In the video, she is reading for the camera, not to Archie or with Archie (the latter which he is clearly used to) ... Archie is just a prop, albeit an active one.
* In this video, Archie is being used for fundraising (and PR for parents). It is a very Hollywood/celebrity thing to do. It is not a royal thing to do.
*. There is no mother-child bond here. The kid actually tries to wriggle away from her and at one point cries in frustration because she is restraining him in some kind of death grip.
* The noises Harry makes in the background are bizarre. Thank goodness for the nanny because this poor kid has been 'blessed' with a couple of hopeless parents.
* Meghan and Harry are tone deaf. How could they think this video is a good idea? And when they get justified and concerned criticism they will cry victim instead of looking at their behaviour and making an effort to do better as parents and human beings.
(BTW I was trained in active reading techniques and volunteered for a reading organisation so I recognise Archie's behaviour and also see that Meghan has no clue! To me it is so obvious but at the very least I think most people here will recognise that Meghan does not read with this child and someone else does. Clue 1: He is trying to turn the pages. Tone deaf response from mother. Clue 2: The book is coming to an end so he reaches forward to choose another one. Tone deaf response from mother. ... How many more clues can you lick up?)
At the very least, I think Catherine and Sophie will be concerned/heartbroken if they see this.
Intervention required ... rescue Archie from his dreadful parents and hand over full custody to the nanny.
The video definitely has all the earmarks of Meghan's inability ever to seem natural or to cede the stage to anyone, even to her own child on his first birthday.
And she herself doesn't look too great in the video, either. She looks haggard, fat, and unkempt.
MM reads at him and the camera, not to him. Also, surely she could have dressed him better?
She looks the same as on the 'mentoring' video, i.e. different eyes (no false eyelashes?), wide eyed, whiter than usual (no bronzer) etc.
video was clearly all about Meghan. it's like she scooped him from whatever fun he was having for "book time" . I am honestly shocked .he was so squirmy and wanted nothing to do with it/her. it was so unnatural.
just the overall vibe of the video is like as soon as someone yelled "cut!" she handed him off with disgusted look
sorry it is just how I feel and what is wrong with pants? that was just so bizarre. a photo would have been preferred as that was really sad. he wasn't engaged. that was not a mother and son reading a book I do not know what that was :(
The Dadada being turned into “duck” made me think whoever was behind the camera was not his father. You would respond with, “That’s right! Dada!” Or something close if that were truly Dada. It will be interesting to see what the rank and file (“plebs” rather) think.
Is it just me or did MM seem to be sad underneath the non-stop talking? She seems to me to just be talking at the camera and enjoying the sound of her own voice rather than the baby.
Sky News Australia has a brilliant but scathing commentary on the book that is well worth watching. It came up on my newsfeed this morning.
This video was all about attempting to present Meghan as a warm, loving, nurturing mother. Narcissistic mothers have none of these traits. Narc mothers want the attention to be focused on themselves, which was the main purpose of this video. After all, video is Meghan’s platform.
It would have been nice just to release a still image of him, but noooooo. Meghan had to hog the spotlight and use her child as a prop in a feeble attempt at image enhancement for herself.
Also, in a normal situation, I would play ‘drop the book, pick up the book’ because that’s what he wanted to do, but if she’s doing this for charity and wants to read the whole book (at the camera), just leave book #2 on the floor for now.
@Josephine Public, great point! Archie is an active baby. That wasn’t an active baby in that carrier or her arms at the polo. (And I think a baby’s level of activity is consistent from stage to stage.)
@Lucy @Barbara I wonder if the plain, pantsless onesie is the way Meg responds when forced to be in compliance - that is, okay, I won’t use him to merch, so you will all have to see him in only the most basic of baby clothes.
BTW, is MeMe going grey? All the scheming takes a toll on her.
This caters to show there is a real child and put doll rumors to rest. Which is fine, most never doubted a real baby.
There are plenty of decent sane people who still like Megsy and her H, they will be glad to see the kid. That is fine too, we are a free society.
I am much more concerned by the information that the Charlatan Duchess blog has been attacked and suspended. That is not freedom of speech in action. She didn't say anything violent, Megsy's fans get away with a lot more disgusting things.
`Archie' wasn't interacting with her.
Has he ever seen a duck or rabbit for real?
Even if he had, I somehow doubt that a brain of 1 year's independent life could get the point of optical illusions (but then, I've forgotten all I was ever taught about child development.)
Is this the Tutu baby? I'd read the rumour that they were trying to get a year's exclusive use of that little professional model.
There's a photo on yahoo via Evening Standard, ostensibly of her and him on a palm-fringed tropical beach, more South Seas or Caribbean than anywhere else, tho could it be RSA? She's wearing the dress she wore for Tutu visit and it looks like the same child, even in sunglasses and again without any sun protection.
But this video is more about Meghan than it is Archie. He’s just a prop.
He doesn't react to Meghan, especially in a positive way. He doesn't lean to her, nor smiles, he is irritated by her actions and just tired. She doesn't raise him at all and just uses for her own needs (read: publicity). I feel sorry for him, his father is grown old adult, he can break this ”marriage" any moment, but Archie is heavily dependent here, and I don't even want to imagine how many traumas he will deal with when grow up.
They could have released a cute picture of him and then a video of her reading a story by her self (in a later or earlier day). That would have given then double fluff pr pieces and exposure. Or maybe realize that 1 years old do what one year old want to do and have a "relateable mom moment", that could have soften her image and again good pr. Or if you want him to be still and quiet, shot it when he is a bit more sleepy.
And instead they choose either we have this. Its not the worse thing Ive seen, but its force and puts a damp on the kid's birthday. I dont want then to do good in the pr machine because they are entitled prats, but it boggles my mind to see them waste so many opportunities.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B_1r_8dHYfw/
And the Cambridges have not seen him since the christening:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B_1r5QKFAsj/
And nor has Charles (and this is the closest he has ever got to holding him):
https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1257945405364592644
None of the three social media accounts were even able to post a recent photo of Arc=hie. Who here believes the story of Zoom calls between the Sussexes and Harry's family?
Did anyone else in the royal family post anything about Archie?
Forget the words and images - they don't mean a thing to him.
If he is their child (and not the hired one from RSA) I feel really sorry for him.
She's a disgrace as a mother - it's all for show and she's using him.
Charlatan Duchess Fiasco
Beware the dastardly duo behind the MMTCD group already have a new group on Facebook, called Ginge and Cringe, the saga continues. Indeed, the woman who blogs for MMTCD Tumblr is also being called out by former group members for having her own double identity within the group, pretending to be two seperate people. The blogger for MMTCD Tumblr is also a member of the new group with the two frauds and she is an admin there too. It appears that they had numerous people contribute to a birthday “fundraiser” for one of the fake admins. Don’t know how many people total, some are disputing the charges thankfully. Looks like they got rid of those of us who asked too many questions. Several other former group members are sharing that exact same experience on Facebook. The agressive initial recruiting makes sense now. From conversations I’ve seen it looks like they really went overboard Meghan style when they took the group extra secret lol. Crazy!
Edited to add, former group members who wish to commiserate are welcome! I joined very early on and helped them recruit because I believed in the group and in the beginning, the few of us in it, were close. Believe me I’m just as shocked at the two main ladies being this level of fraud. Wow.
The link below is a video of little 9 month old George at a petting zoo in Australia with Kate & William. The difference between Megs' interaction with 'Archie' is completely different to Kate's. Kate can't take her eyes off George. She beams with pride , while at the same time showing parental concern for his safety. She's oblivious to the camera. Can't say that about Megs, who seems much more interested in the camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2D7p5dqdnY
@Charlie. Yes,Archie does have a large head. I pointed out in a post some time ago that his head reminds me of the old American cartoon character, Henry, which was popular many decades ago. As to a possible C-section, I have no idea, but if Archie is a C-section baby, to me it makes Megs role as birth mother even more dubious. I had to have C-sections for all of my children. The first one is very painful, & you can barely get out of bed, much less walk! I had IVs, & nurses helping me go to the bathroom. No way Megs in the presentation video had just had a C-section. A more plausible presentation would have been a sitting Megs in a comfortable chair, with baby held by dad. I'm not saying this child doesn't have Megs' DNA, just that if he's a C-section, I doubt Megs gave birth to him, or at least not when she claims she did.
However, birth mother or not, little Archie doesn't seem that taken with Megs. He looks as though he can't wait to be elsewhere. In videos of George in Australia, he's always reaching for Kate in between being fascinated by things like bilbies & other toddlers. His attachment to his mom, & hers to him , is very apparent. We don't see that in the Megs/Archie video.
I too have noticed The Charlatan Duchess has not been updated and don't know what's going on.
"Do you think it has anything to do with Meg and H getting this opportunity to support them?"
I don't know if Anne facilitated it but the long relationship STC had with a senior member of the BRF probably made it much easier for H&M to get connected.
I expect the plan for M to read to Archie for his first birthday was hatched long ago. Harry was filmed doing the Thomas the Tank reading in January. And at the time it was filmed it was known it would released for the 75th anniversary right before Archie's birthday. It wouldn't do for Harry to be the only one reading a children's book when M probably thought she could do it better! I also agree with @HappyDays that a video was desired because it gives more exposure than a still shot, especially a still shot of Archie by himself.
I know 1-year olds are very squirmy at times. But the lack of connection between M & A is pretty astounding. It is especially astounding without sound. Archie really did not want to be there. I just don't understand why IF Harry did do the filming, they didn't film last week and try again if Archie didn't cooperate....of course, maybe they did and this is as good as it gets.
It has been hot in LA per reports and they both look sweaty. It's curious that she is wearing a long-sleeved denim shirt if that is the case. However, the blue of the shirt matches nicely to the predominantly blue pages of the book, so maybe that is why.
I think it’s the same baby as SA and Christmas, looks to be at the one-year stage, but I’m still not seeing a baby showing a loving attachment to his mommy. She’s trying to force him to do what she wants, and she looked momentarily annoyed when he dropped the book. And why correct him when he says dada? It’s like she was going to read every page and make it to the end of the book no matter what!
Not only are they sofa surfing in LA, they’re also having to borrow other social media accounts. What a life.
The last time I saw it, it was near 3500 pages long.
I watched the video several times — with and without sound, as one of the Nutty commenters recommended. I don’t know which way is worse: hearing Meghan’s overly-dramatic, insincere voice or watching Archie silently struggle to do what any normal one-year-old would in the lap of someone with whom he is not bonded. Sadly, Archie appears not to have any connection with his mother — and that is not *his* fault. Meghan is so busy conquering Hollywood, she has no time for the baby.
I do think Archie is Harry and Meghan’s biological son and he is precious. (He may be older than 12 months... eye roll.) He looks like baby Harry and seems to have Meghan’s eye issue. It saddens me to read disparaging comments about his appearance, though. Babies and young children change so much. In a year’s time, he could be considered the most handsome toddler on the planet.
It also sounds to me like Harry’s voice in the video background. Archie seems to smile at Harry toward the end of the clip when Harry says a few words and Archie calls out, “Dadada...”
A couple things: At 38 seconds to go in the video, Meghan’s face was thunder for a split second when Archie said “DaDa”. I can’t believe she corrected that to “Duck”. That would have been a wonderful moment to acknowledge Daddy who was in the background filming the reading. But, no, Meghan, the profound narc, needed the spotlight shining squarely on herself (Another eye roll).
Harry also then softly corrected the word and started saying, “Duck” over and over. I could almost feel his cringe. Meghan would be furious when the filming stopped and Harry was already trying to mitigate her wrath. How dare the baby ruin her long-awaited moment by calling for his Dad?
What a sad situation for Archie and his Dad. I suspect Harry is a (slightly?) better father than Meghan is a mother. Archie at least seems to recognize and acknowledge him. However, Meghan, the profound narc, will not tolerate Harry having a close, loving bond with the baby. All bonds in that family can only be to her. (Third eye roll.)
One of my favourite things was reading with my babies and but this is so lacking in connection and warmth that I could cry. Like someone said,she ignores all the clues and the little guy is trying to get away.
The grunting Harry could be anyone. And he did say "dada", isnt Harry supposed to behind the camera, afterall?
Such a sweetie but looks like he needs a change.
If nothing else this video proves a couple of things she hasn't been doing during the Much-Needed-Private-Family-Time-Tour: she has not been bonding with that wee boy, and she has not been working on her craft. Her acting is as execrable as ever. Contrived and phony.
I couldn't even watch the whole thing due to the vaguely uncomfortable sensation I experienced whilst it played.
https://twitter.com/savechildrenuk/status/1258000990428594178
Sample:
Reply post: "Reaping the benefits of royalty but not wanting to deal with the downside. Now parading a video of their son to solicit donations. Disgusting and shameful."
From Save the Children UK: "I'm sorry you feel that way. We on the other hand are absolutely thrilled by this beautiful video. In these difficult times, it's better to look for the good rather than the bad. Sharon"
"I just don't understand why IF Harry did do the filming, they didn't film last week and try again if Archie didn't cooperate....of course, maybe they did and this is as good as it gets."
This struck me too. Just how bad were the other takes, if this cringe-fest was the one they decided to run with?
I mentioned earlier that I think the background looks like a hotel or rental. I’ll add a rather tired one at that! It sure isn’t Meg’s preferred copycat chic and airy style.
Re: the Insta shoutouts, I found the caption from Clarence House interesting. Zero mention of either Harry or Meg by name, even though Harry (NOT Meg) is in the photo with the POW. The Harkles were virtually blanked by Harry’s father, as if to say this is for the child only, not the child’s parents.
@Nutty
Exactly what I meant about preferring the Harkles weren’t allowed to tarnish Save the Children. It is bound to happen that even they will get a bit Markled. They should’ve known better!
Meg looks extremely desperate in the video.
I agree with other Nutties. Archie looks like the same baby from SA. I don't see tufts of red hair more like wisps of brown. His diaper looks like it needs to be changed. I also think he looks older than 12 months. Personally, I would say 16-18 months.
I don't like that she has Archie in his underwear. My guess, she didn't want to be accused of merching and may be trying to return to the BRF. If she didn't want to merch, she should have used Harry's old baby clothes. However she may not be able to because she is cut off from the BRF. Another possibility, Archie's size and essentially age would be easier to gauge.
The last time I saw it, it was near 3500 pages long.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3740
Still there. It was probably temporarily unavailable because they added a survey at the top of the page.
I don't like that she has Archie in his underwear. My guess, she didn't want to be accused of merching and may be trying to return to the BRF. If she didn't want to merch, she should have used Harry's old baby clothes. However she may not be able to because she is cut off from the BRF. Another possibility, Archie's size and essentially age would be easier to gauge.
She could also have used some generic clothing from a mass-market retailer like Walmart. I doubt anyone would accuse her of merching for them.
Alternately, sports clothes are very popular in the USA. A jersey from any of the LA teams - football, baseball, basketball - and a little pair of jeans would have located him firmly in California, and her US target group would have loved it.
A possibility: their South African baby actor arrived in clothes that were not suitable for some reason, and didn't have an extra set.
explain Archie looking off and smiling at someone.
As for how MM and Archie interact, Megs doesn't have the soothing voice that it takes to read to a one-year-old. She is slightly frenetic, and it agitates Archie rather than soothes him. I don't see him lovingly reaching for his mother or father, which most one-year-olds do if they are really bonded with their parents. He's more interested in just holding the book, but MM won't let him just play with it. He laughs a couple of times, but I don't see that great, big smile that babies make when they're really happy.
A much better idea would have been to just have a photo of Archie excitedly looking at a few wrapped presents and his birthday cake with Mom and Dad.
I also have to question as to why they chose Save the Children UK. They don't live in the UK. Harry has abandoned his UK family, home country and its people for a life in CA. He has made it abundantly clear that he does not like the UK and does not wish to live there. If they are to live in the US, they should help US charities.
And Megs, you could have put some generic clothes on him. Dressing him in just a tee shirt and what looks like a full diaper is so trashy.
It's incredibly awkward. Meghan clearly has no experience or knowledge of children. It seems like she grabbed him from the nanny or Harry and decided to plop down and read to him. The reading... it appears that Meghan is again advertising herself. Just as she narrated the Elephant doc, she seems to be showing off her reading voice more than anything. Seems to be little bond between Meghan and Archie. I suspect with Meghan's rampant narcissism, she isn't capable of much more with her son. It reminded me of my friends who never had babies who tried to hold my kids when they were babies. Like your juggling a glass jar!
Archie is absolutely a doll. Looks just like Harry and Thomas Markle. How Meghan doesn't immediately call her father when she looks at Archie's face is beyond me. She should have put him in some clothing however. Poor little buddy was just in his onesie and diaper. Love his reddish brown hair and eyebrows. I hope he has a really good nanny to love him up.
The end of the video is where it is very interesting. Archie looks up and clearly recognizes Harry and starts saying dadada which Meghan corrects to duck. Back to her extreme narcissism. If she would have said "Yes that's dada" or something, that would have been very cute and endearing. She seemed jealous of that moment. Very nice to see little Archie but I would have rather seen him with his father. I echo others that say Harry is likely the better parent of the two.
@Aquagirl, I know the South African baby actor story sounds a little extreme, but it would explain many things, including:
- the obvious lack of attachment between Meg and the baby, not once but twice. (South Africa and the birthday video)
- Meg's inability to hold the baby properly, hardly the sign of an active parent
- Meg's lack of pet names for the child - most new parents have several silly names for baby
- the hurried nature of the video, and Archie's lack of a proper outfit (baby arrived at last minute)
- baby looking off camera the entire time (Real parent there, such as the "da-da" he asked for?)
- what appeared to be a dummy or doll in the Canadian pap video (baby not visiting Canada.)
@Torontopaper1 also suggests it's a baby actor, although I know many people see @Torontopaper1 as a troll.
Maybe the year timeline has to do with the BRF giving them a chance to turn things around with the public and be accepted back.
What is more likely is that Megs has faithfully been doing her Pilates with Heather Dorak who they had visit them in British Columbia.
In my book Heather is the real deal and not a phony. Good October 4, 2017 photo of Megsy and Heather here. https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/44106786/embed/44106863/Heather-Dorak-Pilates-Queen
https://financial-press.uk/2020/05/06/meghan-markle-and-archies-new-video-send-fans-into-frenzy-with-adorable-detail-royal-news/
Lemon Tea here
The adults in the video know what is happening, so its easy to fake appearances, as was being done. Granted Archie has no clue and is the only person behaving normally.
I took my wedding rings off whenever I held, fed, played or bathed with my babies. Rings can really cause quite a few unpleasant injuries, more especially since your hands are all over the place. Of course the ring worn here is to show off.
It looked like Archie wanted to play with the camera. Not much interest in the book.
Reading books should start as early as possible , 6 months or earlier. The trick is to read anything, the words do not matter. It appears that Archie has only recently been read to, a bit sad, because at this age, he would be actively exploring his surroundings, and sitting still is not on his agenda. His mother obviously lost out on prior reading and is attempting to fill the gaps.
Words are everywhere, why celebrities tout and promote a specific childrens author, I cannot understand. (I used to read newspaper articles to my under 12 month olds, they both turned out fine ). Lack of literacy is a huge problem in underdeveloped countries. So much to add on that.
If I knew I was going to be on video or photographed, for sure I would have made an effort to look decent. She did not. Her hair could have been groomed. I have seen very young mothers looking unkempt and wearing shorts. What a disappointment in her appearance. The flashing ring and the hippy bracelets. No.
Heather Dorak: The Pilates Queen
The third confidante in Meghan's close-knit LA group is the owner of Pilates Platinum, Heather Dorak, a former dancer who set up her first Pilates studio just over 10 years ago. Along with Benita, Heather also vacationed with Meghan in Spain in 2017 and was on hand for the tree-trimming social with Benita and her family.
BTW, I don’t think @Torontopaper1 is a troll.
I'm not happy that we obviously weren't worth the gift of a photograph of him specifically for his first birthday. They just used something they'd filmed earlier for different purpose. As with the birth and christening, Meghan brings no joy or comfort to national life.
I took a look at the Cambridge kids' photos at one and they were a delight. Gorgeous colours, thriving children, obviously dressed with love and a desire to bring happiness to people receiving the photos. All of this was missing here. For someone with such grandiose plans for world domination, it mystifies me why Meghan never actually makes an effort.
I was just thinking about the book Pat the Bunny! I agree that is a great book for little kids.
I wasn't familiar with the Duck Rabbit book but when I looked it up I saw it recommended for kids from kindergarten to second/third grade (4/5-8 years old) On Amazon a number of reviews were from teachers who use it to teach persuasive writing and to help students appreciate different points of view. Archie might have still squirmed in Meghan's arms but patting the soft bunny and feeling daddy 's scratchy (sandpaper) beard might have held his interest more than a book based on an optical illusion. I'm not sure that from a cognitive functioning perspective kids as young as 1 years old can even appreciate illusions.
I don't like being chastised by "Sharon" from Save the Children. Who is she to tell us what to think and do? That's a combative comment, and really bad PR for the charity.
@Aquagirl said Hmmmm. Could the ‘real’ Dada have been present with the baby? That would explain MM changing ‘Dada’ to ‘Duck’. Would also explain Archie looking off and smiling at someone.
I think Aquagirl is on to something here. Who was in the room to see who Archie was looking at? I doubt very much that Harry was present during filming. In fact, I don't think he is with MM in Cali.
(I have obviously lowered my standards from this morning when I was expecting Prince George-level classic kid's clothes.)
*Actually, not what SHE spent. What Charles spent, or what she got for free and charged Charles for.
I'm not British, but the optics of a rich ex Royal asking for donations are awful, even if it's for charity. I suspect MM knows it.
Something else... When Archie begins with his Dada's, Meg's nostrils flare for a millisecond. It's subtle but she seemed to rage at that moment. Just wow!
Upon Googling this "momentous" occasion, I landed on the Post (NYPost). And the 2nd post I see about those two is a blurb about Harry selling his guns out of respect for Meg's wishes to quit hunting.... (giant eye roll). $60,000. The cynic in me says they need the cash.
https://pagesix.com/2020/05/06/prince-harry-sells-rifles-quits-hunting-for-meghan-markle/
Also.... Archie looks so much like Harry, I cannot imagine anyone thinking he isn't Harry's biological child. I'm still seeing people doubt this, and it's unthinkable to me that he isn't biologically related to Harry.
Some people just don't naturally click with children and there's nothing wrong with that. Takes all kinds to make a world. I just wish such people would remain 'childfree' as everyone would be happier that way. Children need attention, time, love, hugs, warmth and playfulness from their parents and carers. They shouldn't be used for ulterior motives such as ego trips, PR, merchandising or to secure an unearned income for life.
On another note - Save The Children UK has a royal patron - The Princess Royal so I don't know what Harry and his first wife are doing promoting them. It's not a bad charity but I question their motives.
Thank Goodness Archie has caring nannies. The child would be much worse off if left in the company of MM alone.
Bravo to the RF for their classiness in posting happy birthday to Archie on their own IG accounts. Also, telling they all used photos from his Christening it was probably the last time they saw him.
How Meghan and Archie’s post-royal clothes shed light on their new lives in LA
The Duchess of Sussex appears relaxed
Where you live in the world can have a big impact on your personal style. I discovered this first hand when I moved to New York, then six years later, moved back to London again.
And the same is true of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who moved to Los Angeles in March after quitting their roles as working members of the British Royal family.
The impact of their lifestyle change was most evident in a new video from the couple marking son Archie’s first birthday on Wednesday. The adorable footage shows Meghan in a loose chambray shirt with her wriggly toddler on her lap as she reads him his favourite book, “Duck Rabbit”.
Meghan’s hair is swept back in a bun, and her skin is glowing, while Archie looks comfortable in a white T-shirt-style onesie - all he needs for the mild LA climate. It made for a relaxed and happy image that is in stark contrast with the carefully staged portraits we saw when they made their debut as a family of three a year ago.
Back in May 2019, Harry and Meghan introduced their son to the world with an appearance at Windsor Castle. Harry wore a suit and tie, Meghan wore an impeccable white trench dress by British designer Wales Bonner with Manolo Blahnik high heels, and their newborn was wrapped in a handmade Merino wool shawl by the Royal family's chosen swaddler, G.H. Hurt & Son. It was all very appropriate and in keeping with Royal tradition - but as we’ve come to learn, it’s not reflective of the couple’s natural style.
Now, back in her hometown, Meghan has never looked so relaxed - her taste for classic, understated clothing could not be more fitting for California’s easygoing vibe.
Nor is there any reason to dress her son to the nines, now that she is no longer a working Royal. In fact, it wasn’t clear whether the Sussexes would mark Archie’s birthday in a public way at all. This post, shared by Save the Children as part of its “Save with Stories” project, allowed them to celebrate in a philanthropic way.
Of course, there has been a string of other royal baby birthdays over the past month too. On 23rd April, Archie’s cousin Prince Louis turned two, and on 2nd May, Princess Charlotte turned five. On both occasions, their mother, the Duchess of Cambridge, took celebratory photos and shared them with the world, with Louis in a shirt from Tu at Sainsbury’s and Charlotte in a Zara dress, clothing that looked smart but also reflected the Cambridge family’s down-to-earth values.
Since their move to LA, Harry and Meghan have favoured jeans, T-shirts and baseball caps - the Hollywood celebrity off-duty uniform - as well as luxury loungewear by James Perse for Meghan.
It’s no wonder she looks so at home in this new low-key wardrobe - she is at home. It's proof that you can take the girl out of LA, but you definitely can’t take LA out of the girl.
"One of them keep talking about been Archie's aunt (like for real) and another talking about King Archie. It was way more disturbing that any hate comment I have ever read about them. Its crazy."
Yes. On the Kensington Royal IG same thing in response to the birthday wish to Archie earlier. A few posts wished "Prince Archie" happy birthday. Of course, others pointed out that's not his current title. Usual squabbling. Then a poster said something like "He's my prince because I adore and admire him so much." Kind of creepy to "adore" someone else's baby, a baby you've never met. But who in the world "admires" a one-year old baby? And for what?
She is looking younger though. Less makeup and her natural hair really make a difference.
I understand not buying expensive baby clothes, but as others have mentioned, Carters and Old Navy make cute outfits for $12 or less. The full diaper is just sad - every mom knows to do a diaper check before anything like photos, errands, going to church, etc. Sometimes as you change it you hate to waste the "barely used" diaper but it's the right thing to do. This vido just adds fuel to the rumors that he's not usually with them, and that she doesn't know what do with a baby.
At a Charleston social occasion, I witnessed an interloper politely but firmly told to go socialize with the person who had invited her, because the rest of the guests were insulted by her rude behavior at prior events. This is what MM needs to be told. She and Harry have insulted the UK & the RF at every possible turn, and yet they still need the connections?
https://thecrownsofbritain.com
@Rainy Day: After decades straightening her natural hair, which she inherited from Doria, whatever hair remains on Meghan’s head is incredibly damaged. That’s why she has a head full of extensions and weaves.
She also needs to take a break from the lightening treatments on her porcelain-veneered teeth. They are unnaturally white. She could guide ocean-going ships into port with those choppers.
All they had to do when they put in the order for a boy baby was to specify 100% Caucasian, fair skin, and preferably some red hair somewhere in the background.
to me ,these photos have enough similarity to believe Archie has their DNA
https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2019825/rs_1024x759-190925094752-1024x759-archie-harry-gj-9-25-19.jpg?fit=inside|828:*&output-quality=90
A good many lower-income parents take great pride is dressing up their children for important occasions. But not Meghan. A shirt and dirty diapers are Meghan's preference. Or maybe she does not know what one-year-olds actually wear. This child is a prop for her and much to her dissatisfaction, one she cannot control. She is flustered because Archie is disrupting her audition of a loving mother. The lack of interest in her by Archie is so apparent.
No ballons or banner or cake or anything else signifies a one-year-old birthday. The room is so dark and dingy, with the tacky commercial print on the right side of the photo.
This Archie is far older than 12 months. But she expects us to believe that he is 12 months old. What a travesty.
Like many other opportunities, she blew this chance to present a cute kid in a celebration appropriate for a one-year old
When is this happy family charade going to end?
Cute kid strange situation. Why does MM do an air punch
at the end of a story time? The duck dada comment at the end sums it all up for me.
Meg just doesn't have chemistry with kids. Remember all those shots of royal walkabouts, where the kids turned their backs to her, shrunk from her, etc.?
I feel this is more common with men - in particular, many men just can't connect with infants - but there are also some women who simply don't get along with children, and Meg is one of them.
As another poster indicated, if "dadadada" had been directed at Harry, one would think Meg would say, "Yes, that's daddy, sweetheart."
I suspect dadadada was another person, the person baby was reaching for just out of frame, which is why Meg tried to cover it up.
Usually parents are more than thrilled when their babies say their first words, whatever those words are. (And those first words are usually not "duck rabbit.")
"Honey, I have a standard gift that I do for people that I really care about. I don't know the baby's name or the baby's gender, but this baby will have enough books to last a lifetime!" she previously told Access Hollywood.
Per the outlet, Winfrey also gifted the daughter of her Wrinkle in Time costar Mindy Kaling a full library of books, also with a personal inscription reading, "Katherine's Book Club" on each cover."
From Harper's Bazaar, Omid Scobie's employer.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a32388600/baby-archie-oprah-winfrey-book-club/
If you buy Meg and Harry's story, that might be his child-care provider/nanny/governess.
When I look the pictures @lucy posted, I could go either way for reasons @aquagirl stated.
The two babies shown in @lucy's post have similar coloring but Archie's hair looks browner.
But the shape of the ears, eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks, and even the head seems to differ. Of course, I wouldn't expect father and son to look identical as babies but I expect those differences will become more pronounced as Archie grows. For example, Archie's eyes appear "hooded" in a way neither baby Harry nor adult Harry's are. Baby Harry and adult Harry's eyes are also closer together than Archie's.
I think if two babies have the same general skin color and hair that's similar enough, they can tend to look alike. For example, I think in their christening photos Lady Louise and Archie look quite a bit alike right down to the strabismus.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/0/royal-christenings-years-pictures-queen-victoria-prince-george/lady-louise-windsors-christening/
That could be the effect of Windsor genes. But these days Louise and Harry don't look at all alike to me. Louise favors her mother and The Queen to me while I can see aspects of both Charles and Philip in Harry's face.
The devaluation of her husband now complete, she now shifts her efforts to the devaluation of her son. There he is, 7th in line to the British throne, in dingy underwear with a sodden diaper. It’s a good start, Markle, you f***g psycho.
a) this would require the utmost discretion - even if borrowed through an intermediary, the process is fraught with danger
b) this might work for now as a baby or toddler wouldn't know any different but what about in the future? The child willbe talked/written about and photographed, even if rarely. Can H&M realistically keep borrowing a child? Won't the borrowed child ask questions? And it would have to be the same child for 'continuity'. Just a thought for what it's worth.
Archie will probably need eye surgery, and usually doctors wait until children are two to operate.
The video was ackward, very amateur, and somehow seems more like something any parent would film, but not show to anybody. It seems the baby wanted nothing to do with ducks, and probably wanted to play or eat his unfortunate birthday cake. He also said “Dada” reaching up for “Dada” except no - M said duck. They needed more takes on this scene.
When my daughter was pregnant, I bought all the classic children’s books in French and Hebrew, as my daughter is as close to fluent as a a non-native speaker can be in these languages, (bragging on) even changing accents in French from Parisian to other parts of France. I can barely speak English, and hope that my daughter does not make my own parents mistakes with their children in not speaking anything but English to their children. I hope that if anybody can get through my post, and is bi or Tri lingual, to speak another language to young ones. From what I have read, and speech therapists have told me, learning different languages while very young helps the brain, in the same way that playing a musical instrument grows the brain in the area of math and sciences.
You asked how she got the gig for Save The Children. Here are the board members and their bios. You'll see Disney people involved and others who have ties to entertainment and other industries that MM would be interested in for money-making ventures.
MM not only got free PR for this, but also made a lot of connections for her career, whatever that may be. Poor Archie. His birthday is just another PR stunt and a way for MM to find money or backers.
BTW, Jennifer Garner is the queen of pap walks.
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/leadership-and-trustees
I am just shocked that she took no care with his outfit. I glossed over a posting about her plastic surgery expenses today (I'm supposed to be working, ha) but this woman, although sloppy, is obsessed with her appearance and especially her clothes. It just makes no sense.
Were MM this edgy, independent woman, she probably would have refused to marry into BRF and never looked Harry's way in the first place. They're not "thoroughly modern" because the told the RF to F off, they're just rude.
The way things have played out, it looks like she trapped Harry Joe Exotic - style, told him "you don't need the UK," and dragged him back to LA where she insists on pushing out family friendly, lifestyle content.
The problem is MM is not family friendly, even I can see that and I'm not much of a critical thinker. She has torn apart her own family, according to them, and I think the RF would say the same. The person who reads Archie stories is the same person who left him on another continent, more than once, as a baby.
I believe MM scurries away from people once they suss her out. She can't fool her family, so they have to be cut out. She did not even stay in the UK to support her husband during the "Megxit" weekend discussions. I don't think Harry is blameless in this, but he did lose his mother at a young age and shouldn't be cut off from the only family he has.
The LSA thread was moved to a new sub-forum. It looks like they have reorganized their International Celebrity Gossip area and consolidated a bit. They're currently having a bit of technical trouble - members can't access the royal forums until the administrator processes each one individually and you have to tag Condi to get it done.
Yep, it is very quiet there. I think I can still access it because I have it bookmarked.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3740#post-57531127
Forums
Celebrity News and Gossip
International Gossip
The Royals
Meghan Markle unpopular opinions thread pt 2
@lucy no, I do not believe we will ever know if she carried the baby or not.
I don't think we will ever know the truth about Archie.
There's more than one DM Archie birthday article. One has 13K comments, the other 5. The 5-comment article talks about plans for a stupid smash cake, video calls, and a dog walk per a "source" who told PEOPLE mag. But you are probably right the comments were bad.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3745
Nope. It seems that members have to sign back in and go through some kind of verification process before they get access to the thread. The thread is moving again, albeit slowly.
I doubt very much this child is one year old.
Well he may be an unusually big baby of course but I still think he is more than 12 months old.
On a positive he doesn't look unhappy (although he doesn't interact with her) and I hear they want to donate the money to one of Princess Anne's charities. If true nothing is wrong with it. It may be a beginning of a much needed reconciliation. For the kids sake.
What did they expect? I think Harry is miserable in LA. MM will love the attention, and look for even more.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/meghan-harry-face-paparazzi-madness-21986406
I've read the other Harkle articles on the DM today, too. Any article that gets only five moderated comments is not good, no matter who it is. For The Harkles, it's disastrous. Just imagine what the comments that didn't make it would say!
IDK how they do it in the UK - but in the U.S. we set the kid in front of a decorated cake - sing happy birthday - with 1 lit candle (yes on fire), help them blow it out, and let them go at it. Some end up covered in frosting, some refuse to touch it, some cry...it is a great moment all around.
This "read" the baby book thing didn't come off at all.
.
personally - I don't think she ever takes care of that kid herself...not sure if he is hers at all and am certain that she was not pregnant with him.
Love to be friends with Princess Royal and hear her opinion of this story reading.
(Missing some posters)
To "zoom" the party with HMTQ and cousins in the UK, they would have had to have had it at 7 a.m. So it will be interesting to see what gets reported tomorrow.
I agree with most comments. Archie has ZERO connection with Meghan. He never looks at her. That seems very odd. I agree it's also strange that he says 'dada' and is immediately corrected. Maybe that's the first time he said anything and it wasn't 'mama' first so she's all mad? I don't know. I found it all strange.
Save The Children, Save with stories, is a respected charity. I personally don't have a problem that they chose to celebrate Archie's bday this way. I think it's actually quite nice. Clearly, Archie likes books and has been read to a lot. (probably not by Megs.) I don't like that she addresses the camera so much personally, but that's technically what other celebrities have done in their videos, so I do get why she did it. Personally, I wish it was Harry, Megs & Archie reading the story (with nanny recording) or just Harry & Archie. That's a personal opinion because I do think Harry is more well-liked and Megs voice is like nails on a blackboard.
Frankly, I'm horrified that they thought it was appropriate that the baby isn't wearing pants. WTF. What a slap to the Royal Family. Same with Meghan though. I think she should be wearing something more appropriate as well. I found their attire the strangest part of the video. Clothes shouldn't be optional.
They spent more time hyping the video than filming it.
I am suprised that Harry wasn't shown. We are supposed to assume " da da" is operating the camera, but who knows.
They needed to spend more time making a video and less time hyping one.
Or they could celebrate the birthday privately without announcements or fanfare, since Harry wants privacy and normalcy ....HA.
A video with Harry and baby would get more positive reception. Especially if it were outside under the avocado tree in the California sunshine. Or the beach with the dogs, or something FUN. After all the bad press, they need to show that the little family is together, happy and healthy.
Suprised the baby wasn't dressed better. Mommy either. Mommy has frizzy grey hair like Doria! Meg's should have ordered hair dye from Amazon to cover that up.
No one is going to ask MM to write a parenting book. She is too busy mugging for cameras and plotting world domination to spend time with a child.
I was expecting a photoshopped thing like the Christmas card. The video was a surprise.
I agree this isn't the baby in the sling during the Canada photo op. Not sure if it is the SA baby. I'll see if the twitterverse has analysed the ears and facial features.
They are NOT in any of the mansions they are alledgedly buying or at anyone's lush home. The furniture and background look like an average limited stay hotel like Embassy Suites or Marriott. An expensive long term option for a regular person, but not nearly as luxe as MM seems to want.
When little Archie drops the book, Megs is a bit scary. She's like the no nonsense nanny a family would hire to straighten out a difficult brood of children. I'm not sure Megs likes Archie any more than he likes her. Most kids enjoy being read to because their caregiver is focusing attention on them. Archie could be just a very active baby, or not. As another commenter said, this little guy could be a dreamboat in a few years, or another badge- haired Harry.
This video too me is merching MeMe to Hollywood disguised as a charity project.
And why in the world is Harry NOT in the video? His son and his contribution to charity along with MeMe's. Do we have any pictures of Harry actually holding his son? Are there any pictures of any family member (other than MeMe) holding Archie? No Aunt, Uncle, Cousin, FATHER?
It’s also hilarious to me that the royal family seems to have no photos of this kid. No one could come up with anything that was newer than him at his christening, when he was two months old. He’s one! That’s crazy.
Also interesting that the Sussexes, who have spent so much time and attention (and PR money) telling the whole world how horribly racist and terrible the U.K. is and that’s why they were forced to leave and yet, again, here they are supporting a U.K. charity when they need some cheap publicity points. Almost like they secretly actually want to be royal or something (even though they hate it and you’re all meanies!!).
Mm doesn't want to admit it, but the public wants to see Harry and the baby. The photo with Harry holding a baby in a hat was probably the most popular of the Harkles family photos.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a32389271/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-birthday-details/
The article puts a positive spin on their lives and why they chose to read the book to him on his birthday:
"Instead of having the world focus solely on Archie's first birthday, they’ve once again chosen an issue closest to their hearts, which will benefit from their support."
Every other family makes the 1-year old the center of attention, but not this family.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a32389271/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-birthday-details/
The article puts a positive spin on their lives and why they chose to read the book to him on his birthday:
"Instead of having the world focus solely on Archie's first birthday, they’ve once again chosen an issue closest to their hearts, which will benefit from their support."
Every other family makes the 1-year old the center of attention, but not this family.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B_3AzcyHRWy/
It looks like the Charlatan Duchess on Tumblr has imploded before the x-Royale Malibu Two.
I wondered about the eye thing too as it does appear now the right eye is mainly affected. You are correct SA Archie's left eye was turned inward (as was christening Archie's.) But Christmas Archie had both eyes turned inward. At the time I thought that might be because the photographer or someone working with her was purposely attracting Archie's attention and so he was focusing his eyes on something close up. But I don't know. I do hope they've gotten professional advice. And are actually taking it.
______
@Millicent Pfeiffenheimer,
I agree the format of the book is for a younger child. But do kids Archie's age find "optical illusions" interesting? I don't think so. And would a 1-yr old know what an anteater is? Ducks yes, maybe not rabbits but bunnies, certainly not anteaters or whatever its optical match was.
I still like Pat the Bunny better! And while it may be uncommon, I have seen 1-year olds engage with pictures in books, with a parent's voice reading a book, and with the physical object we call a book much more than we saw today. I'm not talking about sitting still for a 10 minute story but more engagement with the process. But maybe my experience was unusual.
I just don’t think Megsy is maternal. She doesn’t appear comfortable around children in general. She doesn’t seem to be able to (or WANT to) read his cues. A one year old is probably not going to sit still for three minutes straight unless they are sleepy or not feeling well. He’s squirmy. He’s obviously been read to- he turns the pages and there were some teething chunks taken out of the top corner of that book. I would imagine it’s Harry or the nanny doing it though.
A better choice of book might have helped. I’m all for reading pretty much anything to kids- comic books, cereal boxes, whatever. But if you need them to be engaged and quasi-focused then pick something interesting and interactive. It was a poor choice for the setting. However, that’s pretty on par for this one.
I found this to be an attempt to one up Princess Charlotte’s food delivery around her birthday. “Charlotte does charity work at five, but Archie does it at ONE.”
I also find it interesting that in every video they shoot, it seems like they are trying to show you as little of their surroundings as possible. A wall, a piece of cabinet, the arm of a chair. We had both pics and videos from many members of the RF since this lockdown started and no one else does this. We see pictures, knick knacks, phones, furniture, whatever. Not with these guys. I noticed some of you guys talking about the drapes in the video. Does anyone have a link to a video with a wider shot that shows them? I haven’t found one.
Like a lot of you, I found it sad that no one in the RF seemed to have a pic of Archie to share. I also wonder if they have them but were asked NOT to share. Privacy and all that.
There is a new article on DM. The widower of the author, who also has a new book out, is praising MM and this video. Quick, someone find out if he’s rep’d by SS.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8294239/Widower-praises-Meghan-Markles-beautiful-reading-late-wifes-book.html
I did see a picture of MM in the DM and only thing i noticed was her smiling at the camera holding archies hands, and her face/neck looked spray tanned or lots of foundation and her arms and hands seemed lighter and not spray tanned.
It was either a DM bad picture from the video or bad make-up job.
I think they’re staying in some sad rental.
The onesie is probably partially because they were told not to merch. Combined with the full diaper, it seems that his parents are indifferent to his needs. He’s probably in the full time care of nannies.
The Harkles are probably on a tight budget. Prince charles has them on an allowance and they weren’t paying for housing as working royals and had a clothing allowance. Their income from Charles has probably decreased with their move. I can’t see him giving them more than they received as working royals. Selling the guns is probably because they’re cash strapped. Megs is spending a fortune on things like pr. They don’t have a lot of sources of income. I also suspect one or both of them have substance abuse issues. That would contribute to money problems and partially explain the disconnect between Archie and his parents. He’s not bonded to her. Thankfully someone seems to be looking after the poor little guy.
Stuff will leak out. The duke of Windsor was constantly cash strapped and looking for money from his brother after the abdication and he had more significant assets and negotiating position when he left.
I just can't get over how slobby Meghan and Archie look.
They could've looked nice and not merched. Just throw some blue pants on that baby. And Megs could've worn a nice pair of jeans.
I'm a visual person, but if this was taken from a position a little wider, with all 3 of them on a couch reading the book. All in dressy casual attire. It would've been so much more effective and probably would've made more money for the charity.
I cannot believe they both looked so... I don't want to say trashy, because that's not quite right, but they sure as heck look... low-brow, to say the least.
They also definitely look like they're holed-up in some cheap rental with no air conditioning. I will say, I think she looks good, albeit tackily dressed for the occasion.
But the thing that upset me the most is that this is clearly all about Me-Again reading a story, not about the baby's birthday.
To be fair to the Harkles, since they have been told they may not use their IG account or website:
* they have not set up any new social media accounts (and the Internet has been inundated with copy cat accounts and sites)
* they do not have staff that can do press releases for them,
* they have publicly ghosted the main media outlets in the UK,
* Megsy is probably furious with Omid Acobie for outing her about that letter and all the money from royalties he is going to earn from a book about her,
* they are probably running short of money to pay an increasingly reluctant to be used PR firm,
* and they are just not getting the huge offers from the USA media outlets (where is Vogue, Vanity Fair ...).
How else are they supposed to release photos or videos? Going through a charity is actually decent and they chose one of the best.
They are still finding their way in this mess they have made for themselves. I am sure we will see vast improvements ... or maybe not?
I believe the nanny actually HAS custody of him!😊
So really, how hard is it to put a pointy hat on him (and some PANTS, for Pete's sake!) And let him play with a balloon for a couple of minutes. Mom and dad step into a frame, everybody smiles. The End.
But no, it's a Smegly Production. So forced and just plain icky to watch. I notice she is still holding him with that arm across the chest thing that his just a misery to look at.
Harry, if it is him is, painfully goofy with the duck noises, but okay, birthday blah blah
Archie (or, Bubba as I call him) is cute. Who isn't at that age?
Er, freshly diapered, that is. Really. Put some PANTS on that child!
Me g is as painful as always.
And yeah, WHY the UK version? Getting back at Anne's VF article?
I see author Emily Griffin was critical of the video and got so sugar -socked she had to recant. Heavens forfend Megs is criticized. Poor thing had to blurt out some anti-racism crap on top of an apology. I am very weary of that tired old trope.
I give it two thumbs down, but no surprise there. The Harkles just can't seem to get out of their own way. Everything they do is phony, cheap, obvious, and poorly-executed.
A pair of twits, really
HRH The Duchess of Sussex is now an Executive Producer, and STAR; that guy she's married to is Co-producer and handy random who....umm, films her on his iPhone6.
At least "I call him Arch" finally gets a look-in as his own entry: "Disinterested infant of a chick who shows up every once in a while, and makes everyone feel icky'"
https://twitter.com/sw1a0aa/status/1258001226295398402