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?
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
I think Archie is the same baby we’ve “sort of” seen, starting in SA. I think they used a “gestational carrier” and Archie is the biological child of MM and Harry. The more I think about it, the more I just don’t see how they, with or without the help of the BRF, could fake a baby. And why would they? (These are rhetorical questions we’ve discussed many times.)
I thought the video was cringy. I can’t figure out why she does stuff like this. Today is Archie’s day and I can’t believe how poorly dressed they both were. That just jumped out. My children never left the house in a diaper and shirt. So tacky. Poor Harry.
The furniture does look like an extended stay inn. It's utterly bizarre. Also, the tugging at his ear makes me think ear infection, and he is easily the size of a 14-18;month old. I hope he is back with his real caregivers now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8293951/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-mark-Archies-birthday-smash-cake-source-tells-People.html#comments
My prediction? In 25 years Archie's Uncle William will be the King of England. Archie will be living in England also. Harry returned there when Markle dumped him in 2022. At first, Archie split his time between continents and parents, but Archie's mum never really showed much interest in him. She was more interested in being talked about in the media, and a succession of wealthy men, one or two of whom she actually married and divorced. It was "mutually decided" that Archie should live and attend school in England, and he enjoyed growing up with his cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles nearby. A few times a year he had to go visit his mum at her newest California mansion, but he didn't really enjoy it, and his mum didn't seem to either. Archie loves his dad, and can't really understand what his dad ever saw in his mum.
@Swamp Woman: LOL!!
The book was totally inappropriate for a one-year-old. It's too abstract.
It's more of a third-grade book for a quick read.
Yes, I agree Meghan was auditioning for something, and the kid just wouldn't stay on Meghan's target.
It was pathetic, and cringe-worthy on many levels.
Meghan shouting as she read the book? WTF?
We can only hope that baby has someone who's very caring, because, sure as sh!t, it ain't Meghan.
Rustiee
a pop up or a book with holes that parents stick their fingers through would ,in my opinion, held his interest for the two minute shot
all these hours later and I am still thinking to this video. how she can fail at so many turns continues to baffle
@TheOnlyRealHeidi: Yes, I noticed that too; he probably has an ear infection (having suffered many myself as a child.) Poor guy.
Re: Why Harry isn’t shown, I don’t believe that he was there. Putting aside her personality issues, she has to know that it would behoove her and help her ‘family’ narrative, for the three of them to be seen together. Her major faux pas was to try to stop him from saying ‘Dada’. Had she not done that, she possibly could’ve protected the illusion that JH was behind the camera. But he wasn’t. The whole look from the wardrobe to the setting comes off as ‘single mom living in a cheap condo’.
As far as Harry’s guns, I don’t believe in a million years that he sold them. The ‘he gave up hunting for me’ shtick has been part of her narrative from Day 1. It simply isn’t true. It’s just more of her PR. Me, Me, Me, Me, Me.
But she was too rigid and linear in her thinking to allow the kid to just have fun flipping pages.
It wasn't really about reading anything to the kid anyway. The whole goal was for her to read the book to the camera.
It was very odd that when he started to show some interest in the picture in the book, she would turn the book away from him and turn it towards the camera. No wonder he lost interest after the third or fourth time of that.
Notice how when she was reading to the camera the kid was gazing out the window, or towards whatever the daylight source was, not paying any attention to her.
He is one big kid. Looked like too many teeth for a one year old.
They're the ones that as parents have pushed the idea that the kid is 7th in line to the crown. Them: He is Royal, and don't you forget it.
As a royal he should be clothed more formally than a onesie and a diaper. If they're going to push that he is royal, then they need to act like he is Royal, and dressed him accordingly.
A baby in a onesie and a diaper is for at home in private, not in a video that will be shown to a whole lot of random people.
I'm getting a whole lot of "There's a Hole in the Bucket, Dear Henry" from these two clowns.
I agree with you 100%. They filmed it for sharing, and for a cause.
Yes, with the chambray work shirt, short shorts and a baby with a full diaper, it sure does look like she just stepped out of the double-wide. The hippie bracelets just add to the look. All she needs to complete the picture is a cig hanging from her mouth and a can of beer in her hand. She's never been duchess material.
In the video of the news radio guy singing Happy Birthday, he mentions that they're staying at the Chateau Marmont, which has been brought up before as a possible location for The Harkles. .
Archie clearly has no attachment to Meghan.
I'm embarrassed by how both of them were dressed. Short shorts on an almost 40 year old mother, and a plain white onesie that reveals the diaper of the baby? A very full diaper? (devils advocate... I used modern cloth diapers and they were very bulky as well. But they had very visible elastic "ruching" around the legs.) Both my children did the "low class" cake smash that everyone is hating on, dressed only in their cloth diapers. Hey! It was a thing in the early 10's! It was the heyday of Pinterest, lol.
Check out around 0:35 minutes of the video. "It's a DUCK." (grabs his torso) "and its about to eat a piece of bread!"
She doesn't know how to act around this baby. She doesn't like that she can't control him.
“a cig hanging from her mouth and a can of beer in her hand” hahaha
That sums up Meg Buckets “Keeping up Appearances ”
Poor Archie, who is a sweetheart, is dressed like a mini “Onslow”
@Ziggy
My son managed to put his foot in his first birthday cake whilst posing for photos.
Filled his boots, 90’s style “cake smash”
signs of Archie's birthday celebrations in this video perhaps Archies actual birthday was not yesterday ?
Baby Archie appears a bright little boy .
However this video in my opinion did not portray a family occasion nor did the event make it about Archie on his Ist birthdsy.The video appeared to be more an occasion for Meghan to jump on the reading stories bandwagon Meghan charity book reading for this STC cause could have been filmed on a separate occasion with or without Archie.
Many other celebrities have read solely including Harry. Even Harry didn't use Archie as a prop then . Meghan appeared to have made the video about her. The whole set up the appearance of Archie in his nappy the choice of book the visual absence of Harry seemed to have lacked much thought or preparation .It appears this cause that others have commented on hijacked the anticipated family photograph video of Archie on his 1st birthday
I’m really quite disturbed by how little interest Archie shows in his mother. She’s reading to him, and he never looks at her, not once. He seems more interested in the inanimate book (very little at that) than in his own mother’s voice. It seems like she barely spends any time with him. This is so sad, because babies that young need to have their mothers physically close to them. I’m just hoping the nannies are filling up that gap for little Archie, although being a stand-in mother is not generally in a nanny’s job description.
My heart also breaks for the Royal Family back in London, especially the Queen. After they all posted birthday wishes to Archie using the christening photos, it’s pretty clear they have no other photos of him, and probably haven’t actually seen him this year at all. I had a mental picture of the Queen’s courtiers hesitating to show her this video – and then the Queen watching it on her iPad and being utterly gutted to see her great grandson, a royal baby, wearing just a onesie and a diaper – basically undressed for the whole world to see. This baby could have had the best clothes that money can buy. But because Meghan seems to be going for a weird ‘barefoot California carefree’ image, the Queen’s great grandson is shown undressed and in possibly soiled diapers. I’m not even an uptight, traditional person, and it’s shocking to me. I can't imagine the reaction of the protocol-biding Royals. Even the most underprivileged among us will make sure our baby is dressed up in nice clothes before filming him for the whole world. But not her. Jeez.
Anyway, thank you, Nutty, for building this awesome platform for people to share their views in an intelligent and kind manner. This Megxit saga is so riveting and I think my head would explode if I didn’t have this blog to read:D
No wonder they picked her to be the "model" for the Smart Works ad (let's call it what it is) with MM. They appear to be two of a kind. But I have to wonder why a young woman who so frequently travels internationally needs Smart Works? Judging by her Instagram she isn't in need of clothes, and appears to be in no need of putting herself out there to get a job. Her confidence is over the top- very reminiscent of the video of a young MM driving around LA and her prom photos.
There's something odd going on with this. There is another young woman named Boryana Uzunova in London who is the founder of Kool and Conscious, a marketing business focused on sales of sustainable fashion, e-marketing, IT services, etc. I wonder if they are related?
https://www.picuki.com/profile/krisi.uzunova
HaHa! Poor Archie as Onslow, and Megs as Hyacinth Boo-kay! Does that make Harry Hyacinth's shell-shocked father whom they keep finding on the roof or escaping the house in his Army uniform? A waterside picnic with riparian entertainment is right up MM's alley.
Keeping Up Appearances still has me howling with laughter every time I watch it. Now I must salute you with a cup of tea in my Royal Doulton with the hand-painted periwinkles!
You made me change my profile photo!
I love Hyacinth, Jessica M aka as “my sister Violet, room for a pony...”
You must come to one of my “candlelight suppers”
I checked out Boryana Uzunova for Soho connections!!! You never know.
Was surprised to read she left school/Bulgaria at the age of 14 to work in Japan??
Haven’t checked out Krisi yet, if you’re on FB maybe you could check out her “friends”
Yep! Room for a pony!
I saw an article from a Chinese newspaper questioning how Boryana Uzunova became so famous so quickly. She just seemed to come out of nowhere. I'm not on Facebook, so I can't check her out there.
Now kindly clear the line. There are people of substance in this community who are probably queuing to ring me at this very moment!
Hahahaha, love that hat!
Markle pronounced Merde’l....
Sorry, was polishing my phone
“Daddy was a war hero”
Welcome
I agree, the Queen will be horrified, I’m horrified.
A “Royal” baby photographed in a vest & sodden nappy, paraded in front of the world!
What next?
Was that the postman...
Jessica Is perfect for Violet, who has room for a pony, a Mercedes, a sauna and a musical bidet. Classical, of course!
What's more Markle than that?
I guess with squeaky clean soccer mom approval from Jen Gardner the rest of Hollywood will be following suit. Do they get a cut of the charity money?
He’s used to Mamma throwing things at Daddas head.
I suppose the onesie and diaper might have been used to make it looked like Meghan was reading Archie a story at bedtime. But it didn't work. And the diaper looked full as many others have noted. If she was determined to do studied casual, why not at least put him in a coordinating blue unisex "bloomer" diaper cover? Of course, by putting him in all white in a light colored room, Meghan and her blue shirt stand out more. I think we all know an actress would know that.
I do understand some people aren't comfortable with children. People praise Kate's natural ability but until George was born she definitely was not a natural either. She often seemed stiff with kids in public back then (and for some reason there were lame attempts by KP to bill her as "the children's princess." Made as much sense before George was born as the "Fab Four" ever did.)
But supposedly M & H have been holed up with Archie for almost 6 months in a way most parents and young children never are, at least not before the pandemic lockdowns. Since M didn't have a job to go to and presumably didn't have a big "outside of the house social life" in the wilds of Western Canada, it would have taken a special effort to relegate Archie to a nanny day in and day out under those circumstances. I mean it's not as though M was busy cleaning the house, running the car in for maintenance, or doing laundry while H did a grueling commute to his job every day.
I am amazed "sugars" have praised the video for showing M's tender maternal side. I can understand a viewer might think Archie was behaving as one-year olds always do. I don't agree but I understand. But I do not understand how anyone could view that sad tape and think it showed a close mother/child relationship.
I don't know whether Harry was there and don't know if "dada" was aimed at Harry. Babies that age sometimes call lots of men dada (and it can be pretty awkward!)
@Ozmanda,
I think they had to say Harry did the filming but I'm not sure he did. The lighting to me suggests "fill lights" might have been used. (That would explain M&A's sweaty look.)
But if someone else was filming, that leads to questions such as did they violate virus lockdown rules, were they using security for non-security jobs, were they exposing Archie to the virus by having outsiders come in, where was Harry, and so on.
So if Harry wasn't in charge of the camera (he wouldn't have had to be behind it-- he could have just set it on a tripod, aimed, and pressed record) and maybe he wasn't even there, that could be why M seemed thrown by Archie saying dada.
The only thing to be lit at their suppers will be H&M...
Their names Phuket, pronounced Fook eh?
How soon before Wayne & Waynetta Slob put in an appearance?
Seriously though, regarding `Archie’s Aunt’ – you will need to take a pinch of salt of whatever size you think appropriate for one –
British royal history is littered with impostors, telling all sorts of unlikely back-stories.(What happened recently is a rerun of 1688, with surrogacy instead of warming pans.)
Reproductive technology can achieve wonderful positive effects but it opens the door to all manner of mischief, lies, doubt, and confusion so it’s no wonder that `born of the body’ is important. It’s an event that can be witnessed. (In Archie's case, no witnesses have been revealed- make of that what you will).
All it needs is some nutter to spot the possibilities, pick them up and run with them. There will be people that believe it. Hence the click-bait allegation that pops up from time to time that `Archie’s Aunt’ might actually exist.
It doesn’t really matter if the allegation is true or not – it can still gain support among the credulous and be used by trouble-makers.
That’s all we need.
There's an Eva Uzunova who's a chef at a restaurant named Yauatcha Soho in London. My Spidey senses are telling me that there is a connection with the Uzunovas and SoHo House. It could be through MM's former chef husband? Or Marcus?
I'm trying to find out if Boryana is married and goes under her husband's name to check for a Soho House connection. I've found several women who've done that, including the Soho House's COO's wife.
"I hope you're not going to spoil things with lower middle class humor!"
Yep, lit is correct!
Sorry, Nutty. Magatha and I kind of got carried away here, but Hyacinth and Co. sure do fit in with the Harkle's style.
Has anybody else or has she vanished into a Black Hole?
Wherever they shot that video, that's the saddest little plant next to her. It's half dead, and the leaves have been burnt at the edges, so they cut them off. It's not a first-rate location, hotel or home. The plant would have been replaced. Now I sound like Hyacinth!
Cheers for the laughs.
I’ve partaken of a glass or two of the Dowager Lady Ursulas
home goose wadeberry mine 😉
Kirsty Young was supposed to head up the Sussex Royal Foundation. I think she may be out of a job. Her Instagram is just photos of Scotland.
Financial support is patently not working as a control mechanism - they couldn't be much worse than they are now. Meghan is beyond reason. Nothing they can do about her or with her. She just exists and will remain what she is. Like an all-year-round hurricane season you just have to prepare for as best you can.
That was fun!
I hope that was a first class stamp. I object to having second-class stamps put through my letterbox!
It's almost 3 a.m. here. Watch out for Daddy on the roof again, will you? Nite!
@JocelynsBellinis
@AvaC
We don't use this term much these days, lest we reveal ourselves as snobs, but...
Royal be damned, she's just dead common, ain't she?
As my Nan used to say “She’s no better than she ought to be”
Goodnight. Daddy’s on the roof again, running from “mom” 😉
In his bathrobe with the WWI helmet and with his full diaper falling down!
I hope he tried to cover himself with his helmet??
Richard....
Dead common is right, and she's taken all of the royal out of Harry.
Be careful, Richard! Daddy's got his WWI rifle with the bayonet on the end with him! What will the neighbors think!
Her slovenly attire has encompassed Harry, & now Archie.
What is wrong with her?
I have never understood how she had designers, hairdressers,
beauticians etc on tap.
Yet she appeared/appears most often, to be badly dressed, bad hair & makeup
& totally unkempt.
She/it doesn’t make sense?
Sod the neighbours, where’s Megs!!
"We don't know where or when the video was taken, whether lock-down applied or not..."
Mostly true. We were told it was filmed this past weekend but that may not be true. We don't know if they are in LA though. Of course, if they aren't, then one would have to wonder why they'd be traveling with a baby during a pandemic.
Walmart.
Why could Meghan not do that? I have a much better bond with my niece than Meghan has with her own son.
I'm a believer in the surrogate theory. I do think the child is theirs, but that she did not give birth herself and possibly not on the date they claim he was born. If Archie was an agency kid I doubt the RF would have publicly sent birthday wishes. I could imagine that they are in on the fact that Archie is older, but recognise his 'official' DOB for his sake.
If you look at families...patterns tend to repeat for generations. I would not be surprised if Meghan abandoned him at some stage (once he is of no use - once she has found a better money making scheme or her interest shifts) and that Harry would end up as a single dad, just like Thomas Markle. Both would return to the UK and Archie could lead a relatively good life. Except... he will already be damaged because of the bad experiences in his early years.
She’s disgusted by his behaviour & treatment of the Queen, & country.
What a sad legacy for the Queen. It really has cut deep.
Hahahaha, buying throws for the cheap seats!!!
I’m thinking photos of Archie writing thank you letters to Auntie Oprah?
People should be better than that, even in LA.
Save the Children is the Harkles’ most legit stateside score despite its interesting board members, and it comes at a desperate time for them, IMHO. It is a risk, as the Harkle effect thus far has been to destroy, “shining a light” not on the good, which we already understood in this case, but on the dark and seedy.
Meghan must be making headway in crevices she hasn’t yet polluted. Although it’s been crickets from most corners she has already squatted in, there have been small chirps: from Serena’s nest and the videographer a few days ago—but more people need to speak up for Archie’s sake. People like Meg use their children as props.
This video is smoke and mirrors, though. The facts remain that the Harkles are living in lesser circumstances, and Meg has just suffered a major blow in her preliminary hearing. It’s constant, screaming tantrums and scheming where Meghan is.
In the meantime, deserving charities and their innocent beneficiaries are in the process of being Markled.
Seats? You know they use old car seats in that double-wide of theirs! The springs are poking through, so it's time for another run to the dump!
Seriously, I don't think they can afford any seats, even in the nosebleed section, right now.
I've got to get off of here and get some sleep!
Welcome to all of the newcomers!
PS Oprah.com suggests that "Duck Goose" is for ages 3-5. Another fail that you didn't think through, Megs. What a confusing book for a one-year-old. Will poor little Archie ever learn the difference between a duck and a goose if MM keeps reading this book to him?
"I am disgusted see Jennifer Garner’s fawning letter to the Harkles on Instagram..."
Me too. And the idea that Meghan's book choice was deliberately made to show she intends to teach Archie to see different points of view is absurd. He's one-year old. The book just exposed him to the same (boring) black and white line drawing on every page and if it taught him anything, it taught him a duck and a rabbit are the same thing.
I didn’t understand Duck-Rabbit!
Children like rhyme, & nonsense.
Also colour, & fun.
Poor Archie, book had a sticker on it so it must be good?
Disgusting on all counts.
What can we do?
Megs is fully aware of the hypocrisy, suits her fine.
Eth loved her dimwit fiancé but even so…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_It_from_Here
“..an uncouth dysfunctional family called the Glums….
“...The story would be about some recent episode in the lives of Ron, Mr Glum's dim son… and Eth, a plain girl for whom Ron represented her only chance of marriage…
“… Ron and Eth would be sitting on the sofa. Eth would say, "Oh, Ron…!" – her catchphrase – and Ron would vacantly reply something like, "Yes, Eth?" and the week's story would begin in earnest. This opening formula was constantly varied slightly. For instance, in one episode, Eth says, "Oh, Ron, is there anything on your mind, beloved?", to which Ron, after a pause, replies, "No, Eth." Another example has Eth saying "Oh really, Ron, do you expect me to just sit here, like a lemon?", to which Ron responds "No thanks Eth, I've just had a banana."
“The story usually involved some crisis ... In several episodes this crisis followed from Ron's laziness, and his resultant inability to find employment."
Anything like real life in LA? The episode of Eth bringing home a drunken Ron, perhaps?
Hence my suggestion of Archie writing “thank you”
letters to Auntie Oprah for Mother’s Day photo op.
I don’t remember the “”Glums” but I did enjoy repeats of “Round the Horne”
Also “Sing something Simple” after “Songs of Praise”
You and JocelynsBellinis provided quite a bit of humor last night. Great for us insomniacs!😄
Fook ay indeed.
Semprini serenade? `Old ones, new ones, loved ones, neglected ones'
I can even remember being allowed to stay up to hear the signature tune of `Dick Barton, Special Agent', just to join in with `Dick Barton -Shpeshal Agent!' I was 4. Dick was replaced by the Archers...
You ask, what can we do? Apart from asking `What would Dick do?', we can only go on `shining a light' on her, in hope of revealing her heinous activities and malicious intent.
RE "Daisy" Dukes, the crazy sister. Thank you for the Buckets commentary--made my day and its not even 800 am here!
One of my children had inherited divergent strabismus, also called “wandering” eye. Her pupil, instead of crossing, would “wander” to the outer corner of her eye. The same pediatric ophthalmologist, at the exact age, from year, week and day as my brother, around age two, had operated on both of them, 30 years apart, at Childrens Hospital in D.C.; although only one eye was off, both eyes had to be operated upon, for muscle reasons. My sister had a mild case, was not operated on, worked with different lights, crystals, etc., but still has a tiny version of the ds today. In America, there is no word for an eye issue called a “squint” so I do not understand what the medical term in America is, unless it is crossed eyes. All I know is that my daughter’s eyes problem had to be operated on between two and five years of age, or it might have been permanent.
Archie looks 60 percent H, and 40 percent Tom Markle. He is the largest one-year old I have ever seen. My kids loved “Goodnight Moon” (I think they loved it because I liked it and could tolerate reading it ten times a day to them). There are very funny take-offs of the book; my favorite one is called “Go The F**K To Sleep.”
The entire time of the Harry-Markle “era” has one word that is applicable: Chaos. Everything they say, do, touch, look, wear, write, EVERYTHING is a mess. It reminds me of a comedic ‘MacBeth. Why not release some cute pictures of Archie, maybe holding the book, or more likely, chewing on it? Or a short video of him playing with plastic duck and rabbit toys, in a baby pool, with Meghan and Harry each reading one page of the book? Or anything but holding a wiggly, bored, ear-holding tot, who was so cute when he was throwing down the books? Beautiful, mischievous smile, too. Why look at Meg’s thighs, up in the air? Nothing the HAMS do can be calm, dignified or modest. And I just thought, now, that Archie was deliberately underdressed so that the HAMS create more chaos to get attention.
Is this the offspring of him & her, one or the other, or neither? I really don't know. The only thing I think can say with any certainty is that between them both parents must have a lot of recessive genes that aren't expressed in either of them, assuming he is genetically theirs.
On probabilities, the odds of him not being dark, not having curly hair, as well as having negligible skin pigmentation are pretty remote. They are low for each feature individually - but together? Hmmm.
Tin-foil hat time - has she had Harry cloned?
I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet -there's a new Harry Markle Blog post out today. On the Archie video.,
Thanks most Ava Excellent. I am going there now/ And all hopes that your family are doing well as far as food flow goes.
What I find so fascinating about all this is how completely tone deaf she is. Her narcissism now is so profound (and once she married Harry it seems like her pathology increased exponentially), she cannot properly “read a room.” She wears cocktail dresses to casual events. She glams up in a $100,000 bespoke gown to an event where everyone is in casual clothes. She stuffs herself in a summer dress with a low back wearing one of square pillows (and, yes, you can see the outline of the pillow) to a senior center on a freezing day. Then we have the opposite, her thinking that modern royalty means you film a video about yourself (the child is only a prop) wearing shorts with a baby on your knee who needs their diaper changed. This is someone who has no concept of what is normal. She has gone through her life mimicking everyone else because I doubt she has any internal barometers.
Yes, I will acknowledge that anything she did wear or what Archie wore would be scrutinized and insulted. Anything. But for someone who is trying to reestablish some cred that she so foolishly squandered, this is not how to go about it. You do not try to show the world that you have this duchess thing down pat by wearing shorts. No, sorry. The Cambs do casual and yet there is no doubt that we are seeing the Royal family being casual. This video shoot looks like an ad by Extended Stay America targeting parents with little kids. “You can hang around in your underwear sitting on our fake leather chairs that are impervious to spit up!”
And Meghan’s Mirror is already in on the act. THIS is the one thing she could do to stop the criticism that every inch of her life is for sale. STOP THE MERCHING.
The only terms I've ever heard in the US for a "wandering" eye are "crossed eye(s)" usually referring to Strabismus. And "lazy eye" usually referring to Amblyopia (but that often starts at at an older age than Strabismus)
I know some eye direction problems in newborns do resolve by around 4-6 months. And I know there is something called pseudostrabismus that gives the appearance of crossed eyes when they aren't crossed. That disappears when the baby's face grows. But I also know some parents believe crossed-eye problems will always be outgrown. And as you said, that's not true. If interventions aren't done by the "critical period" for vision development vision can be permanently lost.
So I hope Archie has been evaluated. Meghan seems to be such a know-it-all. And when there are stories--perhaps NOT true but still stories--that Doria and Meghan persuaded Harry to wean himself off antidepressants in favor of natural supplements, I can't help but wonder. (I'm not cheerleading for drug treatments for depression as the only option, but Harry's mental health doesn't seem better to me.)
I agree Archie is a big baby! And I know birth weight isn't always indicative of size at 1 year. But he was reportedly only a few ounces over 7 lbs when he was born and these days, that's small.
MM looked directly at the camera 16 times, she looked at the baby 14 times, and looked directly at the book and read it 14 times regardless of what the baby was doing. The baby looked at her zero times.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/archies-1st-birthday-promotional-video/
If I remember correctly, Archie looked directly at whoever was filming (or whoever was standing next to whoever was filming) twice, and one of those times was with a big smile.
I feel sorry for Meghan as she has shown everyone that she has not bonded with her child (and that is not racist, i.e. I am not criticising her because she is of mixed race ... I am South African and we are hypersensitive to a ridiculous degree about race ... can catch a whiff of it continents away!). It is all so messy!
"She issued an apology, admitting that she could see how 'some of my posts may have felt mean-spirited, and could be construed as having racial undertones". Major eye roll.
I post this here because it has been mentioned a few times past couple days and felt it only fair to present differing side. this is from razziegirl tumbler
This morning i spoke to a very upset charlatan duchess. She found out the fb group she was in was active in fraud. However, despite being a victim herself she now finds her name been spread all over the internet by skippy and her cult members as being part of the fraud herself!
(snip)
There was nothing about race or colour in the criticism, just the way MM was with Archie. But, sadly, we have come to expect this sort of criticism.
Comment on DM, sad but accurate assessment of Archie's future:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8293951/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-mark-Archies-birthday-smash-cake-source-tells-People.html#comments
My prediction? In 25 years Archie's Uncle William will be the King of England. Archie will be living in England also. Harry returned there when Markle dumped him in 2022. At first, Archie split his time between continents and parents, but Archie's mum never really showed much interest in him. She was more interested in being talked about in the media, and a succession of wealthy men, one or two of whom she actually married and divorced. It was "mutually decided" that Archie should live and attend school in England, and he enjoyed growing up with his cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles nearby. A few times a year he had to go visit his mum at her newest California mansion, but he didn't really enjoy it, and his mum didn't seem to either. Archie loves his dad, and can't really understand what his dad ever saw in his mum.
@TheTide: This was a clever, but yes, sad post. It left out a couple of points.
However, Archie is fortunate to have a warm, loving relationship with his stepmother, Harry’s second wife, and his stepbrothers and stepsisters, who are all close to each other as a blended family. Harry is happier than ever, knowing he found his true soul mate following several years of intensive therapy after the caustic marriage and divorce from Archie’s mother, who is now the subject of ridicule and scorn after it was revealed in the divorce proceedings that she used a surrogate to carry Archie while pretending to be pregnant.
"This Thankful Thursday, let's recognise all of the journalists and broadcasters working to keep up informed."
Nobody, and I mean, nobody, can throw shade like Her Majesty the Queen.
The onesie and the diaper - H&M were probably told in no uncertain terms to not merch Archie. So this outfit is the lesser of all evils. They cannot be accused of merching anything on that precious boy.
Archie - He's Harry with a little Thomas Markle thrown into the mix. As to the "squint" - wait and see. Many children outgrown this as their face grows. As to a possible earache versus teething: my money is on the teething - one year molars start erupting at 13-14 months, which fits the views of posters who think the boy is older that 12 months. Or he just gets his teeth early (my son cut his four lower teeth at once at age 6 months. He is now 40 and he's fine).
Megs and the "reading" - she was reading for the camera. No question about it. This was a performance, not a mother reading to her child. Sad. Sad that the little guy was used for a fundraiser on his first birthday. It would be one thing if Meghan read to Archie and was filmed from a distance, where her focus was on her son, and not the camera. But this was a performance. For those few Meghan defenders on the blog - yes, Charlotte was photographed doing good works before her birthday. The difference was a) she was not posing b) did she know she was being photographed and c) it was NOT her birthday.
The bible tells us to do our charitable works in secret. someone did not get the memo.....
"The Queen’s former press secretary, Dickie Arbiter, asked his Twitter followers if they had experienced the same thing, writing: ‘I pre-ordered this on Amazon last week and yesterday was told the order had been cancelled by the publishers. Anyone else had this problem?’
Others replied confirming that they had the same issue, with one Twitter user sharing an email sent from Amazon explaining that their pre-order of the book had too been cancelled.
It states: ‘The release of the item in the order below has been cancelled by the publisher and we have cancelled your pre-order. You won’t be charged for the items that are cancelled. We apologise for any inconvenience.’"
Bizarre. Don't know how reliable the info is. Here is the link: https://www.newzit.com/?ito=MOL_Android_related_Largethumbnail&startTab=entertainment&adobe_mc=TS%3D1588874751%7CMCAID%3D2EE04BD085158000-401DE608C489BA29
He is a big baby and I believe he is at least 14 mos old and maybe had the baby earlier than May. Thomas Markle is a big man so he def looks like a Markle but I can see MM and H in him too.
I think the Emily Giffin comment kind of cemented those feelings for me. She makes a comment that many of us have been thinking - Meghan doesn't come across as very maternal - and she's accused of being racist and is now defending herself as "not racist" which just makes her more of one because anytime a white person defends themselves as "not racist" they are being even more racist. (That last bit was sarcastic, in case the tone doesn't come across). And this narrative is exactly what the race baiting, all about me, these scammers want. This gives them the Oxygen they need to keep their sham of a celebrity existence going. And celebrity Super Mom In Chief rushing to their defense is exactly why celebrity is so self-servingly, smugly irrelevant to me and I venture to guess most regular people out there.
For the record and for what it's worth, I started out liking this couple and watched highlights of the wedding and nearly teared up at the magical quality of the day. But soon afterwards it became apparent to me that Meghan was using the family to bolster herself and that she was capable of ruthlessly cutting ties with her father and her whole family to save her image or whatever good she thought she was doing by that. And yes, the stories of her being "Dutchess Difficult" a "Diva" didn't help either. But the coup de gras had to be the schism her presence and influence in Harry's life caused in his own family just one short year after marriage. This woman is selfish beyond belief and loathsome for the levels she's willing to stoop to to win. And win what? A hollow crown? An Oscar that's usually the kiss of death for the actor who wins its? Being a part of cliche, self-absorbed and utterly detached Hollywood? I despise Meghan and Harry for their vanity, for their race baiting, for their faux victim mentality at everyone who doesn't fawn over them publicly.
I've said my peace so I can go in peace.
I think you've summed up nicely how most of us on this blog feel.
I think it was a totally fake photoshopped pic from a D. Tutu shot.
The only way it shows up for me is to Google "Meghan and Archie on beach". Then click on images. It shows in images associated with this article https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/archie-harrison-los-angeles-prince-harry-meghan-markle-a4431841.html?amp
But it's not in the article.
Apparently, 'M&H are living in an $18M Beverly Hills mansion of mega rich Hollywood actor/producer Tyler Perry and arranged by mutual friend Oprah'. Not sure what to believe any more...
Jennifer Garner has been a joke in Hollywood circles for years because of her almost daily pap walks (she calls the paps beforehand), while dragging her children all over LA for the publicity shots. Sometimes, she'll drag her ex-husband, Drunken Ben Afflek, along, too. She's been playing the perfect mother role for years, while using her children for PR, so she is likely to just love that MM will do anything for publicity, including pimping out Archie. She also divorced her first husband, Scott Foley, after his connections landed her the role on Alias, and has continued to use and marry men to climb the Hollywood ladder. MM and Jenn are made from the same mold.
She is an aging actress who is desperate to remain relevant, another commonality with MM. I'm sure she is thrilled to get the attention and the publicity through MM, who turned her son's first birthday into yet another publicity stunt. What MM will do, Jennifer is sure to follow, mistakenly hoping that a little bit of tarnished royalty will rub off on her. She's crafty, but I've never considered her to be the brightest bulb in Hollywood, yet another thing she has in common with MM.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-jennifer-garner-wishes-she-200000924.html
@Maneki,
Yesterday, people were complaining that their pre-orders for Scobie's book were being cancelled. Scobie said yesterday on his Twitter that the UK Amazon orders and the US Amazon orders were being mixed up through a computer glitch by Amazon (that's odd), and to just re-order. Now, the questions is, do we really believe Scobie, knowing that he's not the most reliable source for anything having to do with The Harkles?
Having said this, I can't resist a couple of observations:
- She is incredibly sloppy. She doesn't look well groomed, the child is in diapers and wearing shorts for a video like that is bad manners and bad taste. She insists she is The Duchess of Sussex. Well you either behave with dignity because you are associated with Sussex and represent it or you drop the title and behave as you want. If I was in Sussex I would be embarrassed by her again.
- The child is not interacting with her. It is clear he is not seeing much of her and he is not tactile in response for her kisses and weird rocking. The camera has a way of showing things like this; they would do much better with a good professional photo they can control.
- The final arm in the air gesture is theatrical, unnatural and out of place. It is as if the whole thing is tiring and demanding for her and she is glad it is all over.
- This is not Archie's birthday celebration. It lacks warmth, fun and focus on him. Instead we are invited to admire Meghan with the kid as mere accessory to emphasize her.
Was it a success? In my view it was not. Poorly thought through, poorly implemented it strikes few genuine notes and feels false.
1. The dull yellow background reminds me of a Days Inn motel. Unflattering.
2. Maybe Archie had a bulging diaper, because one of the criticisms of her woodsy pap stroll with the lifeless toddler was that he had no diaper on? Better make sure she addresses every criticism, prove it false!
3. The choice of PC books for “older” kids was a statement of being needing to be open minded, that there are two sides worthy of consideration, and there are more important or interesting things than both. That’s a PC message Meghan wants to send, and I don’t like she used kids or charity to make a personal point.
4. Babies like tactile books and interesting pictures. This book had neither. Again, it was Meghan’s choice for Meghan’s message.
5. The baby is older than one years old. When he drops the book the second time, he sounds like he said “can’t pick up.” I listened several times, and he is putting words together - that usually doesn’t happen for another 6-8m, definitely not at a year.
6. His teeth are too developed for a one year old, and he’s clearing teething and getting more.. There is a clip from November, when Meghan tells a little girl Archie has his bottom two teeth and was crawling at precisely 5m old. No. Way. Look up the dental charts and pediatric milestones. Those are 6m - 1yr.
7. I do think they used a surrogate, I also think the baby looks like Thomas Markle more than anyone else. The heavy eyes, even the mild cross, and wide set nose, though Archies is wider, more like Doria’s, look very, very Thomas. Harry’s eyes were rounder, though the face shape is similar. The kid has brown hair, not tufts of red, per silly fellow Sunshine Sachs client Ellen.
8. Jennifer Garner is also a Sunshine Sachs client. I love what Don Cheedle said to a Kathy Griffin when she went on her thirsty rant against him not being a good friend. He said we aren’t friends. We are acquaintances. I don’t friend that easily. But, if you were my friend, as a friend, I would have told you not to [parade severed head of the POTUS]. They take that seriously. So, to those who friend too easily, tell Meghan to stop trashing HM Queen Elizabeth and her family, work on amends and peace, rather than so much division, entitlement and selfishness, life is too short, and it’s not all about you. That baby deserves better, including people who love him to love him.
9. So, I thought the video was sad. It was all about Meghan, and it showed a baby not connected at all to his mother, who was more interested in the camera and her own message than her child.
10. If that is Harry’s voice, it sure sounded added in later. It’s louder in a way that doesn’t seem contemporary but rather dubbed over. And it’s too steady to be hand held, so why pretend it was? It could easily have been someone else, but who knows. But, it sure is odd that Harry wasn’t in the video. I am sure his family would love to see a live clip of him with the baby, since they haven’t been privy to any such thing since... the Christening?! Flip side? It’s probably painful for Thomas to see his splitting image with his daughter who has trashed him, victimized him and won’t speak to him, because he got manipulated when he was vulnerable.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12240802
I think the people who predict that Meghan and Harry will split (and things may get ugly before that), Meghan will eventually fade into some kind of tacky obscurity, Harry may step out of the limelight, but we may well see Archie on the balcony at TTC in future are perhaps not far wrong!
Would you like to have yourself exposed to the public like this, in your underwear and with a diaper in obvious need for a change? In a situation where you yourself are not able to make this decision for yourself? And where the persons exposing you like this clearly know that these pictures are shared with major newspapers worldwide and are not just taken for the family album?
Would you not have preferred to be dressed and presented appropriately? Keeping in mind that those embarrassing icebear rug pictures really arent’t the thing anymore either?
A change of perspective quickly answers this question: Ask yourself if you would expose an elderly family member that can‘t decide for themselves like this? Polar bear rug included?
The answer for most of us is that we wouldn‘t because it contradicts the idea of human dignity, wether we are middle aged, very old or very young. Or everything inbetween.
And this violation of human rights is what upsets me with these pictures.
I just hope, that after not seeing any bonding between MM and Archie, that the nanny (is she a freebie, too?), watches poor little Archie very closely around that ungated pool. It's a disaster in the making.
Oprah, you do realize that MM listed herself as Caucasian on her acting resume? You're not helping out a sister, but one who has blatantly denied part of her heritage and ancestry. However, you've been seen as an extremely gullible person in the past, who is easily taken in by the latest fad of the day and people like Marianne Williamson with questionable backgrounds and ethics. Yes, just put up a "wish board," and all of those wonderful things will magically come to you!
Oh, and thanks for giving us Dr. Phil (who doesn't have a license to practice) and that fraud, Dr. Oz. Ten physicians have come out against Dr. Oz for handing out dangerous medical advice, and he's been chastised by members of congress in an open hearing.
Oprah wants us to be open and honest about ourselves, but there have been questions about her past, especially her stories about her family. I'll not go into the questions surrounding her relationships with Gayle and Steadman or the stories of her expecting to be treated like a queen wherever she goes. Then, there's the story of her claiming racism when she demanded that Hermes in Paris reopen their store for her when she just showed up after hours, and they declined to accommodate her. They were in the middle of setting up for a private party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8297083/Meghan-Harry-living-Tyler-Perrys-18-million-hilltop-mansion-Beverly-Hills.html
Your comment about Dignity made me suddenly remember a scene from one of my favorite movies “Singin’ In The Rain.” At a gala opening of his latest movie, Gene Kelly, playing a silent screen mega-actor, is asked in his own words, to tell his fans screaming for him around the movie theatre, how he began his wonderful career. Gene Kelly says if there is one word to describe his life and career, it would be “Dignity - always dignity.” You then hear his voice, but see scenes of his rubble scrabble, very undignified climbing by his thirst for fame, although Kelly tells a very different story. It is a scene funny on its own merits, but when you brought up Dignity, you can just imagine MM in this scene, lying about her life, while the screen shows a completely opposite life.
I agree with everything you say about dignity and the right to choose how you're portrayed in public. Presenting Archie in a diaper for the whole world to see is coming close to child abuse.
Blind Items Revealed #5
April 29, 2020
The parental unit of this A list celebrity went online and checked his bank account last week to see if an online payment had processed. What he found was a mysterious $100,000 deposit from some corporation that only exists on paper. Someone planted it there for a reason.
Thomas Markle/Meghan Markle
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 10:30 AM 26 COMMENTS
EMAIL THIS
BLOGTHIS!
SHARE TO TWITTER
SHARE TO FACEBOOK
SHARE TO PINTEREST
If it’s true, then H and M have committed bribery and are in serious trouble. I question whether this blind item is true—are the Harkles really that stupid?
That address makes more sense than the Beverly Ridge Estates one. I wonder who leaked it to the DM.
SHAME ON YOU! Jennifer Garner is a good person and doesn't deserve your rubbish. Shameful.
Up immediately. She is a shameless user like MM.
So California casual was and still is my first thought.
The book choice: Well, that's odd. I would have thought that Oprah's book for kid gift would have books which were more age appropriate. I would think that even if the gift was only for a year, that they would be sending books for the first two years. And let the rest sort themselves out.
The next is not just how large he is but how she keeps trying to control him and she doesn't register with him. To me, that's jaw dropping. Even if they did several takes, she still doesn't register with him. Or, maybe this was the first try and in the others there was a little something negative no one wanted in the shot.
I tend to think that the baby was a loaner. Was it the same as SA, IDK. Someone said something about which eye was the "problem" eye and that it seemed to shift sides. I was hoping someone could run through that and cite links for photos.
To be the same baby, it would have to be able to start all the trips from the US because of border shut downs later (that no one could have foreseen last year) or that the leaving timeline seemed to jump forward to control the leak by a paper(I think it was the Sun). The close proximity for merching photos would have worked except HM took that option off the table. Choosing a kid from the area you want to end up in would have made a lot of sense. And, travel as needed.
Thinking about the whole idea of having Archie be in a diaper.
I could find it easy to come to the conclusion that as part of her lack of paying attention to details, missing that the diaper is kind of big would fit that past performance. If you don't spend a lot of time around a kid (mother, nanny, babysitter) then it tends not to be on your radar unless it is extremely smelly or you hear it come out.
If it is a veiled message to the BRF on any of multiple levels, or, even if it's not the really sad part is that this is exactly the kind of thing which kids who bully can choose to bring up. Archie is the one who is collateral in the crossfire.
I listened to the male voice and it didn't sound really British to me. It was much louder than I expected from the level of her speaking voice but if they were using the camera mic, it might make some sense.
She looked younger (less makeup), not the loose hairs which some think are sexy and the hair looked more natural than it has to me in the past. The comment of dress what you are, either as Dutchess or not, but dress for that role. Yes. Agree. Like the characters as Disney who need to be who they are even unless they are in a completely private area.
Nutty Flavor has her work cut out for her again *sigh*
(Reference -- Peeves the Poltergeist, about a fight between house elves Dobby and Kreacher, in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix")
(reportedly) H/M now couch surfing at Tyler Perry's estate. This place is huge with multiple wings. Where you might not bump into someone else for days. Unclear whether this place is merely an investment for TP
"The TV icon attended Harry and Meghan’s wedding in 2018 and publicly supported their controversial decision to step back from their royal duties earlier this year. Last year the Sussexes announced Harry and Winfrey are collaborating on an upcoming documentary series about mental health for Apple TV+.
Perry and Winfrey have collaborated on multiple projects for the Oprah Winfrey Network."
@the tide: Shame on you! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Shameful nasty person that you are and very like Meghan Markle.
Hey, Karen, go have a drink. If you're going to do something, then damn well own it. Nobody likes a sneaky person.
PA got involved with smarmy people while whoring himself out to make a buck and look at him now. JH is on that same track . So sad.
And yes, people outside of the USA are saying who the heck is Tyler Perry?!
Thought: Maybe they are staying in the guest house at Tyler Perry's house? The place sure does look big enough to have a very nice sized guest house. Or maybe it is a guest wing ...
https://mcmansionhell.com/
I had the same thought- McMansionhell.com. Look at all of the angles, windows of different sizes and shapes, parts of the house that look added on, etc. Just goes to prove yet again that money doesn't buy you taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0AEGTtkWU
Who "leaked" this? They were screaming they would not ever talk to DM ever again, but here we go daily. That moratorium didn't last long.
I still shake my head that being the granddaughter-in-law of the Queen of England wasn't enough for her, what a wasted, once in a lifetime opportunity to delve into the UK with behind the scene access to castles, stately homes, the best history professors, the libraries! the architecture, hello original Winston Churchhill documents.
Can you imagine how popular they would have been if they had taken a year long driving tour of the UK, visiting small villages, eating food in tiny pubs, talking to the locals, taking photos to publish a book about their travels and the people across the UK? You know, kind of like Anthony Bourdain?
My god, they could have had the world at their feet.
The DM reports that The Harkles are squatting at Tyler Perry's estate, arranged, of course, by Oprah. It's a gated community, and Tyler's property comes with it's own security team, so now The Harkles have wrangled a deal to not pay for security. How embarrassing for the BRF that The Harkles are continuing to beg for freebies all over North America. What's next, asking for unemployment benefits?
@JocelynsBellinis: Normally, people of their alleged wealth moving to an area would rent a home and PAY for for it with their own money and not spend months couch surfing at other people’s homes. I doubt they have paid for anything as a gesture of thanks to the owner of the home in British Columbia or to Tyler Perry for use of his Beverly Hills home. These two are adults in their mid- to very late 30s and should have the money to rent SOMETHING, that fits their needs without scrounging for handouts like some guy holding a cardboard sign at the end of a freeway exit ramp.
They are not kids.
Perhaps the reason they are couch surfing is that Meghan’s taste for a house is too lavish for the money they have at their disposal even for a down payment.
Harry supposedly can’t access the main part of his trust from Diana until he hits 40 and the $5 million amount tossed around as Meghan’s worth is probably the total amount she earned during her 10 to15 years as an actress. That money is likely long gone.
Meghan is probably filling Harry’s head with expectations they’ll have a huge income as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic is over, but although they WILL make some money, it will be nowhere near the amount necessary to fund Meghan’s grandiosity.
I expect they will eventually experience serious financial problems (perhaps they are already having problems) and get into deep, deep debt, which could cause a divorce.
If they stay together, when their novelty wears off (I think it is already waning), they will end up like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor— titled, but always depending on the generosity of others to pay their way like the guy at the end of the freeway ramp.
Thanks for the link to TP's house. Wow, is that tacky. The only room I found remotely bearable was the kitchen and even that wasn't really my taste.
I do wonder what Harry thinks after growing up in more classically decorated homes and visiting his grandparents in palaces. Maybe he thinks TP's decorating "style" is how "normal" people live in the US.
������
I actually kinda liked the red zebra room - it was relatively harmonious in it's red/goth/zebraness lol.
But the MINI ROMAN TEMPLE Kitchen Complete With Custom Wood Coffered Ceilings- I JUST CAN'T.
And that quartz crystal light fixture - CREEPY.
@Lizzie, yes, it's photoshopped.
Apparently, 'M&H are living in an $18M Beverly Hills mansion of mega rich Hollywood actor/producer Tyler Perry and arranged by mutual friend Oprah'. Not sure what to believe any more...
They could be living here, there, or anywhere. For the Malibu Two, these latter day hippies, don't bet on anything.
Here's a tour of Tyler Perry's LA home
It’s so depressing to see this—all money, no taste.
If that is where the Harkles are, it’s not in the Beverly Ridge Estates or on Arkell Dr.
I'd be worried that the crystal chandelier that looks like stalactites would come crashing down and impale a dinner guest.
Begs and Dregs “Couchella”
I don’t believe that they’re at Tyler Perry’s house. I don’t believe any of these stories. From what the Windsor neighbors said, they never even lived at Frogmore. So why would anyone believe that they’re living at Tyler Perry’s?
We should keep that in mind when we are looking at the video with Meghan and Archie. Her messy hair, the grey hair, her "relaxed clothes" The book. Archies clothes. Where they sit. Everything in that video is well planned and has a purpose. Therefore we shouldnt even discuss it. We shouldnt let her and her entourage manipulate us. Archie is very cute but Meghan Markle is still Meghan Markle and now she wants US people to like her and Sunshine Sachs told her the messy hair and the grey hair and every other detail in that video will make people relate to her. We shouldnt buy it.
https://meghantheduchyofpitstains.tumblr.com/
https://thelondonroyal.tumblr.com/
I follow Skippy, too, but only in an "I-can't-look-away-from-this-trainwreck" kind of way.
It is not the same house. Tyler Perry seems to own a number of houses. There do not seem to be any photos of the interiors where the Harkles are supposedly staying.
Archie did not want to be with Meghan, he just wanted to get away from her and possibly go to his nanny or play with his toys.
As for Jennifer Garner, well, she is repped by SS so she had to play along with a polite thank you, but I love the subtle shade she threw at the Harkles. She refused to use their titles, and simply referred to them as Meghan and Harry. You just know Me-Me was just frothing at the mouth at such a blatant disrespect.
Though it looks like she got some good news, since the braindead fans of Meghan ranted about racism at poor Emily Giffin, when she was only telling the truth. Either way this is going to backfire on Meghan. Emily's fans are the people Meghan should be fawning over since they are the ones who are rich enough to buy expensive oddities. Just look at Gwyneth Paltrow's GOOP. Markle's teen fans will not have sufficient allowance from their parents to buy anything expensive.
I just can't wait for Paltrow to destroy her. Meghan was able to get away with giving the royal family the finger since she took Harry and Archie hostage, but she has nothing Paltrow wants and if she tries to horn in on Gwyneth's cash maker...well Gwyneth has better Hollywood connections than Oprah, and she'll use them.
I check in regularly for the animals and recipes, but it has become too onerous to wade through the rest of the stuff, so the obvious thing to do is simply bookmark the animal and recipe sites and skip Skippy ...! Am doing this as I speak.
If you haven't already check out Legion Media. Theres photos of Archie with the governess getting out of a car with none other than Meghans Uncle and Dorias half brother. Comment claims they are at Dorias house.
New post: Why is Tyler Perry letting the Sussexes couch-surf?
That baby looks biracial, unlike the Archie who appeared in the book-reading video, and also looks smaller, like he's actually 1 year old. Strange.
Carried by some random white woman who doesn't appear to be Joffrey Raglund's partner, but you never know.
Archie's state of dress/undress - does anyone else wonder whether it's partly a reaction to the pap walk with him hanging out of the carrier? To me, it feels like she's responding to the criticism that he seemingly wasn't wearing a nappy (diaper) in those shots by having the nappy so in-your-face in this video that you can't miss it. Expanding on this theory, it could also explain why the nappy is full; a full nappy is a lot more obvious than a freshly changed one.
Also, did she use that video enhancement thingamajig again?
If you haven't already check out Legion Media. Theres photos of Archie with the governess getting out of a car with none other than Meghans Uncle and Dorias half brother. Comment claims they are at Dorias house.
You only have to ask admin for access if you are a member and want to post there (Meghan Markle unpopular opinions LSA thread). I have posted the link for viewing that thread at least a few times, so anyone who does want to have a look was able to bookmark it. If you want to participate in the thread then you have to be accepted as a member at LSA.
Despite what the caption says, that does not look like Doria's place in the photographs. If you have a look at those photographs and all the photographs of Doria that have been taken outside her home, nothing matches. Perhaps they parked down the street and not outside her house? That does look like it could be Doria's half-brother in those photographs. He stays out of the public eye, but works in some kind of artistic field and is a bit younger than Meghan (why she would have ghosted him as not good enough to be family I do not know). The baby does not look like Archie at all.
As for Meghan and Harry staying at Doria's place ... I doubt it. Her place is staked out by paparazzi so they would have been seen coming or going, and there definitely would be more activity at her place. Despite 'reports' of visits to Doria, I doubt that Harry has ever been to her house and I am sure it is years since Meghan visited her mother there, if ever.
One of the reasons I think they called the paparazzi for those three occasions when they were photographed is because the paps must know that a photograph of where they are staying would be worth a lot, and they had three chances to follow them. Did they stake out the charity and then follow them as they delivered food or get the information of where they were going to be delivering food? Why not follow them home? And then with the walking of the dogs? How did the paps know that they would be walking the dogs there at that time?
------
I don't know how to find the picture of the half-brother being discussed. I'm assuming that is Joseph Johnson? I did Google him and found this article we've all seen before.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6916877/amp/Meghan-Markles-photograph.html
I now remember he is (or was, not sure) married to a white woman. (See pic #11) So his grandchildren may look biracial too. Also check out how red M's hair seemed to be in picture #9. I know we've all thought Thomas had red toned hair when younger but apparently M also did briefly, at least in the sun.
I wonder if she did the same the Harkles?
If so, i cant imagine them moving 100 books and a bookcase from Frogmore to Canada and then to onto LA in the middle of the night.
I agree re Skippy. Love animals, recipes and sometimes they post info about people doing amazing things, helping others, being kind and generous, that sort of thing I find very inspiring. I like her prayer requests too, obviously, people in stressful situations benefit from the fact that strangers care and wish them well.
I don't like Saint Harry who works for the royal family theme. Neither do I find branding Meg as Satan helpful for meaningful discussion.
Harry has turned his back on his family, his country, his friends, his life, to be beholden to Oprah and friends. Anyway, here is the article (see what you think):
PART 1
How Oprah Winfrey’s inner circle has become a ring of steel for Harry and Meghan
The Sussexes have reportedly been staying in the Los Angeles mansion of Tyler Perry, a friend of the US chat show host
By Rosa Silverman8 May 2020 • 1:25pm
It’s been dubbed the “Oprah connection”: a byword for the thread that supposedly ties the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to a web of famous and wealthy Americans, whose support has helped ease the way into their new life in North America. Now it seems the inner circle of chat show host Oprah Winfrey is fast becoming a ring of steel for Harry and Meghan.
Since moving to Los Angeles at the end of March, the Queen’s grandson and his wife and baby son have reportedly been living in a luxurious Beverly Hills mansion belonging to Tyler Perry, a highly paid American actor. The house, situated amid 22 acres in a guard-gated community, is said to be worth $18 million, boasting eight bedrooms and 12 bathrooms. Ariel images show a very decent-sized outdoor pool to boot.
The link between Perry and the Sussexes? Their mutual friend Winfrey, apparently.
Sussexologists live for details such as this. For what could be more compelling a narrative than that of the Royals cast out of the stuffy British Firm and into the welcoming arms of America’s soft power tycoons?
There is certainly evidence in favour of such a twist in this modern day fairytale-gone-weird. A glamorous phalanx of overseas A-listers has well-established links to Harry and Meghan: not only Winfrey, with whom Harry is collaborating on an Apple TV mental health documentary series, but also George and Amal Clooney, Ellen DeGeneres and Serena Williams, among others.
How Oprah Winfrey’s inner circle has become a ring of steel for Harry and Meghan
The Sussexes have reportedly been staying in the Los Angeles mansion of Tyler Perry, a friend of the US chat show host
By Rosa Silverman 8 May 2020 • 1:25pm
Gayle King, an American television host and friend of Winfrey, is also understood to be close to Meghan and attended her star-studded baby shower last year.
Surrounded by figures like these, the Sussexes have seemingly stepped out of one rather archaic power structure - the British Royal family - and into a more modern one, from within which they look unassailable. It also comes with its own code of honour. Several of its members have intervened to defend the Sussexes against their anti-Megxit accusers. Winfrey, who attended their wedding in 2018, has insisted they “do not need my help figuring out what’s best for them,” amid claims she helped influence their decision to distance themselves from Harry’s family.
But the 66-year-old billionaire has also loyally asserted that she supported their move “1,000 per cent”, adding, for the avoidance of any doubt, “[Harry] did what he needed to do for his family. I don’t think anybody has any right to say anything.”
Obviously this won’t stop people saying things. Let’s face it: it’s too juicy a drama. But interventions from the likes of Winfrey do help to build up an invisible armour around a couple who have felt under siege, and they do so far more effectively than any number of lawyers’ letters to uncooperative sections of the media. It seems you cannot put a price on the cultural cache of having on your side the closest thing America has to royalty.
With great cultural power, of course, comes the ability to make lots of money. In January, James Henderson, a public relations adviser to the Duchess of York, alluded to this link when speaking to the Telegraph about how the Sussexes were likely to use their newfound freedom to make millions in the US, while turning their brand into a global empire. “The Duchess will have received offers worth tens of millions of pounds over the last year,” he said. “There are books, beauty products, clothing. She definitely has huge revenue potential. She could front a television interview show in the states. She has the Oprah connection.”
The backlash to the Perry mansion story is already taking place on social media. The main source of ire appears to be the fact that the couple still don’t seem to actually be paying their way. (It is not known whether they are renting or staying in Perry’s house as guests, leaving plenty of room for speculation either way.)
Plus the fact they have somewhere nice to live. And that they have self-determination, and refuse to wander penniless through the streets, in some form of medieval penance for crimes we would struggle to define.
But for every snipe of this nature, there will also be thousands - millions - cooing over Winfrey’s recent gift of a book for baby Archie’s first birthday. The public image battle rages on, but having the likes of Winfrey on your side can prove a highly potent weapon.
Thanks for the Telegraph article.
I'm not at all sure Oprah ever was considered the closest thing we have to royalty in the US. But if she ever was, she isn't these days. The abuse at her school, her long association with Harvey W, her book club bombs and scandals, Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil....yuck.
I'm also not sure critics of H&M want to see them homeless wandering the streets. I know I don't. But living in McMansions and flying on private jets, while telling the rest of us we must lessen our carbon footprints....I'll probably generate less carbon flying over the course of my entire lifetime than H&M have generated flying on personal trips just since they met. And having the gall to whine in Africa about their hard lives...they just aren't likeable people.
"In a video filmed in honor of Archie's first birthday, the toddler sits rapt as his mom, Meghan Markle, reads him Duck! Rabbit!, a children's book by Amy Krouse Rosenthal."
Sits rapt? Really? I must have watched the wrong video.
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a32406940/meghan-markle-archie-book-oprah/
In my opinion, Oprah tried to stay popular and aligned with the stars/famous people instead of building a life of gravitas for herself. There are too many newbies nipping at her heels and she does not have what it takes to be relevant today but she does still have a lot of money and is still well connected and both these things are very useful for the Harkles.
Bill Gates built Microsoft, Steve Jobs built Apple, Elon Musk built Tesla and SpaceX ... men hog the limelight but there are plenty of women who have done/are doing something significant to change the world in engineering, science, arts, architecture, philanthropy, computers, space, cooking/baking, design ... yet the Kardashians and Oprah (and others of their ilk) are very rich and very famous all over the world, even if they are has-beens. It is that type of wealth and fame that the Harkles are aligning themselves with and chasing.
I also read somewhere that Tyler Perry was doing a lot to help employees at local restaurants in Atlanta. It’s possible he’s in Atlanta and happens to have a temporarily empty house they’re using.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1347153/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
Oprah definitely has influence and gobs of money. I didn't mean to dispute that. But I don't think she's necessarily the Queen Bee nor doors she have as wide an appeal as she used to.
People do chase $ in the US, and people with influence tend to have money, but I'm not sure that for the US as a whole, money = influence. But I do understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is who buys the stuff these people sell? Goop's vaginal steamer? Are you kidding me? And Kim K? Not that I'm likely to desire anything she sells, but even if I did like something I wouldn't buy it. She just gives me the creeps with all her surgical enhancements. But to each her own I guess.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/617571400913485824/submission-archie-astrology
Note that a birth chart is about tendencies (and different astrologers interpret differently) and not abut destiny (unless it is something overwhelmingly strong, e.g. William's destiny is to be king/royal according to his birth chart).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8301663/Meghan-Harry-whisked-away-Tyler-Perry-150M-private-plane.html
By gosh that pair are hypocrites and it is cringeworthy how Harry is sponging off people he hardly knows. It is like him and Megsy are doing a Fergie times 10!
I think the rest of the family are too busy 'royalling' to launch a rescue operation right now (and wondering what the heck to do about Andrew)! There hasn't been this much scandal and potential scandal since the War of the Wales, followed by the Fergie/Andrew divorce, and if it wasn't for the virus, the tabloids would be wall-to-wall coverage of it all.
Finally I have emerged from lockdown and have access to a keyboard. I was at home with only a phone and keeping up with all the comments was too hard, not to mention trying to post. So I have tons to catch up on.
So, we have waited with bated breath for an entire year to see what Meg would do for a big rollout for Archie's first birthday. To call that effort pitiful doesn't even begin to cover it. I know the coronavirus has put crimps on a lot of people's plans, but if there were *any* evidence that this is a warm, loving, cohesive (biologically related) family, I think we'd have seen it by now.
I am a children's librarian, and reading to babies, toddlers and preschoolers is a regular part of my job. (Used to be . . ) I have no children of my own, but after 20 years as a children's librarian/early literature specialist, I have learned a great deal about child development and the most effective ways to introduce very young children to language. More importantly, I have had the opportunity to observe mothers (and many dads) interacting with their children. Each family and each child is different but I know what a normal, loving parent-child relationship looks like.
We did not see it on the video. At all. What we witnessed was Meg's audition piece for the role of "Loving, Connected Mother Who Reads to her Baby". Based on her performance in that 5 minute snippet, it escapes me how this woman could have ever passed a single acting class. Meghan has zero intrinsic ability as an actress. Sl*tty girl grilling a burger is the extent of her talent . . the role of 'mom' is beyond her.
Small children do not front. They don't pretend. They don't hit marks in order to burnish the 'artistic vision' of a strange woman they do not know. Archie behaved perfectly naturally for an energetic mobile toddler being held by a person he does not know. His behavior with the books was entirely natural. He was very interested in turning the pages. He was not adhering to Meghan's script, to her visible frustration. Meg was not reading to Archie . . she was reading to *us*, the audience, badly. She held the book like I would for a class of 30 kids at story time. Maybe Archie would have been more interested in the book had he actually been able to see it.
This child does resemble Harry at that age, and also Meg's dad . . his genetic make-up, I can only conjecture about. Meg might have contributed some DNA, but she's demonstrably not this child's *mother*. The kids I read to weekly at story time have more of a relationship with me than this child does to her.
In some versions of this clip, we can hear a guy breathing (and laughing at the kid's non-cooperation) behind the camera. 'Arch' says Da-da. Neither of these is incontrovertible proof that Harry and 'Da-da' are the same person, or that either was holding the camera. It would seem that a male person was holding the camera, and that's as far as I'm prepared to go.
Will say more about the Tyler Perry connection in the appropriate thread. Good to be back!
I doubt that she has held this baby or had any interaction with him since the last photo op in September. This child does look a lot like
Babies snuggle into the person reading to them, especially when it's mommy. They are constantly looking at her face, wanting to hand her things, babbling, checking that she's watching them. Arch is non-reactive to the Charlie Brown Teacher-voice droning above his head and the unnatural captivity of the vise-like arm.
Even if Archie were primarily cared for by nannies, one would presume that he'd see his parents for at least 15 to 30 minutes out of every day to show some glimmer of recognition that the person holding him is familiar. It's not there, so the viewer must draw their own conclusions as to why that is.