Many Nutties also enjoy the Tumblr blog I'll refer to as Plant, since the blogger is keen on privacy and hides her blog address from searches.
Plant, who has blogged about the Sussexes since early 2017, claimed yesterday to have a special insight into Meghan's merching prices via a business connection to a fashion company that booked Meghan for a job.
According to Plant, Meghan received "$20k per item before the engagement, $150k per item after the engagement, $250k per item after the wedding" while carrying out Royal engagements.
She pointed out that each event required several items, including handbag, shoes, clothes and jewelry, and added that the $250k figure was for "an item worn during an official event (daytime, casual, non-luxury brand) during a tour."
According to Plant, Harry was also paid for wearing some items.
But she looks awful!
These seem like hefty figures, particularly since Meghan often appears wrinkled, messy, poorly tailored, and otherwise poorly styled.
"The company I talked to didn't care what she looked like," Plant states. "The Royal connection was enough."
Plant described the brand in question as "not a high-fashion brand....one that used basic cable actresses from wholesome family shows for product placements and sponsorships.
"Meghan appeared on the availability list, they got approval to pay her fee which was higher than what they usually paid, and they booked her and sent her the product. I imagine this was the agency she used when she was in Suits and she just never stopped working with them. They had no interaction with Meghan at all."
Prices have fallen
Now that Meghan is no longer a Royal, however, her prices have fallen, according to Plant.
"I think she's back to $20k an item now, which is what she got before the engagement."
And despite Meg's income, Plant doubts she's rolling in cash. "Her PR/lawyer expenses are even bigger than her merching money."
What do you think of these figures - do they sound plausible to you?
What benefit do you think the brands got from being associated with Meghan - was the visibility worth it?
Were you introduced to any other brands you hadn't previously heard of when Meghan wore them?
_____
Addendum: It's no secret that we've been having problems with difficult posters recently. I am looking at a few alternatives, and will put up a poll sometime soon to see what Nutties think of the various options.
Comments
Fair points. As I recall though when it was announced TQ and PP weren't attending Louis's christening BP specifically stated it wasn't due to health issues. (That was the same week Trump visited the first time. And TQ had a bunch of other events that week.) There was precedent for her not to go---she missed the christening of Peter Phillip's daughter, Isla too. But missing those made it less of a big deal to miss Archie's.
I'm just not sure whether TQ/the royal machine would have cared how people dressed or rather that TQ would get involved. Yes, pictures = history. But look at how the women dressed at William's christening. That was certainly a much more important event historically than Louis's. Diana wore a strong reddish-pink and white dress, the Queen Mother wore blue as did many other women, the Queen wore purple, someone (can't tell if it's Anne maybe) wore purple and white horizontal stripes (!), another woman wore bright golden yellow, another wore solid cream (think that was one of Diana's sisters). And at Harry's christening, Diana wore dark royal blue as did her mother although her mother wore a print dress, the Queen wore grey with a slight blue tinge, the Queen Mother wore a magenta coat over a print dress, and another woman wore bright red.
For Louis's christening everyone knew Kate would wear white/cream since she'd done it twice. In recent years Camilla has often worn white/cream to many kinds of events. And the Middleton women frequently color-coordinate. (Recall the Diamond Jubilee) That left only Meghan so I'm not at all convinced a memo was sent. But up until that point post-marriage, she'd worn alot of white/cream or pastels (white at the Ascot, shades of pink at the garden party and Trooping, cream on the trip to Cheshire, blue and white to Celia McCorquodale's wedding [the bedspread dress],
cream Prada at the Queen's Young Leaders Awards...) So who would think she'd show up for a summer christening in an autumnal dark olive! I'm sure she did it partly to be contrary and to grab attention. Just not sure she would have been told what colors people would wear as we have plenty of pictures of "more historic" royal christenings where there was no palace direction about colors (or alot of people who ignored the memos.) And clearly everyone didn't get a memo for Archie's christening. (Or Jane F lost hers as did Harry!)
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the messages were exchanged late summer/early fall of when she had just started seeing Harry but it wasn't public knowledge yet. So, just like her "Sayonara Zara" party where she gave her old clothes away to her buddies cause she was moving up in the world, she gave yacht guy the brush off because she was working on landing a much bigger fish.
Also, she seemed to be pretty chummy with Matt Lauer on her segment on his show, make of that what you will.
Those 1980s fashions were ghastly, weren't they? I think we can all agree that complementary rather than clashing colors make for a more pleasing composition visually with a large group.
In the absence of any Palace tradition for coordinated outfits where there obviously hasn't been one usually, I suppose the idea might have originated with Kate. She is a talented photographer and knows what looks good.
I'm chalking MM's contrary dress style that day to sheer contrariness because it would have have not been a good event for merching purposes . . Meg is only seen from the side in one photo, from a distance. You can't even see the dress, other than to notice its jarring baby-poo color in contrast with everyone else's outfits. That's what provocateurs live for.
Note that she played provocateur again at last year's Trooping--turning up in a navy and white dress that would have been perfectly suitable for the christening photo--while all the other women had on ice cream pastels. Meg can be absolutely relied upon to do the very opposite of what everyone else does on any occasion. She thinks this demonstrates her individuality and star quality and uniqueness. Actually it only demonstrates her yawning insecurity and inability to take directions even when they are to her benefit.
Re: Louis’ Christening, I’m still not convinced that a Christening even occurred. Archie’s Christening Photo was totally photoshopped. Charles & Camilla were wearing outfits that they had worn to a prior Christening (with slight changes to accessories). Kate was photoshopped in wearing that red dress, which she had worn prior, as was William. Diana’s sisters were definitely photoshopped in (I honestly cannot believe that anyone would wear that hat to a Christening, plus there were issues with the mirror behind her.) And Harry was wearing that outfit because the ‘Christening Photo’ was taken on the same day as the ‘Archie Reveal.’ (As proven by the camera data.) Why would someone need to photoshop an entire photo if a Christening really occurred and these people were actually in attendance? It wouldn’t.
Also, I'm inclined to agree with your earlier point that Meghan would have had some idea about the colours to wear for Louis' christening. People would be surprised at just how co-ordinated the BRF has to be, all the time. Think how many members are involved. They must have some kind of grid system in an office somewhere to avoid not just clashing events but any form of media coverage or activity. Clothes are vitally important to the BRF. It's a Windsor trait. George V and George VI would become apoplectic with rage at the tiniest error in dress. The Queen has been known to be a little touchy on the subject, thinking of her comment to Prince William at the Chelsea Flower Show. Prince Philip could be quite a tartar and, as a fellow Nutty wrote today, Prince Charles is a natty dresser.
The christening may have been a little more casual since the Queen was not to be present, as everything else flows from what she's doing, but the Cambridges are always super-prepared and super-coordinated and they would expect standards to be maintained for their son's christening. Charles and Camilla were perfectly attuned to the colours for the day. Only Meghan was not. That had to be either deliberate, or part of her habitual carelessness.
Certainly she abhors following rules or instructions of any kind. That should have been the biggest red flag of all before the engagement. How can you be in the BRF for even a day if you're like that? They had enough evidence, before it was too late, that this was a massive issue.
When I'm a bit low I love looking through my Pinterest at the Cambridge family. Before I know it, I'm smiling again. My all time favourite photo of Kate is the one of her holding Louis at his christening, just the two of them outside. Not the one where he's laughing. The other one where he is cradled in her arms and she is completely besotted. There's just a tree behind them. It's beautifully composed and serene and the colours are gorgeous. So there I am, happily scrolling through, until I come to Meghan in dull olive green. "Oh yuck!" Ruining the group photos. She sows division wherever she goes so why not be aesthetically discordant as well? She couldn't care less that many people enjoy these moments and get pleasure looking back at them. They're part of our country's scrapbook. She spoiled Archie's arrival and was equally careless about Louis' special day.
If anyone reads this and has some advice on how to fix the issue, I’d appreciate it.
I use an iPhone and I’ve experienced the same problems on most days, and I’ve had the text disappear completely. I usually try and refresh or close the page down and open it up again. I’ve usually had to do it a few times at any one time, before it calms down. I use Safari as my browser and Blogger and Apple have an unhappy union. ;o/
Bravo!! (Loud hand clapping) I think your restraint and measured comments are great.
I for one, have seen in the last year (even though you did take a break around Mardi Gras time) how informative your posts were because you often did research before posting. Definitely I wholeheartedly agree with how you think facts should be relied on when commenting on highly salacious items concerning the HAMS (eg 'MM's alleged yachting'). Although admittedly Markle has never sued anyone on that allegation so maybe there IS truth to it. And besides (hold on ladies don't stone me) many women go out on a 1st date, get wined and dined big time and fall into bed etc...and do it nxt week with someone else, so at least MM got a yacht ride out of it, LOL So theoretically, should MM be castigated for pay for play? I wouldn't do it but many do for a lobster dinner and vino.
It has always bothered me when people say Prince Harry is currently taking drugs when we have no concrete proof of that whatsoever. Some things are harmless and obvious opinions but highly specific potentially libelous things should be backed up by facts IMO!
IF there was a color scheme for Louis's christening, I would believe it was Kate's doing not TQ's doing. I'm just having a hard time imagining Kate telling a new sister-in-law she should wear either a light blue dress or a white/cream dress. And with the exception of Kate and Pippa, I can't see a "color scheme" for Charlotte's christening. TQ wore pink, Camilla wore light blue, Pippa and Kate wore cream, Carole wore tan, and George wore red and white. The men's ties were red, turquoise, purple-blue, and medium blue. Most men wore dark suits but Charles's suit was a dark medium grey. No one stood out as not fitting in but it didn't appear there was a particular color scheme either. It just looked like a bunch of nicely dressed people in summer church attire.
Of course M should have made more of an effort to fit in. In all ways. And an olive dress was not an attractive choice. But I have trouble believing there was an explicit light blue or cream/white "dress code memo" circulated to everyone for Louis's christening. I think it was just a small gathering and the other 4 women made predictable choices as did the men with their ties. Unless she also wore baby blue or white/cream, M would have looked out of place. Tan (like Carole wore to Charlotte's), yellows, pinks, lavender/lighter purples, non-olive greens, or even brighter more saturated blues, all perfectly acceptable summer colors, wouldn't have worked either.
But I'll drop this!
I’ll be in and out over the next few weeks.
As many have asked her on this blog first, the DM now has an article on the forensic audit of the couple's expenses for the past two years. Hmm.
I did read detailed allegations about her activities at sea but, of course, they're just allegations.
Innocent until proved guilty.
The £2.4million spent on Frogmore Cottage may just be the tip of the iceberg
Despite no longer working for 'The Firm' the couple may continue to rack up bills
Former Minister Norman Baker makes a conservative guess of £44million
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8349283/Have-Harry-Meghan-cost-44million.html
We reached a truce a long time ago really. I was never against you anyway just things were said...no use rehashing!. But that is a testament for a few certain posters recently who now are going crazy at almost anyone for no reason whatsoever (other than they want to disrupt!). I think we both comment because we have something we think is worthwhile to say without a hidden agenda or an axe to grind.
I thought you said British history was a particular interest of yours and you reported a lot of fascination things in the last year in that respect. I also was impressed how you tracked with your app that airplane Harry was seemingly on flying back into Canada.
Do hope you add to the discussion as I have not a lot of interest with doing so, as the subject matter is not as interesting as it once was. It almost seems anti-climactic now until something big might happen. I have to laugh when we get to the point we are commenting on Archie having a "full diaper" that seems like grasping at straws to criticize a Mother on (although Archie Did Not seem interested in being read to).
I noticed you wrote recently that you were skilled/expert on jewels, well that sounds very interesting! My question is: do you think MM did a disservice in redesigning the ring Harry gave her? Was it an improvement? What do you think of the trinket type jewelry MM wears when she could wear much more expensive jewels (do you think it is due to merching or her style?
Have a nice Memorial Day weekend!
“The Queen was sick of all the scandal and the drama,” [...] “She wanted a nice, obedient girl from a lovely, hopefully rather boring, family.”
My goodness. A nice, obedient girl from a lovely, hopefully rather boring family. What on earth must she have thought of Meghan and the Markles? I wonder if the Queen ever puts her head in her hands as we would have done? Does she write everything up in the diary she has always kept? How does she keep going?
I was thinking yesterday that with this long isolation the Queen may lose momentum she can never get back. All the elderly people I know place great store in just keeping going. Sticking to their daily routines even if unwell. I know it's patronising and simplistic to refer to 'the elderly' as a homogeneous group. The pandemic has highlighted that failing. But so many share a particular perseverance. Self-discipline. Resilience. However it does depend on maintaining momentum. So many, if they have a fall or a physical setback of some kind, never get fully back to where they were before. When they die, friends and famil often point to that critical moment when everything started to change.
I do wonder if this will happen to the Queen. She's so dogged and determined, but has a lot to contend with. It makes my blood boil when I think of what H&M are putting her through. There's not enough time left for a classically slow Windsor recovery. Not in the Queen's lifetime. The way Harry behaves you'd think the Queen and Prince Philip were going to live forever.
Thanks for the link.
The comments are brutal.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with her redesigning the ring to her tastes: I have two engagement rings I switch out, both of which I bought and designed for myself. The one DH gave me is now a pendant. I believe women should buy their own (or design their own) engagement rings.
Having said that, I like the original one better and given it was symbolic with Diana’s side stones and the Botswana center, I would have preferred she kept it as is. It also looked to have maybe a 2.5 mm shank, so it was sturdier. You can see how it spins and the diamonds are always by her fingers and not centered on her finger, and not with the thinner ring that problem is likely worse.
It’s probably filthy all the time, which would seriously irk me. I’m a stickler for clean diamonds. The oil from her skin is probably smeared all over the Diamonds since they sit in between her fingers all day.
I like the twee rings— very on trend. I thought the tiny ruby earrings were crazy overpriced.
The clothes, I just don’t know. I can’t believe the maternity caftan was 100k. That has to be very inflated. I think there are always so many figures given for her clothing items that no one knows how much they were.
I doth know if and how marching works or if they are scamming Charles or whatever, so I just sit back and watch and wait to see if anything every shakes out about it.
I have seen what drug use looks like for years. Harry absolutely shows signs...His eyes roll up and they have a jerky movement dude [sic] to side that's another indication.
Thank you for sharing this, Indy. The last time I watched one of his videos, I couldn't decide what was more bizarre: the way his eyes rolled back into his head two times during the short clip or the way no one commented on it. I absolutely believe Nutty's assertion that his drug problem is an open secret among British royal reporters. Their not being allowed to report on it is a disservice to the U.K. and to Harry himself.
https://thekit.ca/life/royal-report/meghan-kate-expensive-maternity-wardrobe/
Worse still , as Insider put it:
"Meghan Markle wore traditional Irish colors during a visit to Lisburn, Northern Ireland, on Friday.
She wore a forest-green skirt, white sweater, and orange suede pumps.
Her outfit was a nod to the Republic of Ireland's flag, although she was visiting Northern Ireland."
Dear God, she could have started a riot.
Surely someone must have briefed her about the political sensitivities there?
She should have been grounded for the next 12 months. Or was it deliberate?
I paid close attention to the footage of her looking at the Famine Memorial, `The Departure' on the quay in Dublin. Two years earlier, I had spent a considerable time with it, reflecting on what had happened in the 1840s and how the graveyard in Skibbereen, Co Cork, had moved me to tears.
The Famine was the greatest disaster to befall Ireland in centuries, if ever.
The emaciated forms, the expressions of those without hope are so moving, profoundly poignant. There's so much there that a thoughtful soul could have responded to. Instead, her body language just seemed to say `So what?'
Moreover, there is a companion installation `Arrival' in Toronto; the Canadian dimension is indicated on the accompanying details. Yet she seemed totally uninterested.
I'm not sure how far she was on her journey to embrace her African origins but even if she was thinking `This is nothing compared with slavery' she should have made some sort of effort to feign interest.
And, of course, there was the abortion gaff.
Was it all inadvertent? Or was it the result of the way she thinks?
All my attention was therefore on his body language. He seemed so far gone there was a real need for an intervention by his family. I don't know what happens if the spouse doesn't cooperate as I assume a spouse is more important than parents in that context, and being in another country makes things so difficult. Surely he can't keep declining at this rate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/style/paula-sutton-hill-house-vintage.html
I keep seeing near jaw-grinding whenever I watch Harry's videos. Do you? Or does anyone? Maybe it's his usual way of speaking and I've just never watched him as closely on film before as I have in the last year. But it seems like a red flag to me.
People who use, especially long term, form bonds they would otherwise break. They do things they would never do sober. They have often appeared disheveled in public and laughing like they were on a bender. His eyes often appear to be glazed over.
I would believe their paranoia, obsession with security and fixation on "telling their story" is absolutely tied to substance abuse. Why do they house hop, two middle aged people with a son to support? Why aren't they ashamed of basically having no job and no place to live?
People who use are often charming, imposing like MM, and they lie. They railroad others and convince themselves they're the smartest one in the room. When you Susan them out, they scurry away to find someone else to con.
That childish trick, her ALWAYS staring at the camera when literally everyone else is looking elsewhere, and the grin of mania were what made me start looking more closely at her. It was so clear that something was off. Add in the claw of doom, the giggling, the flirting, that smirk and the barging ahead set off klaxon horns.
And in the mainstream media, nobody was commenting on this stuff! Drove me crazy until I finally stumbled on a tumblr blog that referenced Nutty Flavor. Thank the stars! Thank the Nutties and Nutty herself. This must be a labor of love for her. We don't always make it easy.
Someone upthread asked for the link to the plant Tumblr. I think it must be Houseplants and Tiaras:
https://anonymoushouseplantfan.tumblr.com
However, because it's an easy way to organize topics: would the (originally Twitter, I think) trick of using tags such as #Archiebirth or #taxlaw work?
I would think simplicity is key. Twitter gets a bit crazy with extremely long or too many tags.
It would be great for the topic section as well since they are organized by dates. I often try to find an older thread. And newer commenters might like a resource to explain some of our shorthand.
And with 800 comments, a thread can veer off several times while running its course
I'm not even sure that they would work on blogger or that commenters would find it helpful, but it could be helpful if we could find something like that for we historians.
@Ava and @Fairycrocodile I couldn't agree with you more on the Earl Spencer!
@Sandie...I often wondered why the scarcity of British designers for Meg. That they wouldn't let her merch makes so much sense! Thanks for that insight.
Thanks to everyone for their insights and wit. It's such a pleasure to relax for a few minutes and ponder the Harkle
Debarkle. Please don't anyone leave. Every absence is felt.
Happy Memorial Day!
I didn't follow the Ireland trip.
Green Orange OMGosh, WT*. I grew up being told I was Orange Irish and I would wear it (thanks Mum) and be beaten up for not wearing green.
wow. It takes a special kind of special to decide not to follow protocols of none involvement by the BRF. Clapping for the protection officers who may have thought: Did someone slip me something in me tea?
just wow
I was worried the near jaw-clenching I thought I saw might relate to a particular drug-- cocaine--as it seems more "rhythmic" than stress. But I agree slurred speech and over-enunciating both have been there and that's bad. Whether related to alcohol or a few other things alone or with alcohol, it's bad.
Yes I can appreciate your opinions on the signs of drug use and I don't disagree harry has signs. Unfortunately I have been around active drug users (coke, crack and meth) so I know what you are talking about. But the majority of times posters here state it like it is a fact. I just find it libelous (I am very protective of people's right to an accurate portrayal of their reputation) to assert it as a Truth rather than 'Harry acts/appears to be on drugs".
Yet our society is promoting drug use (marijuana) for just about anyone and from what I have seen, occasion mild powder cocaine use is not as bad as chronic daily marijuana use (by non-medical users). I had a schizophrenic friend who smoked a little 'speed' to calm him down (and indeed, Amphetamines are used regularly for kids with hyperactive disorder for the same reason). So society has a double standard not to mention unfair criminal sentencing.
I personally am antidrug unless you are a patient who has one of the conditions that benefits from the judicious use of 'weed'. I just find it outrageous to proclaim Harry is a drug user when we don't have proof (but then again, I don't say Archie is in the custody of Sophie or his 'real parents' because of total lack of proof nor do I say Archie is not MM'
s child bc of lack of proof).
@tatty
Your analysis of MM ring situation is spot on. I find pave settings pretty but not in the ring she has. Couldn't agree more, that women should be consulted when an engagement right is acquired unless it is a family heirloom. I think it was tacky of her to redesign Harry's effort and actually made the ring look worse. She is petite so itty bitty jewelry maybe looks best on her but that isn't my taste (give me the big stones and lots of gold, lol).
No, actually there aren't. There is a photo of her on a yacht with a group of female friends (Misha Noono included). There are also some photos that were taken for a magazine feature.
There are actually none of her in a yacht with any rich guy, yet you state it as a fact that there are.
To get back to the infamous couple:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1263211867436179458
A short video of them in New Zealand on tour. Apart from, in my opinion, the straggly hair and cocktail evening dress (inappropriate for the occasion), Meghan looks well groomed and behaved. Note that Harry expresses annoyance that the PM of NZ is keeping them waiting. Entitled prat!
It was Richard Palmed, Twitter, 11/14/29
“I know you lot won’t accept anything that conflicts with your world view, but I’ve actually seen the car in the drive, windows open, the lawn being watered, the couple driving out, oh and the castle mews has electric car charging points. I wrote a planning store about them.”
(Responding to the idea that HAMS didn’t live at Frogmore and that it was deserted
As I recall Nutty did not buy that story and neither did I. The tweet seemed a bit out of the blue and RP was the only reporter to have said that MM&H were actively living in Frogmore. I wonder if someone from BP/CH dropped some hints to RP in an attempt to quell rising resentment over the cost of Frogmore.
The expenses were somewhat a topic of interest last year but now that the UK economy is in freefall there will be much more grumbling. The announcement of the monthly payments hasn't stopped the Frogmore problem.
You know what that little clip shows to me: JCMH FKAP is used to the Press hiding all his BS.
Does anyone know what he is mouthing after he realizes the cameras are on him and he makes that awkward smile? I'm awful at lip-reading. What a true blue jerk.
JCMH FKAP seems like he is saying: "You're gonna record this now, so all can see."
Normnan Baker, the writer of this detailed and all-out criticism of the Harkles and their entitled and arrogant spending, is described as a Coalition Minister (not a DM journalist/reporter). Does anyone know what that means?
He was in government went the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats shared power, was a member of Parliament, but lost in the 2015 election. He has written several books, one about the Royal family. I believe he is writing one about the Royal Family and their finances, perhaps to come out in August. I thought I read that somewhere.
Wow you two are so ignorant. I did not say Angora rabbits stupid. There are a breed of rabbits called 'Cashmere'.
And 'Unknown' people are complaining about you right and left!
I am deliberately writing this because I am turning it into Google and telling them Nutty won't control you so I have lost my patience and will respond in kind...to a point!
Bully.
Thank you!
I don't ever initiate this and in fact offered an 'olive branch' yesterday but of course, these two posters would not stop.
The video of William and Kate calling bingo numbers is so endearing. As an American I loved learned all the rhymes for the numbers. I especially loved when Kate made it personal that George would love 55. Megs has to be seething at the favorable press for W&K. They are “for the people” which I think is what she wanted to be but had no idea how to do it. She and Harry (an active participant I believe) have done nothing but drive the British citizens away. W&K are relating and finding good will. Who knows what she will do next.
When Diane was a new royal (and well until after the birth of Harry) she was always well dressed and groomed, but the 80s ... eek! Everything was huge - hair, collars, sleeves, flounces, hats!
I thin the issue with Meghan is her character. The Queen is not a fashion icon at all ... a dress, a coat, a hat, same shoes, a handbag, a brooch, some pearls. Other than big occasions, that is it! But everyone says she looks lovely because she is lovely. Meghan should have gone into therapy and focused on willing and happy service, spent a lot less on clothes, and earned her stripes with reliability and consistency and impeccable manners and so on. Nah ... I'm talking about Megsy after all!
I wonder what her next dress up occasion will be and what she will wear. When you look back at her pre-Harry, she was never good at dress up. The only style that really worked for her was the body con dress, hair swept to one side and killer heels. For the rest, skirt too short, or a ridiculous flounce, or something inappropriate. She tried but was never going to be a fashion icon (think Aubrey Hepburn or the Queen when she was young). Meghan no longer has the figure for a body con dress or even those slim fit trouser suits (unless she wants to look like Kim Kardashian, and there is a market for that). She should focus on character building (for a start, learn humility and honesty) and reliably sticking to something.
Sandie - that video link !!! Thank you !!! I'll repost in case someone else is interested.
from #Sandi https://twitter.com/i/status/1263211867436179458
As promised, I've created a poll about various paths forward for the blog.
https://nuttyflavor88.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-poll-options-for-nutty-blog-going.html
I'm looking forward to your input.
Am I the only one here who is now getting fed up with the daily infighting and insults? I joined this blog because I thought the posts were mature and intelligent. This infighting is anything but. Yes, I can scroll down and ignore but it is distinctly unpleasant.
If anyone reads this and has some advice on how to fix the issue, I’d appreciate it.
I use an iPhone and I’ve experienced the same problems on most days, and I’ve had the text disappear completely. I usually try and refresh or close the page down and open it up again. I’ve usually had to do it a few times at any one time, before it calms down. I use Safari as my browser and Blogger and Apple have an unhappy union.
I had the same problem, and what worked for me was to click on the entire article and then read the comments at the bottom, instead of just "add comments."
“Meghan Markle B-List actress” hahaha
Photos aren’t flattering either...
I’ve just read DM article, via Katie Nicholl,
“Meghan Markle B-List actress” hahaha
Ooh, did she get a promotion from the back end of the alphabet? :OP
Typo; Zee...
Thanks ;), I missed that article. I see H is referred to as 'Prince' Harry (rolls eyes). I almost burst a blood vessel when I saw that still of MM surviving, not striving.
The comments are the best, as always.
I’m just happy they’re starting to call her, cough, career out!!
Starting?? I think they started a long time ago...
Seen on Delish (?), reprinted from Cosmopolitan US the following headline:
'Meghan Markle Reportedly Suffered From Panic Attacks Because Of All The Negative Attention
The British tabloids were so harsh, she even feared going outside.'
Could have fooled us...
Panic attacks as to her next “gig” & where she will get
the money to pay for the deluded lifestyle she’s accorded herself.
I would be panicking/hyperventilating knowing I was despised by so many.
Not our Megs, Infamy, they’ve all got it in for me!!
Is the cry of our poor Megs disgrace
She daren’t go outside
For fear she can’t hide
That look of pure smirk on her face
No wonder, remember we're all 'toxic' and r&cist so it's our fault, never hers. Maybe she's panicking about what/whose/where the next property is going to be? Or the next $$$?
We've digressed from merching...
I’m sure she’s panicking about “her” future.
Nothing’s gone according to plan. Demands to BP, SussexRoyal.
And now Covid has scuppered her grand entrance to Hollywood.
Own goal/markled.
Not so much digressed, the merch market has fallen...
(copied from another website.)
@WildBoar
Haven’t seen “Passport to Pimlico” in years
Margaret Rutherford, ahh, wonderful.
Her husband Stringer Davis was stationed in my “home” town
during the war.
Unfortunately for her we could see through her acts. Hence the tantrums.
Duke & Duchess of Plaza Toro..
Apart from he led from behind...
Plaza-Toro = Bull-Ring??
I'm rubber and your glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
Thats for the "stupid" insults. You must be sitting at your screen and screaming.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/why-just-harry-has-failed-in-his-responsibilities/
A large section of the biography will be dedicated to “setting the record straight” over Megxit.
On Saturday night a publishing insider said: “That word ‘Megxit’ in particular has always angered Prince Harry. It gives the impression that the decision to walk away from the Royal Family was Meghan’s.
“The reality is Harry drove that decision. The book will make that clear and explain why it had to happen. The truth is Harry had been unhappy for a long, long time.
“He wanted to move in the direction that they did and had been considering it for more than a year.
“Meghan supported Harry’s decision. But there was more than one occasion where she asked him if he was certain it was what he wanted.
“And she always made it clear she would support him in whatever he did.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11695023/harry-meghan-finding-freedom-leaving-royals/
My opinion is that part of her manipulation is to get him to do what she wants and make him believe that it is his decision. That narrative helps her remain a victim as well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8351453/TALK-TOWN-Prince-Harrys-former-wingman-set-fly-LA-heal-rift.html
Now I’m delighted to reveal that Skippy, who lives in Washington DC and works at US tech giant Afiniti, is making plans to take his company’s private jet to Los Angeles with his newborn son Albert to meet Harry and his toddler Archie.
Who would leak such a story and why? An entitled tine-deaf prat, and Harry fits that bill (Megsy is always concerned with the optics).
So many have lost their lives, their loved ones, their jobs, their businesses, their income in the time of the virus, but a man and his child will get on a private jet to fly to the other side of the country for a make-up play date with an old and estranged friend?
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
There will not be a lot of or major revelations in the book, and that is probably because the publisher ha taken them out or toned them down for legal reasons. (I have posted at length, from my experience why controversy an being sued can help sales tremendously but it is a risky strategy and means you have a very short time period to make the sales and then are in danger of having to make a huge pay out from those sales, so the publisher would probably err on the side of caution. However, sometimes inexperience or incompetency means stuff does slip through.)
Meghan will throw Charles, Camilla and HARRY under the bus in the book, William and Kate will get off lightly. In my opinion, getting him to believe that everything was entirely his decision and his actions and that Meghan urged caution is the prime example of this. He is to blame; she is the victim who just loves him and tries to do the best for him and Archie because she loves them ...
I’m not sure. It’s wild. I think Harry confided in someone about something, I feel innocently, and she’s gonna use that against him in the book to get more interest in the book and more sales (10ofSwRx/KOP/AceofC). I don’t know why but I feel it very strongly. It’s like it backfires on them. They try to expose others and end up sabotaging themselves.
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/tagged/tarot-reading
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry celebrated their second wedding anniversary in lockdown with Mexican food and margaritas - quashing any speculation about whether the Duchess being pregnant with their second child.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1286266/meghan-markle-prince-harry-second-wedding-anniversary-celebration-margaritas-royals
I'm just thinking back to the first pregnancy; I remember instances pointed out where she was drinking alcohol while she was supposed to be pregnant so as far as I'm concerned the fact she's had some margaritas is proof of nothing. I'm willing to bet that we're still going to be getting the "is she/isn't she" for a while yet, despite the claim in the article.
(wasn't sure which post to add this to, don't want to derail the discussions over the future blog format so I'll pop it here as it's the most recent post on H&M)
She isn't the only one. There are so many examples of this. Charlize Theron or Halle Berry always look expensive, even in torn jeans. While Sienna Miller always looks cheap, even in an evening gown. Melania Trump is another one who always looks expensive. Always flawless. I can imagine her looking flawless and expensive while going to pee in the middle of the night.
Britney Spears also always looks cheap, no matter what she wears. The list is long on both sides.
MM always looks basic, because she is basic. She makes clothes look basic.
Example: the Dior haute couture gown she wore in Morocco that reportedly cost $120,000 - it looked like nothing on her. Dior did not even bother put her on their Instagram, they just ignored her.
I believe she pestered them telling them she was going to the Oscars, until they agreed to make her that outrageously expensive mumu, and when they saw that she was lying opportunistic turd, who on top of it all, looked like a fat uncooked sausage, they went 'deuces bitch', hence, she has never worn Dior again.
I don't believe she gets paid $250K per item, as others have mentioned, established fashion houses do not need to do this. Smaller less known brands don't have the budget, so perhaps a few tens of thousands, but mainly free clothes.
Regarding the yachting: there is nothing easier to believe. If anything, MM has demonstrated to the world in the last few years that she will do anything, ANYTHING, for fame and fortune. She will lie, steal, betray, deceive, she will separate her own husband from his brother, father, grandmother, she will use her own son to make a few bucks, she will openly blackmail her husband's family, she will sue newspapers, intimidate strangers on the internet, spread rumours, steal ideas, copy ideas, ANYTHING, for money. ANYTHING.
The thought of her spending a couple of hours in the company of paying men, is really close fetched.
I believe everything about this.
I suspect she really did think she could slip off to the oscars but that was shut down by the palace by scheduling a trip out of the blue. Think about the slipping out of the country to go the baby shower. If she could do that, I'd bet she was planning how to get to LA in time to walk the red carpet.
PART 1
“She Was Convinced There Was a Conspiracy Against Her”: Why Meghan Markle Fled the United Kingdom
In a new report for the Sunday Times Magazine, Harry and Meghan’s friends weigh in on their final months in the U.K., and their new life in California.
When Meghan Markle and Prince Harry made the move from Canada to Los Angeles in mid-March, a few weeks after their royal farewell tour in the U.K., it came as a surprise to the public. But according to a new report in the Sunday Times Magazine, the couple’s friends had been aware of their desire to make it back to Meghan’s hometown for a long time. Canada was “never the forever home,” a friend said to Katie Nicholl (who is also a correspondent for Vanity Fair). “The big plan, for Meghan at least, was always LA.”
One source told Nicholl that Harry and Meghan started looking for a house in California shortly after their wedding, and that she always wanted to spend a significant amount of time in her home country. But it wasn’t until March 14 of this year that they made it official, leaving Vancouver Island in a top secret operation aboard actor Tyler Perry’s private jet.
The couple did take advantage of the relative privacy while they had it. Soon after arriving in LA Meghan reportedly took Harry for a drive around her old neighbourhood, past the house where she was raised and the preschool she once attended. “The streets were empty,” a friend told the Times. “It would be two days before the paparazzi found out where they were and what they were doing so they got to see the city in a way they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to. They loved being able to drive themselves around. It was very freeing for them but probably won’t happen again.”
Other than a few video calls and public announcements, the couple has kept mum about their future plans as they stay in Perry’s Beverly Hills mansion. Sources close to the couple told the Sunday Times Magazine the pair say they are hunting for a new house that will enable them to stay “away from the Hollywood fray” and give Archie Mountbatten-Windsor a “normal life.” The sources also added Harry and Meghan are also busy working on plans for their new charity foundation Archewell, adding that Meghan has no plans to return to acting, nor is she working on a series of children’s books.
While he is enjoying the California sunshine, some friends have said Harry is homesick. “It’s not been easy for Harry,” one of his friends told the Times. “He had a much more established life in England and he doesn’t really know anyone in LA. I imagine he might be feeling a bit of what [Meghan] felt over in the UK—lonely and directionless.”
Now, the roles have been reversed. Meghan is happy to be back in L.A. near her mother, Doria Ragland, and many of her close friends nearby, while Harry is finding the adjustment a challenge. However, he is reportedly excited about launching Archewell and starting afresh once lockdown has been lifted.
Friends have also spoken about why the couple made the dramatic decision to stand down from the Royal Family and leave England and how Meghan felt cut off and isolated living in Windsor. “She was convinced there was a conspiracy against her and so she basically put herself in self isolation when they moved to Frogmore,” said one. “I think she felt like an outsider from the start. This wasn’t the life she was used to and she wanted out.”
Meghan, a Los Angeles native, once wrote about being a California girl “who lives by the ethos that most things can be cured with either yoga, the beach or a few avocados.” Friends says she missed her mother and her hometown terribly while she was living in the U.K. Though she was committed to making Windsor her home, she continued to feel isolated when the couple moved into Frogmore Cottage, shortly before Archie’s birth. Though Frogmore is close to Windsor Castle, the queen’s weekend home, it is in a very rural area, and Meghan felt cut off with no friends nearby.
Sources told the Times that financial independence was a driving force behind Harry and Meghan’s decisions to stand down as senior royals. “One of the things Meghan struggled with was not earning an income,” said a friend. “She has always worked and I think she felt unfulfilled. Having financial freedom was a big part of them wanting to leave.”
Journalist Omid Scobie, author of Finding Freedom, an upcoming look at the last few years in the couple’s life, told the Times that the couple plan to create a company similar to the Obamas’ Higher Ground production company. “Think of a working model not too dissimilar to what the Obamas created after leaving the White House,” he said. “When they set up their Higher Ground production company and later signed a multi-year production deal with Netflix to produce movies and documentaries that cover issues such as race, class, democracy and civil rights.”
Another aspect of Meghan and Harry’s departure had to do with family tensions. According to the Times, the first wake-up call for the royal family came when the couple announced how happy they were feeling in an interview while on tour in South Africa. “It was then when the family reached out and said, ‘Okay, how can we help’,” an aide said to the newspaper. “William was the first to get on the phone.” But it was too little too late, added the source.
With more information about the couple’s last six months comes the resolution to one of the more painful aspects of Harry’s split to his family. One of the upsides of moving overseas has been that his relationship with Prince William, has improved, after a trying period for the royal brothers—and Charles's diagnosis with coronavirus might have helped spark a reconciliation. “Hearing their father wasn’t well helped bring them back together and there is now more regular communication,” a friend told the Times. “I don’t think it’s returned to everything being rosy but it is better.”
2. Windsor is hardly the country. The Harkles had access to a number of cars and drivers, and with their wealth could have rented/leased a small place in London, such as keeping the cottage they used to have, so they were very privileged and were more than able to socialise in London after they moved to Windsor. Before moving to Windsor, they actually were in the country - in a house they rented - so blaming the move to Windsor for who knows what is absurd.
3. It was dishonest and unethical for Meghan to have accepted all that money spent on her and all the privileges given to her as a royal when she had no intention of staying in the UK or remaining within the firm as a working royal. The part-time suggestion was a way of trying to hold onto the privileges of being royal and was never about serving the Queen.
I hope that the press call her out on this nonsense loudly and clearly.
https://ve.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qast81GrPC1x3niqa.mp4
Sophie and Kate are not petty people, and they have learnt to toe the line in the BRF. Something major must have happened for them both to so obviously snub the Harkles, knowing that there were camera all over the place. I wonder if we ever find out what it was that happened.
The reasons they were asked to leave, are many many many. But imo, it all goes back to Archie. Something about her 'pregnancy' and his birth. You can be a nasty, cheap, manipulative, greedy, tacky LA ex-yachtgirl. None of those are reasons enough to be snubbed so coldly. But pretend to be pregnant and pretend to give birth to a baby, and all bets are off.
That's sociopath territory.
'but Meghan was less keen — and the political instability was an issue'
What political instability would that be? The country where Harry would have wanted to be their base would probably be South Africa. There is no political instability in South Africa. Neither is there political instability in Botswana or Lesotho (two other countries he might have considered).
Once again, Meghan/Harry trashes countries in Africa and no one calls her out for it.
So, in the UK, the birth mother is listed as the mother on the birth certificate and the biological parents then have to go through formal adoption procedures.
What if a surrogate did carry and give birth to Archie (the biological child of Meghan and Harry) but they lied and said that Meghan gave birth?
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is the information you need to register a birth:
* place and date of the birth
* name, surname and sex of the baby
* parents’ names, surnames and address
* places and dates of parents’ birth
* date of parents’ marriage or civil partnership
* parents’ jobs
* mother’s maiden surname
If you can register the birth, you should take at least one form of identification when you go to the register office. You can use:
* passport
* birth certificate
* deed poll
* driving licence
* proof of address (for example, a utility bill)
* Council Tax bill
* marriage or civil partnership certificate
You should also take your child’s personal child health record or ‘red book’ as some registrars may ask to see it.
What is the 'red book'?
Shortly before or after your baby is born, you'll be given a personal child health record (PCHR). This usually has a red cover and is known as the "red book". ... They will use it to record your child's weight and height, vaccinations and other important information.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all they needed was for someone at the hospital to list Meghan as the birth mother in the 'red book' because that is the only kind of record that Harry might have to have shown.
Do incorrect details get put on birth certificates? Yes, my mother had her date of birth given as 14 November on her birth certificate but her actual date of birth (and the date she celebrated) was 21 November. There was a fire, documents were lost, in applying for a replacement, her father got her date of birth wrong!
Of course, if Harry gave fraudulent information knowingly for Archie's birth certificate, and that was discovered, he could be criminally prosecuted. Plus, we are still left with the problem of how many people would have had to keep the secret (the surrogate, all those closely involved with the surrogate, all those present at the birth, and the countless people who would have stumbled across the proof that Meghan was never pregnant). So, I still believe that Meghan was pregnant and did give birth but I conceded that the birth certificate is not reliable proof that a surrogate was not used.
The post also raises the issue of just how serious a surrogacy passed off as a pregnancy would be.
All valid points. And compounded with the strange baby delivery shenanigans, a surrogacy would seem a possible, modern, open-minded, woke thing for a couple to do. But to fake a pregnancy? No, that's too much crazy for even Meghan Markle. Moon-bump-wearing could be done, but is so extremely unlikely, because how - how could she and H, with all those people around them, possibly escape scrutiny and keep such a monumental secret for any length of time? They did have a motive to hide a surrogacy tho, because such a child would not be in the line of succession, but was that enough a reason to undertake such lunacy? Then there's the Queen herself. A stickler for protocol, duty, line of succession and image, she would go apoplectic with fury at such a ruse. A scandal like this would be the beginning of the end to the monarchy. 'Meghan-with-the-moon-bump' would look positively psychotic, far worse than any other royal spouse ever was. And if the Queen kept silent? Shudder to think! No, this had to be a genuine, actual Meghan-gave-birth pregnancy. It's intriguing tho, how MM kept on toying with the press and playing, cuddling her covered bump for nearly eight months. It could have been padded, for security reasons, she was getting, they say, threats. Someone had to have been tasked with suggesting she stop the self-fondling. But because the world revolves around Meghan and she successfully got pregnant so quickly and couldn't fathom not being adored, she dug in her heels and preened even more. No one tells Miss M what to do. This bump was much more than a baby - it solidified a permanent place within the BRF and gave her financial security with a tighter grip upon her husband and his goods. She probably even giggled at surrogacy rumors and enjoyed playing various games of cat and mouse with the press, hiding the bump one day then exposing it in all its glory the next. Being the center of attention is Meghan Markle's raison d'etre. It feeds her psyche far more than being a mother to that child does.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-3991#post-58224426
I think things are going to get very interesting. The planted PR story about Meghan doing charity work only is pure nonsense. One, people would have to trust her with the spending of their money (after her never-before-seen wild spending spree on designer clothing and itty bitty jewellery and many accessories in the first year of being a supporting royal, who would?). Two, there are so many charities out there that one can pick and choose (there is no new issue or approach), most of whom have sterling track records. Three, for how long will donors be OK with the Harkles using the donations to fund their lifestyle? Four, Meghan has no experience or expertise for the 'job' and is notorious for hiring and then ignoring experts...
I admit using a surrogate would have been a big risk. That's the only reason I'm not 100% sure that's what they did. But I'm curious how you square these aspects of the situation since you say you believe M gave birth to Archie on May 6.
1. Her bump shape and size changing to the extent it did. The LSA explanation may be correct but seems insufficient to me. And that explanation doesn't really explain the swaying bump or the popped navel that sometimes was on her side or explain her gymnastics (squatting in heels and jumping up) nor does it explain her failure to gain weight anywhere but the bump until after she went on leave and/or after Archie was born. The LSA explanation suggests she "hid" her bump at times to play games. That may be true. Different clothes can make a big difference. But not even M can make a real baby bump fold up when the woman is seated.
2. Archie looking and acting older than he is supposed to be. Yes, some babies are more advanced in their skills, especially first-borns who may get more parental attention. But he doesn't seem to relate to M at all-- does his nanny have that close a relationship with him to advance his speech, for example? Even though she supposedly was not a live-in nanny in England? And assuming it's even been the same nanny in all 3 countries? And despite being overdue, he was not a large baby at birth either but he's huge now.
3. M supposedly leaving the hospital within 6-7 hours of giving birth, and less than 12 hours after arriving. Even though she was an older supposedly first-time mom who was overdue. And a royal. And the home was a 45-minute drive away.
4. The odd presentation of Archie. M in a white dress, touching Archie's soft spot, H's comment about babies changing so much in 2 weeks when he was supposedly only 50 hours old...
5. The repeated "Archie's feed time" comments (made at the Smart Works event in mid-Sept and later during the Africa tour) were supposed to imply M was breast feeding (although it sounded more like something one would say about having to feed livestock.) Regardless, she appeared in that astoundingly tight breast-binding black dress in July for the Lion King event, she flew off to NY for a weekend in early Sept without Archie, she and Harry flew to Italy without Archie for M. Nonoo's wedding later that month... yeah, she could have pumped but just seems odd. Maybe she never breastfed but wanted it to appear she had. (KP said she did so I guess she wanted that personal info known. Usually a question like that that would rate a no comment, I'd think.)
6. Her repeated apparent inability to hold Archie normally. The clutched, sliding down sack-of-potatoes Archie at polo, the restrained-hands Archie with Tutu, the dangling-dogwalk Archie in Canada...
7. Her "friends" saying she was "heavily pregnant" when they gave the interview to PEOPLE for the Feb 6 article, M telling someone at the Sandringham Christmas walk she was "almost there" re: her pregnancy," saying she felt "very pregnant" at the actor's home visit before Christmas, Harry saying "there's a big baby in there" in Feb... It's as though people couldn't keep their stories about her pregnancy straight.
8. Reporters not seeing the exit from and return to Frogmore Cottage when Archie was supposedly born.
Any one of those can be explained (although not the odd physical changes to my satisfaction) but the chances of all of them happening to the same baby/mother? Along with the odd birth certificate? And a record-time pregnancy for a 38-year old?
Yep, there is so much that does not make sense with that pregnancy, beyond the funny games those two play. You sum up the list very well.
I could add that the Harkles, in all their shenanigans, implied that Archie was overdue, but his birth weight was small for an overdue baby and strabismus is usually associated with premature babies.
The place was staked out by reporters and paps so how could they have got to the hospital and back without being spotted? Well, William and Kate did it three times (getting to the hospital because they left the hospital with babies, openly!
I am convinced that she must have been pregnant and given birth. However, what really confused me was when I realised that the birth certificate is not proof that Archie was born on that day, at that time, in that place, to that mother. The father, or whoever registers the birth, provides the information for the birth certificate (how many times does a father list himself as the father for the birth certificate but he is not?). Sometimes the 'red card/book' is required as proof. This is the medical record for the child that is created when the child is born and then is used to record all medical information. I have not been able to actually see a copy of one, but from my knowledge and use of medical cards, they are not difficult to use to create a fraud. Do the parents' names have to be on the card? Just write in Meghan's name as the mother.
It would still require a lot of people to carry out such fraud: the birth mother/surrogate and all those associated with her, including all medical people; everyone at Portland Hospital, who never confirmed or denied that Archie was born there, but a lot of people are employed there so a lot of people could be a leak to confirm or deny that he was born there on that date, at that time, to that mother ...
I must admit that I secretly wish it was true and that the whole story gets exposed, just as the COVID-19 pandemic ends and the Harkles launch themselves on the world stage. I know its mean to want that, but it would be the biggest royal scandal ever (well, history records some that would challenge that statement!) and the Harkles, or Harry at least, would be liable for prosecution for fraud!
Thanks! The BC/red book stuff is interesting. It's possible a flustered clerk might not have asked Harry for the book at all.
A few more points--
1. Archie's due date- Although one wasn't announced (& that's not unusual), after A was born Harry stated during the stable interview he was about a week late so that wasn't merely implied by the couple. You are correct the birth weight was odd for an overdue baby (a baby that, according to Harry, was "a big baby" months before he was born.) Not sure the Strabismus was odd if A has M's DNA. (May be wrong but I'm not sure all heriditary Strabismus is associated with prematurity.)
2. If there was a surrogate, she may not have known who she was serving as a surrogate for. So she/her associates couldn't reveal the "royal fraud." (Not quite a "bedpan baby" but close!) A changed birth date would also lessen the chances she would put it together. This assumes Archie, a child H&M have custody of, actually exists. I think he does, but sometimes I wonder. For example, I am convinced the dangling, no diaper but a big uncomfortable wedgie, dogwalk Archie was a doll. At least I hope a real nearly 9-month old baby wasn't carried that way or had his weight supported at times by an arm under the back of his head.
3. I know people differ on this (I've said some of this before) I'm not convinced anyone at Portland Hospital would speak up to deny the birth happened there. An employee saying "I didn't see M"--big deal. That wouldn't even be reported it's so meaningless. But it is true no one associated with the hospital has claimed to see them either.
While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that's not quite the issue (although I'm not sure I can explain what I mean.) Saying she must have given birth at PH because someone would have said so if she didn't, does call into question why there hasn't been anyone to say they were seen. In other words, the fact that no one has said anything is taken as proof Archie was born at PH May 6 to M. That's a stretch to me.
4. You are correct the press didn't report seeing W&K leaving KP when Kate gave birth. But I'm not sure the situations are equivalent. Different homes/ways to exit, different cities/traffic patterns, different hospitals, & most important, Kate's admissions were announced by the Palace pretty quickly (vs saying she went into labor [location unnamed] hours after her baby was born.) I'm pretty sure too it was known in advance they would use the Lindo Wing. But if they'd just popped out the LW front door with a baby, people might have asked how/when they got there too.
5. Another oddity-- the frantic, ever-changing KP pronouncements about the way the birth announcement would be handled. During the pregnancy M seemed to want to be seen as Zen, healthy, & above it all. An Earth Mother who might even do a home birth. In a pool. With no doctors much less TQ's staff. No HG or even ordinary morning sickness for her! Zika? No problem. Flying to NYC for a week? Piece of cake. Stilleto heels? Of course! Then something seemed to change in March.
KP said the press/public might not be told about the birth for weeks because the family deserved privacy. Eventually KP said labor would be announced when it started (of course, it wasn't.) But KP said photos would be delayed, maybe for a week. Then Harry was going to the Hague for 2 days for an IG event. Then it was said he'd miss the 1st day. Days later maybe he wasn't going at all. Then he was going but only for 1 day, three days after the supposed birth. (I wondered if maybe the surrogate's baby had been born with jaundice & had to stay under lights. So they didn't know when they could do a photo op.)
A super injunction may be preventing reporting of things that are known.