Here's a fresh post to continue discussing Sussex news and developments.
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
Then it came to me -
An episode first broadcast in 1959 about Fred's Pie Stall-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009h7l4
It's a line that stuck in my mind from the very first time it was broadcast:
Hancock patronises the pie stall and ask for a cup of tea -
Fred:`Wiv' or wivaht?'
Hancock :` With or without what?'
The question usually refers to sugar but Fred replied `'Andles'
That's the trouble. Their paws are tightly clasped around their 'andles, like a monkey with it's fist in a jar.
H is almost a Ron Glum but she's have had to have acted her socks off to be Eth...
(`Take It From Here')
When doing a search with Royal Mail using the postcode SL4 2JG the address it brings up is Frogmore Cottage, Frogmore, Windsor - no mention Windsor Castle at all.... so just MM's wishful thinking of living in a Castle & maybe they need to change that certificate again to correct that glaring error....
@Sandie
I’m sure the press were well aware when
Kate was driven to the Lindo Wing.
They chose, or were told, not to report this.
They were informed, from the start, when,
and where, she had gone into labour.
Unlike Megs with her invisibility cloak.
Thanks for your post. I find it interesting that the press knew she was being taken to hospital but refrained from trying to get photographs of them leaving KP or arriving at LW. The photos everyone wanted was the ones of the Cambridges going home with baby.
The Cambridges seem to benefit from having a healthy relationship with the press. It is a complex relationship, but life is complex and the Cambridges handle it with maturity.
The Sussexes' approach just baffles me because it seems to harm more than help them.
Please accept this without getting angry, but I must try to address the extreme ignorance being shown in the West (both government and media) about the 'South African' variant of the coronavirus. The adaption has made it more infectious (i.e. it is easier for it to infect someone and with a larger viral load). The hysteria is based on profound ignorance (more deadly, close the borders, panic). South Africa has just passed the peak of the second wave, driven by the variant, and so has all the data. It is not more deadly. More people have died because far more people have been infected, but the death rate is not higher than the first wave. In fact, since the first wave, we know a lot more about treatment. Younger people were turning up at health care facilities and dying (in their 50s), but that is partly because they had a false sense of security from the first wave, where they were not a high risk group, and overall, a lot more people were being infected a lot quicker. In my area, there were twice as many infections in the second wave, but the death rate was not higher and infections have now dropped to 2 people (from a high of over 100). We remain vigilant: social distancing, sanitizing, masks, no gathering in large groups. But the beaches have just been opened again, the alcohol ban lifted (with trading times limited), the curfew relaxed by a few hours, and vaccines arrived in the country a couple of days ago plus the online registration to get vaccinated has gone live. Stop the panic and scare-mongering and apply the lessons learned from the first wave!
Back to regular programming ...
I am happy for his sake that he was able to make such a contribution to his country toward the end of his life and was knighted by the Queen. It must have been comforting to him knowing that, despite his age, he was still a force for good as he made a great difference before he left on his next great adventure.
I was going to say that they probably wouldn't bother, as Rinder's maximum award is meagre by their standards, but given that H seems to think that £2,500 is a `significant win' anything's possible if they're that desperate.
After that, there's only Jeremy Kyle.
"Also like a repeat of his history and a bit of sweet revenge (ngl one of the reason why I low-key still sorta tolerate him) on the day meghan have the banana cream [bread] and it was raining his comment about his wife will share the umbrella was because of his own feelings and also revenge in that she hates when she has to do things like that for him especially since he was the center of attention and she was umbrella lady - so that angered her but she couldn’t do anything about it since cameras - the chefs and everyone else loved him for this because they knew she hated it - I will also say like how Charles/Diana would make do certain things to embarrass each other - Harry would do similar tactics- this was one of them"
True, but the worry in the UK is fear of the medical services being overwhelmed by cases, on account of greater infectivity and for the attitudinal reasons you mention. I had my first vaccination last week but am still not taking any avoidable risks.
OFF TOPIC
You are watching in real time as govt uses PR to deflect from their own failings.
Secondly, the much touted Oxford vaccine was tested in SA, but rather than admit that they screwed up, it's easier to sell the idea that SA is somehow to blame.
I'm still in shock that our health minister appeared surprised on live TV that the virus mutated.
Virus mutation is 101 basic knowledge about viruses except apparently to our health minister!!!!!
I concur with Sandie about this because of our experience with various varieties. We had an uptick at the end of the year that was "blamed" on people not social distancing enough, but it was new varieties running amuck that were *more* contagious/higher viral loads being shed.
Our country has our own homegrown variants (California and Ohio), the Italian variant, the UK variant, the China original, as well as the South African and the Brazilian variant all running through the population. What is interesting is that our state, with more UK variants than any of the other states, has yet done better in death rates, infections, and hospitalizations than the severely shut-down states. Masks are not mandatory but recommended.
Our county death rate remains at 1% (2% for the state) with the majority of the deaths occurring in those aged 75 and above. I am NOT dismissing people aged 75 and above as irrelevant. It is merely an observation that this is the age where other serious comorbidities develop and people lose friends, spouses, and contact with the community which can increase hopelessness and depression. A few younger people, small numbers but enough to cause me to sit up and take notice and speculate that we had variants circulating, also died from COVID or complications from COVID (organ damage, heart problems, strokes) as Sandie spoke of in South Africa.
I notice that these variations apparently mutated spontaneously in about the same time frame and then started spreading widely in, again, the same time frame world-wide.
Here's a link about masks: https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/masks-clearing-up-the-confusion/
If you don't want to read the whole thing, the short version is that masks work, but they need to be N95 or above. Lesser masks may help in well-ventilated spaces in a short period of time with not many people. Those cheap paper "surgical" masks from China aren't doing a great deal for protecting from COVID; I refer to it as protection theater. (My husband also whines about them being easier to breathe through and I know that that man preferentially uses them when I'm not there giving him the hairy eyeball.)
No spoilers here just want to say this is interesting: at 37:10 mark she states she has much to say but won't "at this time".
Wow! Does this mean she's got some serious tea to drop?
Back to my point a couple of days ago, she re-iterates the question "what are they hiding"? She seems to feel this is an important point as well.
A commenter states perhaps the removal of data from an official document could be a tactical move, possibly to leave a blank slate for the next DoS. Interesting thought.
It could be possible as well that BP and RF know this sham of a marriage is not long term.
So many possibilities.
Some time ago, Yankee Wally posted about the Sugars taking that ghastly `Look - She's a Fake' portrait of `Kween Meghan' and attaching the verse invoking Divine action against Meg's enemies. The effect was vile and Wally was deeply upset.
Per Samantha - In 2016 Harry did rent a full mansion (fully staffed) so she could celebrate Thanksgiving with her family.
Samantha explains in her memoir that the Duke of Sussex picked the home not only for the privacy it afforded the family, but also because "it was a location that would be convenient for both dad Thomas and mom Doria." Thomas Markle was living in Mexico at the time, while Doria was nearby in Los Angeles.
"I was happy to find out that my father [was celebrating] Thanksgiving with Megan and Doria," she writes. "Harry was quite gentlemanly to rent a house in Beverly Hills for the event, even though we ended up not going."
I don’t see how any surrogacy rumors can be tied into this.
I do agree it is likely a something minor and stupid though, along the lines that nothing they do makes sense.
I don't know how you do it. You're a wonderful wordsmith!
Like so many people, I was so saddened to hear of the death of our lovely Captn Sir Tom. My one consolation is the thought that he will no longer need to use his walking aid when he marches through those Pearly Gates.
I understand that messages of sympathy have been coming in from the Queen and many, many people from all over the world, even from the White House.
This begs the question; why have the Harkles not been emoting all over the place? I can't see them missing such a God-given opportunity to get their ugly mugs in the press.
Any thoughts, Nutties?
OFF TOPIC
You are watching in real time as govt uses PR to deflect from their own failings.
Secondly, the much touted Oxford vaccine was tested in SA, but rather than admit that they screwed up, it's easier to sell the idea that SA is somehow to blame.
Similarly, lots of vaccines "tested" in Brazil, and they've had a horrible resurgence of the disease with a mutation when they were *supposed* to have achieved herd immunity and that mutation *may* be vaccine-resistant. (We're hearing happy talk from the vaccine companies, but that isn't what I'm hearing from people *not* affiliated with the vaccine companies. Is it accurate? Well, I guess we'll see, but I would recommend still taking precautions even if you've been vaccinated or had COVID Mark I.
Now you know why, even though you were vaccinated, you may have been advised to continue to wear a mask and take precautions. Officials knew this was coming.
/I have allergic reactions that would preclude me from taking the vaccines offered at this time so, yeah, nothing new for me.
This begs the question; why have the Harkles not been emoting all over the place?
------------
Yes, very good question. Harry at least as a British citizen could have said something (nothing in it for Megs).
You can also see the contrast between what Captain Tom Moore achieved in a few months and what Harry has ever achieved with all the means at his disposal.
Captain Sir Tom is not woke enough for the Harkles and does not appeal to a young, hip demographic or the groups who are trying to censor according to their rules?
I can imagine Captain Sir Tom having zero appeal for Meghan. But one would think that Harry with his absurd PR offensive to try and regain his honorary military positions would align himself with the values and symbolism of Captain Sir Tom. Maybe he has enough sense to not step on Granny's toes there?!
OFF TOPIC
The virus will mutate again so keeping up with the protection measures we can take is going to be part of our lives for a while yet.
The vaccines may have come too late to achieve herd immunity before the next mutation. At best, we might get a few months' respite?
I am trying to be hopeful and positive about the vaccine, but, yeah ... contradictory messages (and from trustworthy people in the scientific/medical professions).
.
I apologise if I didn't get the above correct re: acknowledgement of post.
.
I think that if Drip did open his gob to say something about Captain Sir Tom Moore he would be rightfully ' drawn and quartered ' by the press, and the comments would be quite the read.
Thanks for updating us on Samantha's book.
Thanksgiving 2016 would have been about 6 months after they met, but about 4 months after they claimed they met.
A fully staffed mansion in Beverley Hills? If that is true, I award the supreme, universal crown of grifters to Meghan! Do you think that is when she hatched her plan to return to LA very wealthy and very famous and realized Harry was the key to open that door for her?
If this was not true, why would Thomas let Samantha put it in the book?
Here are links to Meghan's post on The Tig for that Thanksgiving:
https://za.pinterest.com/pin/650559108648788704/
The deputy herald or whatever his title is is quoted as saying that he advised Meg that the title 'Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex' sounded 'old-fashioned', as though she were a dowager or a widow. He quite jocularly said he's happy to take the blame . . but this 'explanation' such as it is, is still nonsensical. Catherine is listed by both her birth names and title, and seems happy to be so, since none of her three children's birth certificates were ever amended weeks after the initial filings. Is there no concern that Catherine Elizabeth, The Duchess of Cambridge wouldn't be confused with a dowager or a widow, even though she is demonstrably neither? Surely, since her children are the direct heirs to the crown and she herself will be Queen Consort, getting these particularities correct as to protocol would be even MORE important in her case, since she and her children are more constitutionally relevant than Meghan?
The heralds' office seems to be taking this flap all in good humor. But--if the origninal format was incorrect as to protocol, why does it still stand on the Cambridge children's birth certificates? Why was it not listed properly the first time on Meg's instead of 3 weeks later? The explanation that Meg wanted her child's birth certificate to 'match other official documents' like her passport is also nonsensical. Her original American passport would have had her birth name on it: Rachel Meghan Markle. As a senior member of the RF, it's my understanding that she did not require a passport to travel on behalf of the Queen. When she traipsed over from the UK for the private weekend jollies in Manhattan and the U.S. Open, I presume she either used her original American passport or was simply waved through customs as a VIP, along with the nose candy she'd been able to score. How nice for her. I guess no drug-sniffing dogs are allowed near 'Royal' luggage in the private jet terminal.
If she has reapplied for an American passport in the interim, I do not believe the U.S. Department of State would have accepted 'The Duchess of Sussex' as her official legal name. She wouldn't have had a passport from any country, or a driving license either, that stated: First Name: Duchess Last Name: Sussex in June 2019, when refiling Archie's birth certificate. What a maroon.
Such obfuscation about their actual location prior to 'labor and delivery' *could* be the couple's pathological need for secrecy and control over their child's birth being employed successfully. But they could have said, after the fact--We stayed in London close to the hospital to maintain our privacy and that's why you all didn't see anything in Windsor. But they just let the speculation fester.
Personally, I don't think they ever lived in FroggCott for any length of time, either before or after the 'birth'. They managed to pad their bank account with the money for phantom redecorating, but Meg had summarily rejected the house as unacceptable and the couple stayed in various luxury hotels in between their various international travels and a stint in Windsor Castle, granted to them by Granny on the grounds that they were 'homeless'. This is likely why they didn't want to 'fess up to not being at FC when Megs 'went into labor' because then the question would be: When exactly WERE you there, if ever?
FC is still Harry's domicile of record in the U.K., but the huge fuss about the repayment of the missing funds was made because they never intended to live in that home, and yet the money had mysteriously vanished with nothing to show for it in terms of interior decoration and furnishings. MM successfully sued the DM over items such as the copper bathtub and orangerie and yoga studio being fraudulent reporting because they were never there. Damn right, and the family was never there, either. Meg loves to spend extravagantly but she doesn't seem to accumulate many things, or keep what she buys for very long.
My opinion.
Recently my sister has sent me some stuff concerning some of our ancestors. It is difficult but rewarding if one can do it to provide some flesh on the dry-as-dust entries from the registers and the censii. I was however intrigued by the news that my great grandmother (I had four of them) born in 1849 gave birth to her first son in Paddington on 6th November 1874. She was not at that time married and thus there is on the certificate no name of the Father. This is doubly strange because the child's names make very clear exactly who his father is. They married in the following year. Perhaps military service prevented an earlier marriage for my great grandfather was - by the end of his life - Colonel C.H.W.C D.L. J.P.
I am now hearing about the death of another soldier. Cpt Sir Tom aged one hundred. The nation is in mourning. Why? I don't understand. He walked round his garden on his zimmer, somehow that translated into £33 million which for the NHS (an appalling organisation) is a drop in the ocean and why are we giving money to an organisation which we already pay into. He went to Barbados; he had Xmas with Sir Cliff, all pretty much in breach of the regulations that we have to obey. I am far more concerned about my Great grandmother who died far too young in 1898 and frankly had she lived a little longer than Sir Tom I could have met her.
There may only be one Duchess of Sussex at the moment, there may be more in the future. Even saying `2nd Duchess... would have defined her. It's a generic listing, like saying a child's mother's name is `Mrs'. Not that would M have accepted being 2nd anything. Diana may have set an unhelpful precedent.
It all depends who was behind the alteration, Meghan or Higher Up. Had HM known what was coming, they'd have probably ended up as the Windsors (only M would have seen that as her rightful title, not an insult) or the Cumberlands. Perhaps he should be demoted to an Earl, ideally of a place associated with the Marines, and told to put up with it. Earl of Deal, (as in `Disney Deal') might make the point.
@ Sandie
A message of consolation was received from the White House - if the Harkles are really trying to get "in" with the Biden administration, then surely they would be breaking their necks to emote all over the press?
First that absurd statement in open court.
Today a PR article about his support of Invictus.
https://people.com/royals/how-prince-harrys-invictus-games-is-keeping-sick-and-wounded-service-personnel-focused-amid-delay-in-games/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=601aec230159bb00010f7b33
The only way they become extinct completely is if they ran out of direct descendants as happened with suspended Viscount Taaffe title whose last direct heir claimant died in 1967 without ever petitioning for it's restoration.
Cumberland's current heir claimant should he press the issue is the vile Ernest August of Hanover, Caroline of Monaco's husband. As you know he has 2 sons and 2 grandsons which means, everything going well, 2 more generations to go before Cumberland becomes extinct.
the-empress-7
FYI, about Sunshine Sachs in an early 2020 article:
“Markle’s attorney at Stone, Genow, Smelkinson, Binder & Christopher did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did The Gersh Agency, which previously repped the actress. The PR firm Sunshine Sachs said it no longer represents her.”
https://www.thewrap.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-hollywood-deals-after-royal-duties/
It’s a bit vague, there’s no indication which side ended the relationship. But SS has dropped other clients before. Equally, it’s possibly that Meg simply couldn’t keep paying their costs.
Either way, from the childish and snarky tone of their latest PR release, it’s coming from someone really inexperienced (their pinterest staff?) or someone very stupidly short-sighted (H/M themselves?) - I don’t think they’ve used SS for a while, given their stunts over the last year.
=====
I had forgotten the Germans.
Weird, if true, about H renting that house for them for Thanksgiving. Why wouldnt' they just eat at Doria's? And why didn't H join them? A lot of scheming went on with that relationship.
"MM successfully sued the DM over items such as the copper bathtub and orangerie and yoga studio being fraudulent reporting because they were never there. Damn right, and the family was never there, either."
I agree much most of your post but am not sure about the above info. I thought M tried to throw articles about FC into the Letter Lawsuit with claims of DM being "deceptive" but that stuff got tossed. I thought the judge (essentially) said she could file a new suit for those claims. Am I wrong? Did a lawsuit slip by me?
Fantastic catch!!! This is why I think Meghan reads all this stuff here as well as elsewhere (LSA, Quora, HM). That umbrella thing triggered her, so she put it in the card to ‘re-write’ the meaning of the photo as ‘happy couple’ not pissed off wife and revenge seeking husband.
She’s so reactive, in line with how she handles everything..
Re BC,
What I find strange is the lack of signature from either Harry or the Registrar. The document states signature on the line. If you compare to Louis' BC, there are signatures, William, for example and one from the registrar.
This excuses for this incident, from confusion, to PR staff (oh those ever bumbling PR staff), to lost in translation... are strange.
I suspect that some other reasons might or might not be:
Captain Sir Tom was not the target age bracket of interest.
Captain Sir Tom displayed the initiative, determination and attitude of doing something in a way that we don't really see the duo display in their volunteer adventures. The contrast might raise questions.
"@Hikari wrote:
"MM successfully sued the DM over items such as the copper bathtub and orangerie and yoga studio being fraudulent reporting because they were never there. Damn right, and the family was never there, either."
I agree much most of your post but am not sure about the above info. I thought M tried to throw articles about FC into the Letter Lawsuit with claims of DM being "deceptive" but that stuff got tossed. I thought the judge (essentially) said she could file a new suit for those claims. Am I wrong? Did a lawsuit slip by me?"
Lizzie is right. Those items were tossed out of the letter lawsuit by the judge as being irrelevant to the case.
"Acquitaine - where did I say the Cumberland title was `extinct'? I've only ever said it was tainted."
You said earlier that Queen should have given Harry Cumberland.
".......Had HM known what was coming, they'd have probably ended up as the Windsors (only M would have seen that as her rightful title, not an insult) or the Cumberlands...."
That is the comment i was responding to remind you that Cumberland is not extinct and therefore unavailable even if HM kbew what was coming.
I think Windsor would have been very funny especially after fetching Bridal Meghan in a car associated with Wallis Simpson and giving them a house near a graveyard that includes David and Wallis.
Cloudyskies997
I called B&N since my book has never arrived and while they said it shipped on 1/28 there is no tracking number.The CSR said that there has been such "high demand" (her words) that they had to "source more" and it will ship now on 2/8. I suspect the attorneys have been working overtime because the page count has now lost 104 pages. Those missing pages must have been very juicy.
----------
Lost 104 pages? The book has 272 pages, I don't think it was 376 pages initially. This sounds like a lot of pages to lose. Maybe some lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb, considering Megsy is so litigious.
Re. DM suit items Re. Frogmore
The Harkle couple's litigation with the press is so frequent and so convoluted, I can't keep it all straight. I may have misremembered, but I thought Markle successfully won a judgement against the Daily Mail for their fraudulent claims that she'd had a floating yoga studio, one or two orangeries, possibly an avocado tree, an exorbitantly expensive copper bathtub and other whimsical items installed in FroggCott. She denied these and I thought the paper retracted them with an apology and a (small) sum, or maybe it was just that they had to print a retraction. This was during the summer before Megxit, IIRC, and was unrelated to the letter and privacy lawsuit against their sister publication, MoS. Meg was adding bricks to her 'They are always publishing lies about me!' house. It seemed that the DM had, in fact, embellished details of the home decorating at FroggCott--but it is interesting to speculate where the DM writers may have conceived the idea that these esoteric items were part of the renovation scheme. Surely orangeries and avocado trees would not be typical landscaping items for any other Windsor homeowners dwelling in that climate? Meg is always yammering on about her yoga, so I can see where that came from. Copper bathtub? Who knows. It does not seem very likely at all that the DM writers would have just made up these fantastical items out of whole cloth; much more likely that they were working off 'teasers' from the Sussex office. To the best of my recollection, Meg never disputed that she used vegan paint in the projected nursery for her never-seen infant, but most of the other details were disputed as false.
Q: Was Clarence House/Duchy of Cornwall *billed* for a copper bathtub, exotic landscaping and similar, leading to a widespread assumption that these items had been purchased for FC? Or--did Meg lodge her complaints about the 'fraudulent' items after she got busted for not actually buying the items she was billing Charles for? Just as she did with her wardrobe, I think she practiced very creative accounting with the monies she was given for the redecorating . . which may have ended up in Doria's bank account or some other American-based tax shelter. If agents of the PoW went to FroggCott to inspect what had actually been done with those monies at the behest of Charles, and found nothing but mouse turds and dropcloths . . that's when the S hit the fan over this missing money. Because if it had been spent to actually renovate and furnish the Sussexes' permanent UK residence, even when they weren't staying there, I think the issue would have been dropped, since the house would have been finished and serviceable for the couple or whichever guests HM wanted to install in their absence. Since the repayment of the Frogmore monies was such a prominent portion of the Megxit agreement (Harry said he did; more likely it was Charles) . . one wonders if they had done *anything* to the place at all. Methinks they just took the money, like they did with the Disney $3 mil. Poof! All gone, to Sunshine Sachs or Meg's lawyers.
"That DM article about the birth cert flap is interesting.
The deputy herald or whatever his title is is quoted as saying that he advised Meg that the title 'Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex' sounded 'old-fashioned', as though she were a dowager or a widow. He quite jocularly said he's happy to take the blame . . but this 'explanation' such as it is, is still nonsensical."
Was the name presented to him with that coma between the names and the title?
The coma makes all the difference.
If you have the coma in between the name and title as you've written: Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, it clearly says to him and anyone else that you are a widow or a dowager because of that coma between her first names and the title.
When you leave out the coma : Rachel Meghan The Duchess of Sussex then you are still married.
Please note that as a married woman your first names should not appear at all, but if they are to appear for the sake of clarity, do not add coma between the names and the title. The change to the birth certificate is the correct form of the title for a married woman though given the type of legal document, leaving out her first names was not a good idea.
IIRC, the herald says in the article that he has no recollection of giving advise on names to be used for BC.
It's possible he had a conversation about the correct form of Meghan's married title without context. Meghan's US team simply took his advise in general terms and applied it across the board regardless of appropriateness of situation.
Meghan, being someone who has no capacity for details and who valued her US team over her UK team, insists everyone work to US team's instructions which override the UK team's local knowledge and expertise and their ability to understand the nuance of the Herald's comments.
Saw your post after I posted a reply; due to moderation, I didn't see your comment beforehand.
So in fact, then, the DM was not slapped on the wrist for erroneous reportage over the decoration of FroggCott? The judge was right--those are certainly irrelevant to the letter/privacy suit. Just more of Meg's 'Fling Spaghetti at the Wall' technique to obfuscate her wrongdoing.
If these were dropped without further judicial comment, we still have no clarity over what was actually accomplished with that money for FrogCott. Did Mugsy buy the Cadillac of copper bathtubs, only to abandon it, unused? I don't imagine that was one of the items shipped to America when 'removal vans pitched up in the dead of night'. Likewise, if there were orange and avocado trees planted in the inhospitable climate of Windsor, I don't see how they can be thriving, since nobody's eaten an avocado there for nearly 2 years. Or, ever.
I think I shall go to meet Captain Tom believing that the Harkles never lived at FrogCott and she never birthed this child we know as Archie.
At a later hearing, Meghan indicated that if she won, she planned to sue for additional damages due to the emotional distress caused by the case so i think we might get another insertion of the copper tub etc stories as examples of her distress.
It may very well be that the numbers were so low for their launch that they didn’t meet standard and Spotify is back to the drawing board at how to approach Harry and Meghan to make it successful. My guess anyway. It’s odd they didn’t follow up with anything else for the ‘podcast’ massive *deal* lol. Also, maybe they were just paid for one podcast. Spotify has screwed up Joe Rogan’s launch and maybe trying to advertise their platform via the Meghan effect (in the news everyday).... just guesses on my part.
Meghan was supposedly at FC with a newborn, and Harry basking in the glow of being a father at last.
Errors in the hospital address and home address were not corrected. Since they are privileged, this is of no concern to them, but, as someone pointed out, the 'welfare state' needs accurate information to function effectively. As extremely indulged public servants, did they care about that? Nope!
We have discussed the matter at length and it is quite clear who Archie's parents are in how the birth certificate was filled in, before and after correction.
This is Archie's birth certificate and for him, what is important is that place and date of birth and who the parents are is clear. Despite 'errors', the birth certificate met that criteria and did not need correction.
That the Harkles, led by Meghan it seems from what staff have revealed, were concerned about their status and consistency of brand is appalling to me. (At the time, Meghan was also concerned with getting her engagement and wedding rings redesigned, an eternity ring designed, an outfit for TYC designed, a plan to guest edit a Vogue edition and put together a capsule collection for SmartWorks, plus? I worry about poor Archie!)
What makes the changes made ridiculous is that the way the mother was named is the same that William used for the birth certificates for his children. William is a future king and head of the family.
That Harry left out that he is also a prince does not affect Archie's status as it is clear who his father is and whether Harry is a prince or not does not depend on that birth certificate for verification.
But people are being distracted by the correct form for a title (comma or no comma, first names or not ...), and, of course, who is to blame.
Archie ... born into controversy and mired in controversy since then, all manufactured and unnecessary and having little to do with the well-being of a child.
Re the birth certificate, there is the name and signature of the deputy registrar. Harry's name is typed up and there is no signature.
I personally do not know if this is really the law or not in the UK or whether or not this is the standard practice used if it were not the actual law. What is written below is my opinion on this matter based on the assumption that the above is the standard practice or the law in UK regarding surrogacy.
When a surrogate baby is first birthed, an original birth certificate is made, listing the birth mother's name as the mother of the child. Later, a second birth certificate is issued when the baby is adopted. In the case of Archie, the birth certificate (BC) that we have seen published is actually this second BC, not the first BC. This is the BC issued to the adoptive parents.
But in this second BC, they made a mistake of listing Markle's Christian names as the mother. This is why the BC had to be corrected to delete Markle's Christian names from it, and simply list the mother using her title instead (in a case when the mother does not have a title, maybe they will use the name of Mrs So-and-so, e.g, Mrs Harry Windsor).
The fact that Harry's name did not include "Prince" initially in the second BC (and thereby needing correction later) also indicates the possibility that Harry himself was not involved in the making of this second BC upon adoption of the child Archie. It's hard to imagine a person getting his own name wrong if he were the one filling in the form.
I personally do not know if these were true; but if it were, it makes so much sense if we operate under the assumption that Archie is indeed born of a surrogate.
It then also makes sense that, in my opinion, the palace must have "instructed" the change in the second BC to be made, which Meghan then deemed as "dictated by the palace" but which the palace (rather sneakily, I think; it makes them appear more innocent about the whole matter) said that something is "lost in translation."
I think the palace has been grappling with how to handle the Archie situation without losing face, or without it all blowing up into a big scandal in their face in front of the whole world, because I think they knew he was a surrogate baby, although I don't think they knew from the beginning; they were probably bamboozled in the beginning, too, and like everyone else was probably thinking that M was indeed pregnant. I think they eventually found out about it when M kept refusing the royal doctors, refusing the standard Lindo Wing new baby presentation, wanting home birth, wanting a doula, wanting everything secret, etc.
I think the palace tried to handle the situation as discreet as possible while also trying to figure out how to not break the "out of the body" rule and the succession. The best they could do in the beginning were granting the use of non-traditional royal name for the baby and then not awarding the baby any royal title.
I think the palace would have been happy if the whole thing would later become quiet and no one looks closely at the Archie situation. Sadly, M&H's own shenanigans make this rather impossible.
For those who don't believe in the theory that Archie is a surrogate baby, please feel free to ignore my post here. I have watched almost all of Lady C's videos, and indeed she has been very careful not to state outright that Archie is a surrogate baby. But there are questions indeed.
I consider myself reprimanded, except that I'm sure I said wtte that in the the current political situation with regard to Scotland, it would have offended far too many people north of the Border.
Nice to know you're keeping such a close eye on me.
But people are being distracted by the correct form for a title (comma or no comma, first names or not ...), and, of course, who is to blame.
Archie ... born into controversy and mired in controversy since then, all manufactured and unnecessary and having little to do with the well-being of a child.
It's true that these seemingly minor details (the address of the hospital; inclusion/omission of mother's names, commas or father's title of Prince) don't seem that important. Actually the amended form seems MORE correct, seeing as both Diana and Fergie are listed by their married titles only on their children's birth certificates. In the case of Sarah, she signed Beatrice's certificate herself. Charles signed off on his children's. There is no signature of either the mother or father on Archie's document.
William and Catherine may have deviated from Royal tradition in including Catherine's given names instead of her HRH The Duchess of Cambridge title alone. Since William's children are the future heirs of the UK, one would suppose they sought advice from the Palace protocol office and the registrar on duty prior to filling out the paperwork.
Minor these details may be--but my question is, why would an official government body *permit* obvious errors to stand on official legal documents? They do hundreds of these every day, and certainly someone in officialdom could verify the correct address of the hospital and follow existing precedent (on file) as to what has been done with Royal births of the past. There is no excuse whatsoever, Harry's status or no, for a WRONG document to be allowed to be filed as is. If His Royal Highness is visibly struggling to fill out the paperwork correctly, wouldn't someone official step in to advise? Why can 'Meg's staff' amend official birth documents from their offices at KP? Wouldn't it be handled at the registry office . . particularly for an heir to the throne and by someone quite senior . . Sara Latham or another of the British-born staffers?
I'm sure you have dealt with official bureaucracy many times in your life, as have we all. Generally they are a stickler for forms being filled out correctly and if one makes a mistake, one has to get a new form and start all over again. Registering a Royal birth is a rare enough event that one would suppose that a call to the Palace might be placed BEFORE doing the paperwork, just to be certain.
If, on the other hand, Meg didn't give birth on the date listed, at the hospital listed and has made the whole thing up, it'd be easy to get little details wrong. Apparently they never expected to be challenged on any of this, seeing as they are 'Royals'. Perhaps BP, being all too aware of the con allowed the 'botched' certificate to stand because it does not represent a real child born under these circumstances. This, I think, is the source of Meg's rage and her statement seeming to blame the Palace for forcing her to change it. Because being listed as 'The Duchess of Sussex' is actually an upgrade--it's the same as was done for her heroine, The Princess of Wales.
The teapot of truth about this pregnancy and birth is getting closer and closer to the tipping point, methinks.
The filled-in form, held on a database in a computer, was printed out and then certified as a true copy by the deputy registrar and given to whoever requested it (the bit about it being a certified copy was added before printing out).
We have never seen the final signed copy of Archie's birth certificate.
When Louis was born, the computerized system had been introduced so, unlike his siblings, his birth certificate was also filled in on and printed out from a computer. However, the media was shown the final signed copy (all appropriate signatures, including William's in ink) and were allowed to photograph it.
The Cambridges seemed to be proud and as pleased as punch to show the final, original, signed and authorized birth certificates for their children. The media were allowed to photograph those birth certificates (no one was given a photocopy or given any kind of print out).
The Sussexes, for the first time in royal history I think, refuse to let the public see the final signed birth certificate for Archie. It is odd, but it is not because they are hiding something ... what the media/public was given has been certified as a true copy of the original.
Because the Sussexes are odd to the point of bizarre sometimes, we think they are hiding some big secret, but they are just contrary, messy, odd people most of the time, in my opinion!
We shall see whether Time reveals her Daughter.
What I do find confusing is that the birth certificate was supposedly amended on 6June 2019. In that case, why is the DM showing a photo of the amendment with the date 21.01.21, so about 10 days ago, next to the deputy registrar's signature? Why such a long delay? (nearly 9 months). Here is a link to the article and photo.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9213465/Buckingham-Palace-denies-Meghans-claim-officials-dictated-change.html
That does not make it proof of surrogacy because to be so it must then involve a conspiracy that includes fraud at the registry office.
The Harkles spend so much energy in controversy created by their meaningless defiance of protocols and traditions that no wonder they still have not set up a worthwhile and thriving charitable foundation.
Didn't Thomas say that Meghan loves breaking rules? For what?
Small example: For that engagement she did with the Queen, she refused to pin back her hair or wear a hat/fascinator. She was going to modernize the monarchy. It was a windy day (easy to check in advance). The result was photographs of Meghan with unbelievably messy hair that have gone viral and will always be associated with what was an iconic moment for her in the royal family.
I am astonished that the registry office does not have a database against which addresses can be checked and filled in properly.
As for correct forms of names for royals, isn't there some kind of special department somewhere? Wasn't the person there interviewed for the Archie birth certificate debacle? Should not that person be responsible for ensuring that names and titles are correct?
Or, by leaving it up to the parents, does history become more rich and interesting as they are bound to make mistakes?
21.01.21 was the date that the unnamed person requested a copy of the birth certificate. The verification is for the copy given to that person on that date, and not for the amendment made by Meghan in June 2019.
I don’t see how any surrogacy rumors can be tied into this.
*
I took it to mean the commentor on LCC's vid was suggesting Harry's 2nd wife, a new DoS, not the current one. That Meghan is being cancelled.
I too wonder what that has to do with a birth cert but then all this talk about this current hoo haw (old school Northern Ireland speak) is Greek to me.
I'm learning a lot by what the many astute Nuttie's are thinking.
1. A surrogate actually gave birth to Archie at Portland and then handed him over to the Harkles and disappeared. It was an under-the-table surrogacy. Harry registered the birth as if Meghan had given birth. This scenario requires staff at Portland to be part of the conspiracy, Meghan to fake a pregnancy, and a surrogate to be hidden for many months, being attended to by a medical team that all keep the secret and commit fraud.
2. A surrogate gave birth to Archie with the usual legal agreements, all kept secret. You have to wait six weeks, I think, for a parental order that allows you to change the birth certificate. So, Archie would have to have been six weeks old when the Harkles had a birth certificate with both their names on it as parents. Since he was registered as 11 days old, the registery office would have had to knowingly produce a fraudulent birth certificate with the wrong date of birth.
The surrogacy conspiracy requires far too many conspirators, all knowingly committing fraud.
If Archie is real, it is so sad what she has done to create utter confusion around this child.
----------------
Agree with everything you said. It's so sad what they've done to their child, if he exists.
All so that she can have the pleasure of breaking rules, and H can have the pleasure of sticking it to his brother in one way or another.
Re: Your February 4, 2021 at 12:30 AM post.
Thank you for your thoughts on the birth cert saga. Your theory makes a lot of sense. I sometimes feel there is a strong possibility there was a surrogate.
@Sandie said,
The surrogacy conspiracy requires far too many conspirators, all knowingly committing fraud.
*
Ditto. Then I'm not so sure...
My eyeballs are spinning in my head trying to follow the curveballs in this story. I am learning some things though!
It is really awful. This child is going to grow up manipulated by a deranged woman who became overwhelmed with her own schemes and desires and then fell from the ideal life, hard. He’s growing up with parents who gaslight and lie to each other, pontificating on and on about absurd and trivial matters that only affect themselves. It’s all about them, every time they open their mouths. They are raising him to see entitled, victim parents who instead of doing hard work and embracing their decisions and consequences and working to fix them, runaway deflect and blame. He is being raised by a weak handed feminist, who instead of supporting the honest hardworking empowerment of women teaches her child through her actions that Men are to be used and abused, just as unkind men treat their wives. Harry is showing him it’s ok to give up your entire sense of self, for a strong willed woman and claim it’s ‘feminism’. He’s growing up without a strong man around to learn to respect women (he cannot and won’t respect Meghan with her current actions) and is becoming a legacy doormat for his mother. He’s being trained to be used, abused and become a doormat for other women. I hope he has the personality it would take to overcome these issues, and a great care team of nannies. I’m sure the BRF does hold concern for him, if he is real. I don’t think they realized how screwed up Harry is.
I don’t see how a child can be raised with the straight and narrow, moral and just paradigm with these two whack jobs as their parents.
There was a Twitter post I saw (can't remember who posted it): Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
*
I've heard this and it is one of my favorite sayings. It's so true. Transparency is what is missing in the two we discuss on this blog. They are "transparent" in all the wrong ways!
Thanks.
Thanks for posting the murkey meg updates re the birth certificate connundrums.
@Hikari,
Teapot of truth....! that has got to be one huge teapot--of the stainless steel industrial variety, not one of the dainty afternoon tea variety...
I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is awful and I do feel sorry for Archie. He didn’t ask for any of this. His emotional well-being is jeopardized and I think he will grow up with no moral compass whatsoever. Narcissistic mothers hurt their children. They destroy everything and everyone around them. Megalo only cares about Megalo. Hapless is mentally unstable, weak and petulant. I blame him for the whole debacle surrounding his son’s birth. Growing up, he suffered from rumors regarding his lineage. He knows how hurtful it is. How could he allow any doubt regarding his son’s birth?
I have been reading about narcissism in children and how it is triggered by a parent. Weirdly enough, I think Megalo’s narcissistic personality disorder started early on and I blame Doria. I think Thomas was trying his best to make up for Doria’s absences and lack of maternal feelings. I think Megalo has been trying her whole life to please Doria and gain her approval. Once she achieved that by snatching a prince, they became oh so close. She pushed her father to the curb. He is no longer needed. Her mother was finally satisfied with her. She has made her proud and they both have been plotting together how to live the high life at Hapless’s expense. Doria is not the innocent one nor a doormat for Megalo.
You're right about the date (21.01.21), thank you for putting me right :)
Great insight about Doria. That makes a lot of sense. Explains her absence. I’ve heard Samantha addresses Doria in the book and is not fond of her at all. Saying things like, “we thought she would take after dad, and started taking after Doria.” When she started going off the rails seeking more and more. I wonder if after the divorce from Trevor, is when Doria came back into her life and triggered all the madness. It would make so much sense, if this was the case. I get people being down on their luck, as supposedly Doria was, and Meghan’s career coming to a halt and a sense of desperation...but to go as far as they did. I guess what they say is true, “there is nothing like a mother’s love.” For better, or worse.
As I understand it, surrogacy, outside the family, is often `secret' with the surrogate having no idea who the parent(s) may be. As someone observed at one point, there was something fishy about the birth time given (sunrise at Windsor, IIRC) so why not about the date to obscure it further from from the mother?
There's only other explanation that I can think of; it's a big leap of the imagination, if the original's not the bc of an adopted child. I'm not going to say what it is. Like Lady C, I'll leave you to guess, although I've already banged on loud and long about the apparent lack of an authenticating stamp.
Have a look at the image on this site, and the others like it:
https://www.hagueapostille.co.uk/birth-certificates
Note the legal points made about verification/authentication.
Also, have a look at that date at the bottom. What do you think? I selected that image at random - just because it looks clearer than some of the others. Otherwise, `Pure Blind Co-In-Cy-Dence...' as CPO Pertwee, would have said.
This is all unverifiable speculation and supposition.
We are already at a point where they've told so many verifiable lies and been exposed for the games they play that when they tell the truth it's assumed to be a lie or part of a game.
And it's not just the internet noticing.
Doria is the one who benefited most from this unsavory marriage. She is the parent who came out as dignified and solid from the whole marriage debacle. She gained worldwide respect for being at her daughter’s side. She was praised for being such a supportive, respectable and classy woman. She overshadowed TM completely although he was not an absentee father. She got the honors of meeting The Queen and Prince Charles prior to the wedding. Hapless didn’t even have the dignity to meet his future father in law!
She seems to have been instrumental in making all this happen: from her photographs at the Invictus Games in Toronto to her role in Megxit. She made sure the world knew about her since day one. I think she’s got a huge influence on Hapless as well as Megalo and has been living her best life ever since.
That's very reassuring, if I read you correctly.
I feel rather stupid for asking this question but could someone summarize the high points of Lady CC latest video? I watched it twice but still feel confused about her comments on Archie. Does she know whether actually exists or not?
Thank you all.
In other words, we should know. The reason is that it affects the British Constitution if we cannot be sure that an heir to the throne is legitimately born of the body of the woman who is either in the line of succession herself or legally married to such an heir.
We have had plenty of trouble in the past from Royal Bastards (Duke of Monmouth, for eg) and those who may be legitimately in line but public faith in their legitimacy has been lost (James Francis Edward & his son Charles Edward). She felt that the dismissal of the Home Secretary as `witness' to the birth was a mistake. (I'd add that it probably was a matter of establishing that no baby was smuggled into the delivery room. No need to watch every gasp or heave.)
I'd add too that it was deemed adequate to trust the witness of the doctors attending the delivery, as evidenced by their signatures. After all, who, in this day and age, would want control of the throne enough attempt to plant an impostor? Who indeed?
Lady C was of the opinion that the old system should be reinstated.
In Archie's case, there is no authentication, whether signatures from unknown doctors or Government figures. Other witnesses are like Archie - we don't know if they exist or not. I'd have thought that was enough to eliminate Archie from the Succession. Perhaps Acquetaine knows? She has her ear closer to the ground than most of us have.
Re: Birth Certificate - I'm confused (as are many!) but the certificate that was shown in the DM is supposed to be the first one with the mistakes (her name 'Rachel Meghan' on it missing the 'Prince') So where is the second amended one?.... and as the date on the first incorrect that was recently published shows as 21.01.21 because that was the date it was requested, then surely this is the up-to-date version unless you can request a copy of both the incorrect one and the amended newer one? Can that be done or can you only request a copy of the latest as the previous one is incorrect?
Omg. Makes total sense. Even makes me feel kind of bad for Meghan. Lol, but there’s a potential child involved now and Meghan has a duty to that kid she’s not taking seriously in place of her duty to please mummy. What a woman will do for her moms love. Woooooow. And you’re right. What the hell is Doria doing everywhere? If I were dating a Prince (not Harry ever ew), but a hot eligible bachelor as a mid 30s adult, I personally would not have my mother by my side doing so. Lol. Maybe at a private dinner or two, but out in public? You’re so right. Doria loves the redemption of herself and the reflection of success to her extended relatives.
Wouldn’t wish that in anyone. Now Meghan can show mommy how successful she can be in LA with her Prince bankrolling the whole thing. The fact he rented her that Thanksgiving mansion at the beginning of their relationship is really weird IMO. Something strange about all of that, and it involved Doria.
Also explains her sudden ability to ghost dad, now that mom was the full time parent/support/ and ‘guide’.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them them" is as true today as in the time of Matthew.
Thanks for the perspective, I never think about Doria. There is always someone, really calling the shots though.
"Apostilles authenticate the seals and signatures of officials on public documents such as birth certificates, court orders, or any other document issued by a public authority so that they can be recognized in foreign countries that are members of the 1961 Hague Convention Treaty."
The journalists, and I assume the private citizen this January, who requested a copy of Archie's birth certificate were not intending to use it abroad as a proof of their own identity and so did not require an Apostille (it is optional but you pay extra). Nor did they need to have the certificate authenticated with a stamp and signature (once again, you pay extra and may also have to wait longer). They just wanted to see the certificate (probably already payng extra for the long version) and be able to use an image of it in a newspaper article.
Maybe it just never occurred to any of the journalists to ask to see and photograph the original certificate with its signatures and official stamp, especially when rushing to publish ASAP.
But maybe they did not all traipse down to the registry office to see and photograph the bc. Maybe the photograph they all used was provided by the Sussexes' press secretary (go and get a copy for the bloody press rota but no we are not paying through our nose for this - the cheapest option ... Hairy, you forgot about the bloody media ... every mistake you could make, you made ... I will just have to take care of it, of everything).
Maybe the Cambridges themselves photographed the original birth certificates and then distributed to the media via their press secretary. I think this is what happened because I think it was for George, Clarence House put a photograph of the bc on social media.
The real story here is the debacle of the bc tells us much about the character, attitudes and values of the Harkles and it is not a pretty sight. I would guess that there were goings-on in relation to the family and staff that have not been revealed, plus many that have spread via gossip that can be confirmed, and that would provide us with tea for months.
Looking for proof in the bc is a red herring, in my opinion. Did the Harkles have the means to use a surrogate, stage a fake pregnancy and birth? Did the Harkles think they could change the rules and get away with it? Are the Harkles reckless enough to lie and then act the outraged victim when caught out in a lie? (Can you think of an example of this kind of behaviour? Finding Freedom?)
I agree kind of feel bad for Megalo too LOL
In a way, I think of Doria as a puppet master: she’s enjoying all the perks while maintaining this dignified facade of the loving supportive mother, grandmother and mother-in-law. I remember a while back in the DM comments people would point out how Doria was a class act and wondered why Megalo wasn’t like her mother! Of course, Saint Doria has fallen from grace since..
@Jessica @Swampwoman
Pursuing a mother’s love and approval can be soul crushing. Who knows maybe Doria was the first narc in that family?
I’ve seen this combo of mother/daughter manipulating a man into marriage. It’s quite baffling. I can see them rallying around Hapless and “guiding” him in his new life and him eager to please both...
I've often wondered why it never occurred to them to assemble the Christening photo digitally, print off a hard copy, then scan or photograph the hard copy back into digital form. I assume that would have removed the metadata, the evidence of it being cut-and-paste and prevent us from analysing it.
Of course, we'd have have questioned any untoward delay in seeing the pic but wouldn't have got very far.
"Re: Doria
"I suspect Doria's degree (a Master's, I think) in counseling was meant to boost Meghan's image. In more than one article Doria is described as a "clinical therapist" even though there's no evidence that she is board licensed or a practicing clinical therapist. I think MM is more than happy to let this picture being painted, as usual.
Source: one of my best friends had to work and study for 2 years post-masters before being eligible to sit for boards."
Doria's master's is in social work not counseling. I don't see how she was ever a "clinical therapist" either except that term may not be legally protected. (M called her that on the Tig.)
Doria would have had to have 2 yrs post-degree supervised practice as an ASW to sit for her licensure exam too. (3000 hrs, 104 weeks in CA) She registered to begin acquiring hours in July 2015 (as that's public record.)
But she quit her job before the wedding. Not sure if that job carried the kind of supervision and activities needed for licensure anyway. But certainly teaching yoga and jewelry making do not. And she has no license in CA according to the licensure site (ASW isn't a license)
It can be hell to have a narcissistic mother if one doesn't fall in with her ideas.
Everything about Doria is opaque : her past, her occupation, her partner etc. On the other hand, Thomas seems a much more transparent man: we know about his success and his troubles, his occupation, his first marriage etc.
As for her degree in counseling, I don’t buy it either. She may have taken some courses or attended some training sessions but a fully qualified counselor I doubt it. Megalo may have sold her as a therapist for Hapless. She even might have become his therapist...
That thought's truly sinister. Otherwise known as `brainwashing' every bit of sense and authentic experience from his mind and planting false memories?
She is an ASW https://search.dca.ca.gov/
She has never become licensed though.
I wouldn't doubt though she's meddled in Harry's mental health. I also wouldn't doubt she talked him into stopping his antidepressants (as rumor has it.)
From what I've read about Doria, she doesn't seem to have the discipline to complete such a rigorous field of study. But now I see someone here says they looked up her Master's degree. It makes sense she has some degree that allows her to open a home care company.
I don't recall Doria nor anyone referring to her as a therapist but I'll have to research it.
I'm not at all interested in making the Markles my second career now that I'm retired so I really don't care too much. I'm mostly curious on the tea level... I may forget to look it up :D
`The only way to keep a secret is to tell nobody.'
Or, as Benjamin Franklin observed, Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."
Opponents of the surrogacy theory point out (rightly) that a plot of this magnitude would require dozens, if not hundreds, of people to be in on the 'secret' and is therefore untenable. But I think it is possible, given that we are dealing with a Firm who are masters at keeping covered that which they do not wish to be publicly made known. The shenanigans with the floating/inflating/deflating/dropping parade of Bumps, the cock-up about the labor/birth announcement and that press circus & the messiness with filing the incorrect birth certificate--that can all be attributed to Meg and Harry. As we have discussed ad nauseum here, the Firm is very much a case of a number of disparate Royal households and offices not really knowing what the others are doing. The Queen is a very private woman who is said to vehemently dislike any discussion of bodily functions, with even the word 'pregnancy' offensive to HM's ears. After Meg announced her pregnancy and assured everyone that a 12-month scan had been performed, why would anyone official doubt this? Harry was in accord. TQ would hardly demand to see under Meg's dress as 'the pregnancy' progressed. Markle took the unprecedented step of refusing any and all of the Palace-approved doctors, but that was her right to do, and privacy laws ensured that nobody could find out who her doctors were without her consent--which was never going to be given. HM's MO is and has always been to let things lie and hope that problems will disappear or otherwise resolve themselves on their own. She wasn't seeing Meg regularly . . a few times a year at most. Stomach gymnastics are not her purview.
I do think at some point, probably near to the 'end' of the pregnancy, the Palace found out the truth. After the Commonwealth Service and one brief appearance to lay flowers at NZ House in early March, Mugsy completely disappeared off the radar for seven weeks, going at least 2 weeks past any reasonable due date based on the 'data' she had provided. I think that was scramble time for the courtiers. What to do about Meghan? How to cover this gargantuan fraud? If Meg really had a baby when she said she did, it makes no sense whatsoever that she would have willingly forgone a title for her baby boy, with the traditional gun salute and London Bridge awash in blue. No way. She could have had those things while still making her own arrangements for the birth team and declining the traditional photo call on the steps of the Lindo Wing. All she needed was to present HM with a verifiable medical witness to this birth. That's it. Yet she didn't. Quizzical when this baby was to be her anchor within the Firm and her meal ticket for life. All this speculation about her son does not aid her own position in the least but in fact inestimably damages it. For a Narc mother to willfully forgo every single perk and deference though her Royal baby is entirely self-defeating and decidedly isn't looking out for #1.
There's only other explanation that I can think of; it's a big leap of the imagination, if the original's not the bc of an adopted child. I'm not going to say what it is. Like Lady C, I'll leave you to guess, although I've already banged on loud and long about the apparent lack of an authenticating stamp.
Mystery! Can you offer a 'guess' and preface it 'The following are my thoughts and opinions and are for entertainment purposes only. I must advise you to do your own research. All media used is in the public domain and are fair use and fair dealings." That's what all the vloggers are using since the Doxxing Days.
Can you write it in military code? Morse? Does it have anything to do with the persistent rumor that Haz got some other girl pregnant and this is her baby?
If Harry winds up to shoot blanks, like Great-great Uncle David, that'd be an interesting turn-up. The mind stretches to Markus Anderson and the existence of a Toronto fertility clinic . . .
When writing a post on this site, I have that annoying problem of not having split screens so I often don't memorize who said what. I can't go from the writing of the post to the actual post being quoted, without losing the post being written. Someone suggested split screens a good while back but I'm not that sophisticated. Yet...
In any event, thanks @Lizzie. Thumbs up emoji.
@lizzie
@Wild Boar Battle-maid
It is a sinister thought but I believe they both meddled and still are meddling in Hapless’s mental health. Whether through convincing him to stop taking his medication (by convincing him that his family has been drugging him) or through intense therapy sessions or through a “cleanse” of some sort combined with intense hot yoga sessions...
He is not innocent in all this. He was under control but has always been a massive headache for his family. From his behavior I think he suffers from mental illness i.e. from a chemical imbalance in the brain and he needs to be medicated. No shame in that especially if he was seeing a licensed therapist as well.
Megalo and her mother took the lid off and he’s been running wild ever since he met them.
As for Doria’s credentials, I have no doubt that Megalo exaggerated those too. Still, we don’t know how Doria managed to get by financially all those years. If Megalo paid for her Masters then Doria has been using her daughter far more and longer than Thomas has.
I could see a registrar getting a call from "The Palace" to do something that was not the normal procedure, but the call was from "The Palace", so he/she dutifully fulfills the request. Only later is the duplicity discovered, but the damage is done. Then what? We know M will stoop lower than imaginable to get what she wants and we know the palace will protect itself at all costs.
With the "bedpan" theory in mind, I think it is possible a baby was brought into the UK from Cali(loose surrogacy laws) or Canada (friends in high places) on a Soho private plane to an out-of-the way location. Transfer was made to the Harkles and one or more people within/outside of the Palace were duped into creating the paperwork to fit the Harkles narrative.
Several sites indicate Doria is a working psychotherapist, a clinical therapist etc. yet she's not licensed?? Or so it said.
Just one more rabbit hole I think I will try to stay out of. :D
The `apostille' aspect is irrelevant in that I only sought to show that there are blank forms available online that anybody can download, printout and complete with whatever details they wish.
First time after birth - doll
Polo match - doll
Christening - baby too big for May 5 birth date
South Africa trip - too big for May birthdate
Harry holding baby in Canada - older than May birth date, possibly a girl
Mm walking in woods - doll
Christmas card 2019 - completely too weird, too small compared to H in Canada baby
Mm reading to baby - baby too big for alleged age, verbal skills beyond alleged age
Christmas card 2020 - if true, baby too big
Podcast Dec 2020 - baby's voice, if Archie's, verbal skills beyond his alleged age
.
I really do not think that Drip and Grip have the child with them. Grip absolutely cannot show up in the UK without the lad, hence her staying behind at Mudslide and Drip will be ' going home ' on his own. ( If Grip allows it ).
-------------
Well, there's a thought. Hmmm....
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_warmer
A bedpan is what you're given when confined to bed and need to relieve yourself. Do you really need a picture?
You might just about be able to hide a very premature baby in a warming pan (the lid has air holes) but not in a bedpan (either open for the ladies or a narrow-necked bottle for the gents.).
Off Topic Warning
Please accept this without getting angry, but I must try to address the extreme ignorance being shown in the West (both government and media) about the 'South African' variant of the coronavirus
Thank you, Sandie.
I find it very interesting that Drip will be coming back to the UK this summer, without Grip, and the reinstatement of the confusion round Archies` birth with this birth certificate conundrum. It may be that TRF has laid a plan or two knowing that eventually the truth will out about Archie.
If he goes back to England, does anybody think that he will return to Meghan in California?
/I wouldn't. If I wore his worn sneakers, I would have the butler announce that the master is incommunicado and renounced all his worldly goods and is working toward enlightenment in a Buddhist monastery somewhere in India.
“ Were no psychological tests carried out on Harry especially with the anger issues he appears to have that the world can see and his suitability to actually bear arms let alone use them.”
Apparently not or his family took care of the results as they were desperate to enroll him in the army hoping he will behave and learn the meaning of the word duty.
“ He is a diplomatic nightmare waiting to happen.”
I think that ship has sailed!
The signature worries me - there was, and may still be, a Westminster Deputy Registrar of that name. Yet the way that `Deputy' is written, and the form of the numerals is remarkably similar to some in images at the apostille sites:
www.hagueapostille.co.uk/birth-certificates
https://www.apostille.org.uk/birth-certificates
That is difficult to explain unless it's pure coincidence.
On the other hand:
Were I a Registrar, confronted by a large and very irate father who insisted I issue a certificate with dubious information that I knew I couldn't verify, I might just try to leave a clue that there was something wrong and hope he didn't notice. I couldn't very well endorse my signature with `Under Duress' which could otherwise save me legally.
In the absence of direction from my line manager, I might enter the details & forget to complete the process- I might save `save' and print out the doc. without clicking on `Add Authentication Stamp'. Then sign it and hope he'd go away.
Whoops, simple mistake, could have happened to anyone overcome with the excitement of the moment.
Pure fantasy, of course.
I like to think that Meghan has just been given time to come to her senses but now it looks as if she is beyond redemption. Even today, I saw a headline (Good Housekeeping) proclaiming that Wills may have called out the racist critics of Marcus Rashford but failed to do anything about the `racism' his SiL was subjected to.
Didn't read it, I'd have needed a vomit receptacle.
Her stare straight into the camera at E's wedding scared the bejesus out of me - and I was sitting on my sofa several hundred miles away. It made me feel she really was was looking at me and trying to read my mind. That Big Sister was watching me. Goodness knows what the effect was on anyone with a tenuous hold on reality.
I know it before but even now the thought of it gives me the screaming habdabs.
Do you mind helping me out with something? This is the first time I have seen it but I can see your Username but you publish as an Unknown on the blog. Shoot me a message if you can so we can figure this out.
In general, Unknowns are not allowed to post on the blog. However, you will be allowed to as long as I can see your Username.
Were I a Registrar, confronted by a large and very irate father who insisted I issue a certificate with dubious information that I knew I couldn't verify, I might just try to leave a clue that there was something wrong and hope he didn't notice. I couldn't very well endorse my signature with `Under Duress' which could otherwise save me legally.
In the absence of direction from my line manager, I might enter the details & forget to complete the process- I might save `save' and print out the doc. without clicking on `Add Authentication Stamp'. Then sign it and hope he'd go away.
Whoops, simple mistake, could have happened to anyone overcome with the excitement of the moment.
Were I a registrar, deputy or not, I would wrap the mantle of my bureaucratic position around me like armor, further bolstered by the counter/window separating me from the public and let a 'large, irate father' with or without HRH in front of his name rail and rant all he wanted. As he was foaming at the mouth, I might suggest that we ring the Palace and double-check the proper procedure for registering a Royal baby. Or he was free to rant ant rail at my manager if he insisted, but that I myself would not affix my signature to a document I knew or even suspected to be improper. Beyond improper, that could be actually criminal.
Not enough people in authority all the way up to Granny have ever told Harry no in his lifetime and that's why we are here now.
I'd certainly try the line manager for support, as long as there was one immediately available - given one or two managers I've had, I'd gladly let them perjure themselves. Perhaps I'd take the line of least resistance if violence were offered and I had no back up or easy way of calling the police. I'd want them out of the office as fast as possible.
Goodness knows what's really been going on.
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/tv/palace-confidential/51596/meghan-treats-the-palace-like-the-politburo
If it were the case that the DoS thinks that his Solicitor had behaved unprofessionally then that would be a matter for The Law Society as the governing body for that august group of men (and since 1919 women) known in England and Wales as Solicitors (i.e. Attorneys). That, however, has not been suggested.
The amended birth certificate was signed by the same D. Mevada on 21 January, yet she is meant to work at Redbridge. The very unusual surname,plus same initial and occupation can't be a coincidence. Maybe I'm getting too suspicious and reading too much into it but we're conditioned to view anything from the duo with suspicion.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dexsha-mevada-225868138
Thank you from me too. Hugh Vickers certainly has her number!
Thanks for the link -I got onto LinkedIn this time & found Ms Mevada at https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dexsha-mevada-225868138
As I thought, she was at Westminster at the critical time, the birth may/may not have taken place:
Specialist Registrar (Training and Compliance)
City of Westminster
Dec 2017 - Aug 2020 2 years 9 months
London, England, United Kingdom
Undoubtedly the same person.
Perhaps someone thought she's be the best person to explain what had happened, even though she was with a different employer? I thought the record I found the first time said she was just `Deputy Registrar' but perhaps I'm misremembering.
Could she have been moonlighting, amending all those blank forms for the commercial outfits to save Deputy Registrars the fuss of inserting the term themselves?
--------------
Well, Puds, were I smuggling a child in to the UK, with the resources she has, I wouldn't let the bag or whatever out of my sight. He could go as hand-baggage, as long as I found a way of getting him past Departure Security without being detected. Then onto a private jet, landing at a private airfield ( no need for the military - too many people involved) where arrivals' hand baggage isn't checked.
Or, remembering that Rache might brought him in when coming back from the `shower', when she was `pregnant' - who's going to pat her down or scan her? As long as the baby's quiet at the critical times and nobody hears her belly wailing, she's in the clear. Just `wear' the child when detection is possible but take him off on the plane.(Think wildlife smuggling).
Then again, `Archie' may still be in North America, never having left.
Yes, I know it's bonkers but remember who we're dealing with. She too might have read the Rebus story where Mr Big treats OAPs to trips to Spain by private plane, with them returning the favour by bringing in little packets for him. Who would think of OAPs as drugs mules, apart from John Rebus that is?
As Acquetaine has pointed out, wtte, if she tells the truth now, who's to believe her? She may not be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood.
Maybe I'm getting too suspicious and reading too much into it but we're conditioned to view anything from the duo with suspicion.
*
I hear ya. My Spidey senses are trigged at some things too... ;|
I'm out for now.
Couples using a surrogate from the US get custody of the child at birth. There is no cooling off period for the surrogate to change her mind.
In England, the surrogate has 6 months to change her mind and “keep” the child as the legal mother. I think that is one reason the Marquess of Bath and his wife, Emma, chose to use a “gestational carrier” from the US instead of England. (The marquess and his wife were both the biological parent of the child.)
"Couples using a surrogate from the US get custody of the child at birth. There is no cooling off period for the surrogate to change her mind."
I'm not an attorney but I'm not sure there are federal laws governing "surrogacy" births in the US. And state laws vary alot. But I am sure there are states that have laws such as you've described. Also there may be legal differences between "surrogacy" (as that may mean the surrogate's egg was used) and a "gestational carrier" (where the egg came from the intended mother.)
All is not what you see online, as we all know, but I'm glad that somebody is finally exposing the price of buying followers and using tight shots, claiming they are in exotic locations.
MM has used all of these tricks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9224105/The-tricks-used-aspiring-influencers-fake-way-fame.html
Comments are eking out here, I would have expected more, coupled with samantha’s memoir. The latter appears to be a somewhat denouement? Some here think the Markles, enfamille, are in on it. Could very well be. I admit to being discouraged but many rarity hereare buoying up the downwards. I do appreciate all the comments.
Now, if only my iPad would comply! I fear it’s been markled.
I’m sick to death of the birth cert news. Does it have merit, pack punch in any way? Or just more confusion? Does any of it matter? Is there A botttom line to which I can cling? Is is meaningless or does. It have import? At this time. I feeel a spent. I did google the Linkin format that registrar. Pictorially, she appeared biracial. Don’t know iiifts important at all...but she appeared to be isomeone to whom megs would adhered.
Typing on this thing is too much tonight. No more patience left. My slow, responding typing keys propel,me to word I would ever have imagagned.
My guess would be India, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Pakistan is perhaps less likely, it doesn't sound Arabic.
I may be quite wrong, of course.
------------
Perhaps there's an element of truth in both accounts of the certificate change for all that they appear to conflict. Did the Palace insist it was done but the H$Ms had to execute the paperwork?
I wonder if Rache has noticed?
If so, what sort of stunt can we expect?
Cheers Jocelyn - high praise indeed.
I’m megxhausted, scraping the bottom
of the suitcase here 😉
Megxcess Baggage
How do I love me
Let me count my ways
I love me, and no-one else,
don’t care what others say
I think of me throughout the day
Without a thought for whom I lay
My say, my day, my lay, My way
And making others pay, Oy Vey!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV6_w6__k7A
It asks `HAS MEGHANS INSURMOUNTABLE LIES LEAD TO IMPENDING DIVORCE FROM HARRY'
WildBoar
30 year anniversary of Megs dish soap address?
Fairy Queen of (soap) scum
“Vile green fairy wicked”
It was once said a class of kids had to write a sentence to show they understood the word `judicious'.
One wrote `Hands that judicious feel as soft as your face, with mild green Fairy Liquid'.
Goodness knows what Rache would've written. She can't tell the difference between `judicious' and `injudicious'.
Martha, those who ordered Sams book haven’t received it yet
There are a few people that have already received and read the book and have left reviews on Amazon UK and also a couple have commented on Samantha's twitter.
All positive so far!
Krakahoa - Lavalorn
The mirror crack’d from side to side
As Haz looked at his well worn bride
Wondering how it’d all gone wrong
He reached again for his beloved bong
All part of an elaborate sting
His fate was sealed with that bloody ring
Too late now, you silly boy
The bed you’ve made lacks love, and joy
Ah WildBoar, love it!!
She always looks like she needs a good
degreasing in fairy, or a spot of Dabitoff
stain remover!
It's amazing what one can do with soft filters if Pan-Stik isn't good enough.
Typo? A damn good scrubber!
As for Pan-Stick, aka Camouflage Harry!
@Natalier - thank you ☺️
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnS6nMwbkP0&feature=youtu.be
https://grandeguerrafvg.it/2021/02/05/samantha-markle-reveals-in-new-book-meghan-tried-to-get-her-father-to-disown-her-siblings/amp/
The Crock Mess Monster
From the banks of Orinoco
To the wilds of Timbuktu
There’s been recorded sightings
of a ‘thing’ called Meggy-Who?
Also known as ‘Bigfeet’
She’s found on land, or boat
Her giant hooves have managed
to keep her, just, afloat
If ever you encounter
The Yacumama monster
Have no fear
She’ll not come near
Unless she is on heat..
Wow, charade!
So Harry met Tom Snr??
Don’t know who/what to believe.
They hadn’t met prior to their
engagement video.
Come Christmas it was the “family she never had”
Something’s rotten in the state of Demmarkles!
I doubt Harry and Thomas met. I think Sam was fibbing and building intrigue on the show. It's just interesting to see that interview clip though.
Midden Family
What the hell is going on
Now Sam says that Haz met Tom?
I don’t know who to believe
Have we all been had, naive?
What a tangled web they weave
All a set up, to receive $$$
Yes, Magatha, what my mother would've called `a damn' good scrub'!
@Magatha
Typo? A damn good scrubber!
-----------
🤣 I was just about to write 'the scrubber needs a good scrub', then I read your post, Magatha!
Thanks charade 😘
Sam is a fool if she’s fibbing.
Discredits her book, won’t believe
anything she says.
Sisters are doin’ it to themselves!
I'm pretty sure I read (a long time ago) Sam claimed Tom had met Harry once. But then Tom said no and in the engagement interview H&M said no.
At the time, I had assumed it was possible Tom might have told Sam he'd met Harry because he was embarrassed to admit to her he hadn't. After all, he had obviously made his tendency to spoil and indulge M all of her life pretty clear to Sam. And there were pictures published of Doria with Harry.
Now I'm not sure what to think.
Hehehe Maneki, great minds... 😊
What do you make of Sams interview?
She says Meghan had told Thomas about meeting a prince about 6 months before Thomas told Samantha. That must have been before Thanksgiving in late November because Thomas told her that Harry had rented a house in Beverley Hills for Meghan and her parents for Thanksgiving. So, they must have met in May (as she said in that initial magazine interview when she had at last managed to out their relationship, but then got the magazine to change the date to June). In April, she was on holiday with the chef. The photo of her sitting on Cory's lap was taken in May.
https://www.tmz.com/2018/11/25/meghan-markle-kissing-ex-boyfriend-cory-vitiello-before-prince-harry/
So she did dump Cory when she met Harry. When she met up with Piers in London (June?) and coyly posted a photo of a bunch of flowers on her IG account, she already had her hooks into Harry.
There was no blind date? Why was she arranging a blind date with Harry when she was in a relationship with Cory and acting very much in love?
The scrub(ber) did cross my mind but I thought I'd leave the jokes for someone else this time.
What do you make of Sam's interview?
---------
I don't know what to make of it, Magatha. This was certainly not the official version but as with anything with Hairless and Hairy, you never know what to believe. I suppose this will be in Sam's book so will have to wait and see.
Meghan Markle dealt huge blow as her popularity drops below Camilla's
Research data and analyst group YouGov has released its latest results on a rolling poll focused on the popularity of the 15 most prominent members of the Royal Family. And, according to respondents polled between October and December 2020, Meghan is trailing behind Camilla - who had once been brutally dubbed the "most hated woman in Britain".
In the top 15 charts on the popularity of royals, Meghan now ranks 11th.
Among the 1,515 British adults interviewed, 32 percent have a positive opinion of the Duchess while 25 percent have a neutral one.
But a staggering 40 percent said to hold a negative opinion on the Duchess of Sussex.
Meghan appears to be more popular among millennials - people born between 1981 and 1996 - with 41 percent of the polled in this age bracket having a positive opinion of her.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/meghan-markle-dealt-huge-blow-as-her-popularity-drops-below-camilla-s/ar-BB1dpZt6
I'm surprised Megs ranks as high as 11th/14. The survey doesn't say who is behind. Megs won't mind, it' all 'noise'.
There are YouTube videos about people being convinced of things that are not true, see Derren Brown videos.
Udemy has courses in NLP. I may take the course. I don't care about being an influencer or making people do what I want them to do (well, I might try to get That Man to pick up his socks but after 44 years of marriage, I doubt it!) but I look upon it as a vaccine. If you know the tactics of manipulation/how to do it, you can recognize when it is being done to you and others. I believe that you would be immune to the manipulation* and could carefully* help those being influenced find their way back to reality.
*I also believe that person(s) trying to effect change via manipulating people's senses of reality could erupt in rage should somebody interfere with their machinations, hence the carefully warning.
After everything that has happened I think Harry was targeted by her and Anderson, I am sorry to say. I would believe she was absolutely still with Cory at the time but she would have had a narrow window of opportunity to get to Harry, so she had to strike when she could. Sickening.
You are looking upon it as a person with feelings/empathy for the feelings of others. I think Megs probably has a personality disorder that precludes her from having any feelings for anybody other than herself. If you look at it from her point of view, what she did was logical. What she does with her wallets (with men attached) is just like how you would trade in a vehicle that has left you stranded beside the road for a new shiny vehicle that will take you where you want to go. Trevor and Corey couldn't take her where she wanted to go, therefore they had to go. I think Harry will be discarded as soon as she finds another wallet as he's not working out.
To my knowledge there are no US Federal laws regarding gestational/surrogacy issues. These kinds of issues are usually determined at the State level according to our principles of Federalism. Further, there are two types of "legal systems" or "laws" in each State. There are State Statutes, or written laws, determined and signed into Law by the State Legislatures and the Governors, and there is the Common Law, which is law "developed on the basis of proceedings rulings by judges." I am sure it varies by State, but gestational/surrogacy issues are most likely a combination of State Statutes and Common Law. Usually, State Legislatures take up issues that are being adjudicated frequently in the court system and are in the public interest to codify into law.
Having said all of this, I know of no reputable fertility doctor or clinic that would use an ovum (unfertilized egg) from the surrogate. In other words, if the intended Mother's ovums are deemed non-viable, they would not be used in the IVF process. US fertility doctors/clinics will then use an "egg donor" and then a different individual as a gestational carrier or surrogate. Typically, the birth couple will never know the identity of the egg donor and the egg donor will never know what has happened to their donated eggs. Obviously, this is an important separation for most people. However, it might be legal in various States to arrange a private situation in which the surrogate provides the biological material, though I would imagine most fertility and law experts would strongly advise against this scenario.
Thanks for the legal info. It pretty much matches what I thought.
"Surrogate mother" at one time was used to mean the egg could come from the surrogate. But I admit, it's been an awful lots of years since that was true. So I shouldn't have implied it was currently used that way.
I have read that H&M met when she bumped into him (physically) at a SoHo house and it was arranged by Anderson, who knew Harry would be there. I don't know if this is true, but he commented during the engagement interview something like "this woman literally fell into my life" or something I found strange. It didn't make sense for their "blind date" story, and then they refused to say who the person was that set them up.
After everything that has happened I think Harry was targeted by her and Anderson, I am sorry to say. I would believe she was absolutely still with Cory at the time but she would have had a narrow window of opportunity to get to Harry, so she had to strike when she could. Sickening.
*
So much has been said it's hard to distinguish fact from fiction.
I believe Meghan Markle is nothing less than a slapper who was yachting/trolling for rich men, calculatingly met Haps as a client then went to work on him to make him more. Something super questionable went on there to the point that the BRF are on over drive (internally) to rid themselves of the woman.
I have no doubt Markus Anderson was part of the plotting. Why is he so silent these days? Did BP pay him off? We did say that about Samantha too though. And here she is now with her book. I hope she continues to chew her sister and Harry a new one because someone has to do it to the point that they are declared commoners by BP. Like that will ever happen. No nepotism there, right? Harry can do now wrong with his Gran. That brat should have been shown the wood shed at an early age. As well as his repulsive wife. They both are highly spoiled.
I also believe BP knew who she is, had her thoroughly investigated, knew they couldn't stop Haps from marrying her and had their secret service people scrub the internet, though I've seen some mighty nasty shots of her (not the typical burger gilling variety but borderline porn). It's beyond disgusting how she was even allowed into the gates of BP,
She should have been ushered OUT as fast as she was ushered in.
IMO of course...
(next time I'll say what I'm really thinking lol). :D
You are looking upon it as a person with feelings/empathy for the feelings of others. I think Megs probably has a personality disorder that precludes her from having any feelings for anybody other than herself. If you look at it from her point of view, what she did was logical. What she does with her wallets (with men attached) is just like how you would trade in a vehicle that has left you stranded beside the road for a new shiny vehicle that will take you where you want to go. Trevor and Corey couldn't take her where she wanted to go, therefore they had to go. I think Harry will be discarded as soon as she finds another wallet as he's not working out.
I think you are probably right, though it's going to be ultra-tough for Mugsy to glom onto another willing target after Harry, methinks. Her 'sex kitten' persona had just about passed its expiry date when she hooked up with Harry. She was already 35 and it was a bit unclear exactly how many 35th birthdays she'd already had. It's been a hard-living 5 years since then, and we've seen the unretouched photos. Chickie has to buy her hair and her teeth and all the sun damage, heavy drinking and drug use has come home to roost. She might still look pretty good to some decaying multimillionaire, but for Meg to be deemed 'young and sexy' by her next mark, he'll likely be in the 65+ age group. If David Foster were single . . .
Mugs thinks she's going to trade Harry in for, say, David Beckham, or similar . . nyet. Everybody's onto her. Some of the professionally styled photos from the Suits/Tig/Reitmans era were not unattractive. The Mugsy of 10-15 years ago was a cute, if unexceptional, girl who looked like she could be going places, if she kept her expectations rather modest. Many, many unexceptionally pretty, lightly talented women with aspirations to show business would have been thrilled with featured roles on two TV series, a national modeling contract for a department store chain and a modestly successful lifestyle blog. Meg was also adored and catered to by a couple of men who were successful in their own rights and weren't bad looking, either. But M's problem is that her reach has always exceeded her grasp; she's got absolutely no realistic perception of her own abilities. When she was an obscure, striving starlet, she had earned herself a difficult and unpopular reputation in much smaller circles, but by grabbing the brass ring with the BRF the way she has, she's outed herself as the cult failure of the century. She's not a high-level enough Narc to have pulled this off. She's Markle'd herself. We are still waiting for the final fall, but it's coming.
Have you seen Super Sleuths Emz & Taz with an alternative, and plausible, view of what might have happened?
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-search-sa&ei=UTF-8&p=according+to+taz#id=57&vid=5347cb15743e739fabb10b570ec4a3c1&action=view
Title: `By Jove, We believe we have cracked the mystery behind Megxit and Archie'
It's almost 4 weeks old but how did we not pick up on it?
Remember it's all speculation strictly for entertainment.
Theme: H got another woman knocked up & the real Archie is his son, in UK. Divorce is on the way.
You can believe it or not but it's food for thought. It's an elegant hypothesis, cutting neatly through all the knots and tangles we have been trying to unpick - and it was published before the news about the change in the certificate. So much suddenly slips into place and it seems to make sense.
I'd doesn't, however, throw light on whether M has mixed motives regarding her role. Also, the dash to the altar could be explained solely by the requirements of a Spousal Visa issued in anticipation of a wedding.
Go figure!
I can see Meghan doing something like this (but I don't know if the exact same process of choosing a donor and the sex of the baby is allowed in America), but the one thing she cannot control is if she carries a baby full-term or miscarries.
A fortune teller in LA, many years ago, told her she would marry a wealthy and famous foreigner and she would gave a daughter. She doesn't connect with Archie. She wants a daughter and to be featured in glossy magazine spreads with her, like Beyonce and Blue Ivy! Will she have this daughter with Harry or the next man? Will she eventually go the designer route and use a surrogate?
Among others here, you have such a wonderful way with words. I greatly enjoyed your last post ... brilliant ... and I agree.
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall ...
@lizzie and brown-eyed:
“To my knowledge there are no US Federal laws regarding gestational/surrogacy issues.”
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that there are no US federal laws. There were several really horrible Solomon-like custody battles in the US when using surrogates first began. I believe that resulted in tighter laws in favor of the adoptive couple. In the US, I think it would be very hard for a surrogate or gestational carrier to retain a baby, instead of sticking to the plan and giving it up at birth.
The Queen will probably give the honorary military titles to Anne or William. Patronages such as the National Theatre, which was stolen from Prince Edward, will likely be given to Edward, Sophie and Kate (the latter is still too lazy, and needs to be seen working more, and rewearing her clothes as often as Anne and Sophie). Anything else, like take away HRHs and Dukedoms would bring out cries of racism, and Andrew will again be a problem. He has been laying low. He broke no laws. After all, I was at a Billy Joel and Paul McCartney concert in the states, and the biggest applause came when they sang “She was Just Seventeen, You Know What I Mean”. Gross today, but okay a few years ago?
By some miracle the aged Queen listens to her people, and remembers duty before family, she would, as I once wrote, put the Shamus HRHs and Sussex Dukedom in a cupboard, holding a key that will lock the titles up forever if the two brats continue to lie, cheat and steal, which is already their way of life. They can only harm themselves. I believe 100 percent that they lie about Archie, but he looks unfortunately too much like the Shamus. Surrogacy explains everything, from his awful name, no title, and the fake pregnancy.
So, my first points/questions, in no particular order:
No surrogacy – a naturally-conceived child, born naturally of H’s loins with an unknown woman’s womb?
(I recall a report that `Archie is safe and well and with the family that loves him’)
Nowadays, I’d expect the general reaction to the news that H had an illegitimate child would be something along the lines of `You stupid boy’ –
https://walmington.proboards.com/thread/1773/realise-pike-stupid-boy
Harry as Private Pike, perhaps?
For various reasons, did H resist family pressure to make an honest woman of the mother?
Or did the mother-to-be decide she was better off without him?
Was H on the rebound when he met Rache?
Was the supposed baby sired by H, mother another woman, born at the Portland Hospital, or elsewhere, at some time? Nothing to do with M? So she has no claim to him?
Did H reveal, when in his cups at Soho House, that he needed to marry someone, anyone, to resist pressure to marry the mother of his child?
Or to ease the pain of being dumped?
Did Markus pick up on it? Know somebody who would like to destroy the monarchy for their own political/financial reasons? (Who might get rich pickings if we became a republic?)
Rache’s behaviour can be seen as raging narcissism in action but does it play into the hands of those who would happily see UK suffer, as long as it's to their advantage?
Might there be a divorce soon?
What if Rache is revealed as not being A's mother? Would she release her grip on H?
I'm sure we can pick holes in these ideas but let's run with it for a bit and see if it takes us anywhere.
Thanks for the kind words!
Wild Boar,
I watched Taz & Emz' video theory about the origins of Archie. It isn't implausible, and would in fact eliminate a lot of the more 'sci-fi' elements of the surrogacy rumor . . Eg. Meg contracting some other woman to be implanted with Meg's egg and sperm from . . .Markus Anderson? (Who'd be extra desireable as the daddy if he were the secret love child of Prince Andrew and therefore 'Royal') .. Or Harry's, but he'd have had to make a contribution at the clinic well before the wedding and I don't see that as plausible.
So, my first points/questions, in no particular order:
No surrogacy – a naturally-conceived child, born naturally of H’s loins with an unknown woman’s womb?
(I recall a report that `Archie is safe and well and with the family that loves him’)
Nowadays, I’d expect the general reaction to the news that H had an illegitimate child would be something along the lines of `You stupid boy’
The only kink in the 'secret love child' theory from my point of view is, granted, Harry is a prince of the realm and a baby born on the wrong side of the sheets is not a desirable outcome. But the Royals have had centuries of practice at paying off mistresses and quietly paying for the rearing of these offspring, sometimes even to the point of acknowledging them and giving them titles, even (Henry VIII's son by Bessie Blount comes to mind, but there were others) . . only, it was 2018, and Harry was just not constitutionally relevant any more, since his brother had his heir and two spares. I don't think in our modern day and age particularly, that a prince would be compelled to marry someone who he had gotten in the family way. I mean, they never did so before ..even back when the Church still meant something to most people. They would quietly make sure the mother of Harry's child had a very nice life in exchange for her silence, and maybe a hastily arranged marriage to some available man who would benefit from the Palace owing him a favor.
For various reasons, did H resist family pressure to make an honest woman of the mother?
Or did the mother-to-be decide she was better off without him?
The irony is quite delicious really . . . It's entirely possible that Harry might have knocked up some barfly party girl whose name he didn't even know during some wild weekend, of which, it must be said, he's had many. Who's to say it hasn't happened before, many times? There are rumors of a love child in the States as a result of the infamous Las Vegas weekend . . a wee incriminating souvenir the Palace and MI5 heavies were unable to retrieve, perhaps. I don't know about that. But it seems like if this sort of thing were to happen to Harry, it would have happened when he was younger and they would have married him off then.
The irony is in BP thinking, 'Oh, but this barfly girl isn't suitable! She's from the lower classes! Maybe she was even, gasp, the barmaid herself. He must have a more suitable wife, someone who can represent us better in our Royal work! . . .And then they got Mugsy who is exactly the type of wild barfly partygirl that Haz is perpetually attracted to. Of course, she misrepresented herself as a well-educated, world-travelled polyglotal philanthropist with multiple degrees from a prestigious university, and a wealthy, sophisticated, classy self-made professional woman. If the BRF really thought they were getting a more exotic West Coast version of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, boy, did they let themselves get taken for a ride. They should have known better, considering all the dirt they had to sweep under the carpet re. her past.
Any woman but Rache was better off without Harry, so if there is a baby mama out there, she made the right call.
Was H on the rebound when he met Rache?
I think Harry is remarkably similar to Rache in that he is really only capable of deep and unconditional love for himself. Of all the women he's known, I think only Chelsy really meant anything to him on a deeper level. I think it's only been Chelsy that he ever proposed to, before Smeg (if he ever actually did propose to It) .. and he hurt her, badly. I don't think he was serious about Cressida. She was beautiful, an actress/model, with the added bonus of being from an aristocratic background and more like the type of girl the Firm thought he 'should' be with. On paper, the best of both worlds. But that didn't last either. Apart from these two, all his 'relationships' have been brief, shallow affairs based on partying and hooking up. So who could he have been rebounding from? Sarah Anne Macklin is the gorgeous brunette (younger) model who was part of the yachting circle with Meg--at least, they are pictured together in that group shot on a yacht. Supposedly, Harry was seeing Sarah Anne and Meg concurrently. If this were Sarah Anne's baby, I think we'd have heard about it since she's something of a celeb in her own right.
In one of her last few vlogs, Princess Tiffany put up an image of Violet von Westerholtz and the pregnant lady in brown velvet who was by herself at The Harkle's wedding. MM threw a look of recognition her way as the Harkles passed by her.
The photos of Violet and the pregnant lady in brown have very, very similar facial features. Princess Tiffany believes they may be the same person, and that the woman was The Harkle's surrogate.
Just a thought, but the two women do look very similar.
So Harry DID go meet Thomas. When did this proposed meeting take place? I thought they had just spoken on the phone.
Even though I enjoy following the disaster that is H&M, you get so tired of it too. Meghan's victimizing all of us too! Constant games, constant lies, misdirection, bullshit frankly.
There needs to be a support group for us. I guess that's what this blog is! Oh and it creeps me out to think of ol Meghan reading these and other blogs. I imagine her like the wicked stepmother in Snow White reading into her magic mirror (well, her computer) with that hood and crown on and that terrible smirk/scowl. She loves Disney soo much maybe she should have signed on to star as one of the villianesses.
Meghan Markle wants. She wants to go down in history as the HRH Duchess of Sussex. Without the title, Meghan Markle is nothing more than one of the thousands of ageing actresses from LA with little or no talent.
The worst thing that could happen to her, in her mind, would be for the world to continue to call her Meghan Markle for eternity. No "former HRH," etc., just little old Meghan Markle, daughter of Thomas Markle and Doria Ragland.
Did H reveal, when in his cups at Soho House, that he needed to marry someone, anyone, to resist pressure to marry the mother of his child?
Or to ease the pain of being dumped?
If Rache is not the biological mother, it would certainly explain why the child we know as Archie has zero, and I mean zero, African features at all. Rache was a very fair child, considering her mixed heritage. She is very pale for a half-black girl. She is NOT as pale as Harry and his family, and before she did everything possible to alter herself into a facsimile of 'an Italian girl' with surgery and cosmetic aids .. she had an African nose and the most riotous curly Afro hair ever seen. Rachel's baby could certainly be pale, but I don't believe that he would have escaped that hair texture. There would be a hint of it at least. The tyke does resemble Harry as a toddler and there's also the brown eyes, the strabismus and a decided hint of Tom Markle that seems to hint at Rache being involved. But I just don't know. Could the dark eyes, the identical eye abnormality to hers and the resemblance to her father all be coincidences? *All* of them? A Narc like her would definitely demand ownership of this project, even if someone else was used as the vessel. It's a conundrum.
I think chances may actually be fair to good that one or both of them are infertile. Do you recall during the engagement interview they talked about wanting to be the first Royals to adopt? I suspected, given her age, and possible history featuring multiple terminations or a possible sterilization procedure when she was younger--when she was with Trevor she adamantly did not want to get pregnant since she was all about her career. What if she took steps to ensure she wouldn't, and that's when she had her eggs harvested--'for later'? When, boom! she put the story about that she, advanced maternal age and all had fallen pregnant effortlessly 6 weeks after her wedding, the adoption stuff had been forgotten.
I view that 'adopting some kids' comment as exploratory on her part. When she was told categorically that adopted children could never be part of the succession, her wheels started turning in another direction.
Also, if Archie is Harry's child via some secret woman, and the Markle marriage was rushed through as a result . . Archie would have to be over 3 years old now. If the mother was expecting during the engagement period, she'd have had to conceive in the spring or summer of 2017. Or even a year earlier, when the HAMS ostensibly 'met'. Right?
People are always commenting on the 'rushed engagement/rushed marriage'. The relationship may have been rushed and the wedding certainly looked like it was poorly-planned and last-minute, but H & M had a very standard (by Royal standards) 6-month long engagement, from November to the following May. By contrast, Charles and Diana's engagement was somewhat shorter by at least two weeks, February - July. And if the HAMS did see each other for at least a year on and off prior to that, they certainly clocked more time together as a couple pre-wedding than Charles and Diana had--Harry's parents had only had a handful of chaperoned dates--10, 12?--before they were engaged.
So, if a woman was out there expecting Harry's baby in 2016 or 2017, she certainly would have given birth long before Markle announced her own pregnancy. Unless Haz got someone else pregnant during the engagement or right after the wedding--precipitating the rush to announce in huge maternity coat just four months after the Harkle wedding and the preoccupation with looking so large so soon. If Rachel couldn't have her own baby, maybe she even wanted this to happen? All the attention for being pregnant while someone else did the work--someone in London, to aid the ruse and get her a baby? Sourcing the Sussex baby from North America always seemed more risky .. but why else hold the 'NYC baby shower' (and go out with a flat stomach during it)?
I think you are probably right, though it's going to be ultra-tough for Mugsy to glom onto another willing target after Harry, methinks. Her 'sex kitten' persona had just about passed its expiry date when she hooked up with Harry. She was already 35 and it was a bit unclear exactly how many 35th birthdays she'd already had........' by her next mark, he'll likely be in the 65+ age group.
Mugs thinks she's going to trade Harry in for, say, David Beckham, or similar . . nyet. Everybody's onto her.
Not Nyet. Megsy might be able to clamp onto a Russian oligarch type or some other very wealthy foreigner who wants an easy path to legal residency/green card, or even better, citizenship in the US. Marry Megsy and this is made much easier. Lots of Russians in her home town of Los Angeles, South Florida too. A 44 year old Megsy might look quite good to such a man, with the bonus that Megsy will be past her child bearing years so cannot bug him (Oligarch, what have you) about this.
She would get pre-nupped to death, but what the heck is what she would think. "I will get a more luxurious lifestyle than with Hapless dunce who screwed up me Netflix and Spotify deals, so that now I am nearly penniless" "I might have to live in Mexico like my father"
I firmly believe they met at Toronto Soho House while she was still living with Cory
*
Yeah, this is the trolling part of my comment. Is it true SoHo houses are glorified Ho Ho houses?
Something stinks in Denmark, for sure.
@Yankee Doodle,
Let's not forget, You're Sixteen by Ringo Starr. I LOVE the Beatles but that one has not aged well- the song not Ringo-he's dope for his age.
@WBBM,
Harry's bastaaad. Well that's quite the thought!!
Perhaps something happened that wasn't consensual?
Then she'd be *very* well compensated to not have the police involved, I think, but I doubt that she'd want *anything* to do with Harry or his family. I don't think she would want to produce "Archie" to save Harry's butt.
Rache’s behaviour can be seen as raging narcissism in action but does it play into the hands of those who would happily see UK suffer, as long as it's to their advantage?
Might there be a divorce soon?
What if Rache is revealed as not being A's mother? Would she release her grip on H?
Markle is too much of a self-serving disaster to have been selected and groomed for a high-level mission of political espionage such as this, I have concluded. She is just so messy, so amateur and focused on herself that she just isn't capable of taking orders as such a plan would require. had she been a highly evolved special forces calibre operative, she could do this sleeper agent thing--but this kind of plot takes years to finesse and Rachel is far too impatient and childish. Far from destroying the monarchy, she's destroying herself and her one link to the Royal life--Harry.
Rachel did manage to be at the right place at the right time, with the right set of attributes to both entice Harry (her skills at salad-tossing and love bombing manipulation) and sell herself to the RF as just want they needed in the 21st century--her all-powerful biracial card. She did adhere to a cunning plan to 'catch' Harry for a number of years, it seems--but her end goal was always to promote and enrich herself. To have been recruited by powerful backers with a political agenda and to agree would demonstrate more of an outward focus and big-picture thinking than she's got. Markus was useful in snagging Harry . . he was a very important connection seeing as he introduced them or created the atmosphere by which it would happen. But his part in this melodrama is now concluded, I think. If he's part of the NWO, he's just a minion, a 'fixer', not the brains of the movement.
The once-in-a-lifetime disaster that is Harry and Megs together needed a lot of serendipity to come about. But as a honey trap, I think she was only working for herself.
If there is a divorce, I doubt it will be Harry's idea. His family may force his hand there and extract him from the Claw because he himself cannot. They may be able to come up with some astronomical settlement figure that would make her go away--if there is anything untoward about Archie and how he got here, and the family knows about it, they can always threaten her with exposure if she talks .. or refuses to release Harry. She still wants to be a 'brand' on her own. If she becomes revealed as the woman who faked a pregnancy and a whole kid on the world stage--for money and press--she will be reviled the world over.
Whatever happens, I think the RF will be paying her off for life. William may not want to play ball, but look at the hurtful lies she has already told about him. She's a viper--either they keep her well-fed and quiet or she's dangerous.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-meghan-markles-staff-23446849
More stories about Archie's birth... Is it possible certain parties want to draw attention back to the birth for reasons. Can Harry tolerate this type of scrutiny when he wants to keep his military roles and should be answerable to the public in such a role?
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210205106253/the-queen-big-news-change-team-new-lord-chamberlain/
This is a very interesting development... Lord Peel is retiring Mar 31 and is being replaced by Andrew Parker. IMO The timing of installing a man with nearly four-decades of MI5 experience around when Harry comes to visit seems significant. I think Wills is behind this appointment and wants to make the message clear to everyone especially his baby brother that a new era of more iron fists will be managing the BRF.
Not Nyet. Megsy might be able to clamp onto a Russian oligarch type or some other very wealthy foreigner who wants an easy path to legal residency/green card, or even better, citizenship in the US. Marry Megsy and this is made much easier. Lots of Russians in her home town of Los Angeles, South Florida too. A 44 year old Megsy might look quite good to such a man, with the bonus that Megsy will be past her child bearing years so cannot bug him (Oligarch, what have you) about this.
She would get pre-nupped to death, but what the heck is what she would think.
If Mugsy thinks she can con some billionaire Russian into marrying her, he's welcome to her. I think she'd definitely go for a Russian over some Saudi Arabian playboy--the Saudis like 'em young, though . . and frankly, so do the Russians. If Meg is telling the truth about her age, she'll be 40 on her next birthday and probably several more birthdays will go by before she's entirely finished with Harry and the RF. It's not so much the age as the mileage with our Mugsy. She's a very rode hard 40+. If she gave birth (which I doubt highly) she'd be stretch-marked and even less appealing on that score. She'd be competing with legions of 20 and 30 somethings buzzing around this fictional oligarch. She may think of herself as still in her 20s, but the contrast to girls who are actually still in their 20s would reveal the truth. I don't think a Russian oligarch would settle for her, really. If he needs a green card and he lives in L.A. or South Florida or even Minneapolis, there are tons of American girls 15 years younger than Mugsy who look better in bathing suits. To be tempting as a purveyor of green card status, she'd have to move to Moscow and do her oligarch hunting there.
Actually if Meg could procure herself an oligarch husband after Harry, that could be an answer to the RF's dilemma. If she attempts to skim money from bank accounts or take a boy toy while married to a Russian . .he's not going to treat her with the kid gloves she's gotten all her life from men and the Royal family. She will find herself more than pre-nupped to death. It will be a bit messier.
Though if she's successful, she'd better not mess around on him, or she'd find herself not just pre-nupped to death.
The Queen hires former MI5 director for big job at the palace
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210205106253/the-queen-big-news-change-team-new-lord-chamberlain/
This is a very interesting development... Lord Peel is retiring Mar 31 and is being replaced by Andrew Parker. IMO The timing of installing a man with nearly four-decades of MI5 experience around when Harry comes to visit seems significant. I think Wills is behind this appointment and wants to make the message clear to everyone especially his baby brother that a new era with more iron fists will be managing the BRF.
*
Ooooh yes this is great! I totally agree Wills would do that!
and,
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's staff 'in tears of frustration' over Archie birth row
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-meghan-markles-staff-23446849
More stories about Archie's birth... Is it possible certain parties want to draw attention back to the birth for reasons. Can Harry tolerate this type of scrutiny when he wants to keep his military roles and should be answerable to the public in such a role?
*
Great question!
That would stymie his plans of jockeying for his former military roles. I love a good monkey wrench in the engine scenario ;D
Thanks for the links!
Do you think there might be a difference in our response to H's hypothetical `antics' if the bit about it being a member of staff who got la*d (or even r*ped?) were true?
It brings in questions of inappropriate behaviour of a boss towards employees, exploiting a position of power in a very unequal relationship, duty of care and so on, even if the relationship was affectionate. If he jumped on her that's very nasty indeed.
Then again, we don't know what the other party's attitude towards abortion might be.
We did wonder a long time ago if M had got hold of a piece of information about H's misdeeds and that was the weapon of blackmail. Maybe not m*rder or a death when something went wrong but a s*xual attack.
Also, the dash to the altar could be explained solely by the requirements of a Spousal Visa issued in anticipation of a wedding.
-----------
From www.gov.uk:
To apply as a partner...
You and your partner must intend to live together permanently in the UK after you apply.
You must be able to prove one of the following:
* you’re in a civil partnership or marriage that’s recognised in the UK
* you’ve been living together in a relationship for at least 2 years when you apply
* you are a fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner and will marry or enter into a civil partnership in the UK within 6 months of arriving
Food for thought?
Samantha Markle's book tells the poignant story family dynamics where one sibling tries to outdo and outshine the others. That sibling is Meghan Markle, and this enlightening book tells the painful tale of her long history of manipulating and using those who were closest to her. The story was an insightful and inspiring tale of how Samantha was able to overcome the divisive behavior of her sister.
---------
I’ve watched the page count on the pre-release go from 330 pages to today’s 273 so the attorneys must have been hard at work.
----------
I did mention yesterday that a commenter in the DM said the book has lost 140 pages. Yes, the attorneys must have been hard at work.
Has anyone read the book?
Heather Wong is no longer working with Harry.
@Charade said,
The Queen hires former MI5 director for big job at the palace
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210205106253/the-queen-big-news-change-team-new-lord-chamberlain/
Lets face it, Charles and Her Majesty are not aggressive when it comes to Hapless and his faux Duchess. The grey men must have arranged this amazing hire. When this news reaches Montecito, Megs and Hapless are going to get very paranoid. I sure would. I have posted that the grey men are under-paid, so they need to get their laughs and giggles.
Megs should get very concerned that well trained British agents will swoop down on Montecito 3AM to spirit Harry and meal ticket Arch back to England via private jet. Hahaha.
__________
"In a statement, the palace revealed that Lord Parker of Minsmere KCB will take on the new role as the senior officer of the royal household."
"Andrew David Parker, Baron Parker of Minsmere, KCB (born 1962) is a former British intelligence officer who served as Director General of MI5 until 2020, the Security Service, which is the United Kingdom's domestic security and counter-intelligence agency.
Andrew Parker, Baron Parker of Minsmere - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Parker_of_Minsmere"
Everyone remember when a lot of this drama was going on that William made those visits to the MI5 offices?