I came here to write about yesterday's announcement from the Sussexes that they are expecting a second child.
Having done a bit of background reading about what's been said, however, I cannot do much better than today's piece in the Spectator UK by Joanna Williams, The stage-managed world of Harry and Meghan.
Williams notes that the announcement has very interesting timing, just a few days after Meghan's surprise victory in her case against the Daily Mail.
"I’m confused. Am I allowed to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Sussex or not? Should I feel guilty about poring over the details of their latest announcement? Am I somehow breaching their privacy when I read that their pregnancy photo was taken remotely, via an iPad, by a friend? Because Harry and Meghan are all about privacy, no?....Congratulations Harry and Meghan. I really hope someone asks the Duchess of Sussex if she is OK this time around. But please, spare us the birth story details. And if you must share every intimate moment, just don’t complain when the public expects to know more."
Toronto Paper Returns
And there was also a comment from longtime Twitter troll Toronto Paper1, who may or may not have inside information about the Sussexes:
Darling, another moon bump show? Still haven't learned about the sizes? At least this time you probably will get the baby legally although he won't have a title, but neither will you for much longer.
Taking a photo by remote iPad
Finally, what's with the bizarre fiction that the black-and-white (of course) pregnancy photo was taken remotely via an iPad by a friend thousands of miles away, supposedly during a relaxed video chat.
Photographer Missan Harriman supposedly
noted that Meghan and Harry were 'so comfortable chatting and being in the moment that they were not fully aware that he was shooting a piece of history', in the words of British Vogue (as quoted in the Daily Mail)
Could anyone possibly be so gullible enough to believe this is true? First of all, they're quite well dressed for a video chat with a friend - if, in fact, Harriman is actually a friend. Nice of them to match the tone of Meghan's dress with Harry's shirt for a totally casual video chat.
Secondly, the picture is very well-composed, with the lovely "tree of life" in the background. When you're doing a video chat with a friend, do you generally make room in the frame for a giant tree of life? As the Daily Mail helpfully points out, the tree takes up 2/3 of the picture.
And the picture is composed very nicely, with its fork right in the center of the shot...almost like a professional photographer would frame it, intentionally.
The Sussexes' favorite photo tropes
Finally, the image repeats several of the Sussexes' favorite tropes, for example the laughing! laughing! laughing! while we are looking at each other because we are so! incredibly! happy!
There's the bare feet sticking straight towards the camera - last seen in the first, strange, Archie photo. There's the inevitable Meg bump-fondling.
And there's Harry slightly above Meg, as seen again and again and again on their @SussexRoyal Instagram. Is Meg trying to make the point that she does not, in fact, dominate her husband, as so many people believe?
What I think really happened
My guess: Harriman was sent by British Vogue to California to do a photo session.
But that wasn't something the Sussexes wanted to publicize given the ongoing COVID lockdowns - particularly since California governor Gavin Newsom now faces a recall based on his own flaunting of the COVID rules. So this ridiculous fiction of a remote-controlled iPad was invented.
More plausible would have been a story that the Sussexes did it themselves with a self-timed camera at home, but I suppose Harriman wanted the credit (and the income) from the shot.
How silly they are.
Comments
It will be interesting to see the difference in births etc. Will they announce hospital/physicians or will baby magically appear (many celebrities name hospital, physician etc. Many do not).
No easel I'm guessing! And if one does appear will it have names of physicians?
Bet Oprah knew before the Queen!
IF Archie was surrogate he is technically not allowed in the line of succession. Now that he has a brother or sister on the way (if true and of her body) that's really going to throw a spanner in things for the BRF.
No title for this baby either?
Finally, if that white dress was from when she was pregnant with Archie, it just tells me that no is offering her maternity merching money.
"Lizzie, the HAMs seem to think anything can be done by remote (control) it seems."
Good point. I hadn't considered that.
I looked up COVID accommodations for COE baptisms and it doesn't seem to allow Zoomed ones but for the Sussexes... Maybe Welby can help make that happen for the oh so spiritual Meghan :--)
I wonder if she wants a get with the Shamus. If anybody can do it, Oprah can, or maybe another time. But she will somehow spill the beans first on the faux Shamus.
Many thanks for the props
I dropped prime Magatha Verse
At the top of my own
For the
Grey Men of the Crown
Who are not down
They got MI6 at their beckon'
To stop Meg/H wrecking
Fate's crossroads in June
With Q and Charles
More H money quarrels
Will come no money crutch
From the Duchy
@Magatha
Thanks fore bearing with me
Oprah, now a days, is nothing to brag about. She's another one i hope the truth comes out some day.
"Oprah and Tom Cruise were considered to be very close friends. At a pre-airing, taped interview, Oprah looked exactly like the cat with the canary in her mouth. You could practically see the feathers when she smiled at what was one of the best interviews she ever gave. Discussing his love for Katie Holmes, Cruise went whacko, and started jumping up and down on a couch, then jumping to a chair, still screaming “I love her!!! I love her!!!” Over and over again, with Oprah sitting there, with her smirk. Cruise begged and pleaded to Winfrey not to have this part of the interview be shown, his people kept on with the pressure, but Oprah knew this would be her biggest catch."
At this point in Tom Cruise's career, Oprah could get away with doing this to him because with maximum hubris and that church whispering in his ear, Tom had fired his dragon PR lady, Pat Kingsley because he could do better.
Pat Kingsley is a legend in Hollywood. She's retired now. During her career, she pioneered the Kind of tactics Meghan is trying to copy. Total control of the media except for what she wants released. She made sure her tentacles reached into all branches of entertainment so that if anyone broke rank even if they were studio executives, she ruined their careers. And if a journalist or tv personality dared reveal anything about her clients even if it was positive, she went after them, their tv company, their publisher, network or studio. She insisted on copy approval. She insisted on red carpet 'fans' approval.
The joke was that Pat Kingsley was the true ruler of Hollywood and everyone was scared of her.
All those spontaneous moments of Cruise on a red carpet where he talked to particular 'fans' or had a picture taken were orchestrated by Pat. All questions known in advance and all answers supplied by Pat.
And if you crossed her, you and your publication / network / studio were forever banned from her other clients which included all the top A listers in Hollywood.
None of her clients interviewed live, and all interviews had to be edited by her people before they went out.
Under her watch, that Tom Cruise couch jumping incident would never have made it to air and if Oprah had ignored her and aired it regardless, Oprah would have been blacklisted.
Until Tom fired her, his image was as fake as Harry's army hero image. No one dared cross Pat. He was the golden goose in her stable. No one wrote anything negative about him. No one dared pap him. It was all praise Tom or weird stories of Tom rescuing bystanders caught in traffic thus proving how down to earth he was.
Then his church talked him into firing Pat in favour of them covering him.
Disaster. Major disaster.
That's when the world saw the real Tom because the media / studios / networks were not afraid of him anymore. His dragon lady was gone. They could reveal the real Tom.
The public was so shocked they rationalised it away by saying Tom had just gone crazy or his love of Kate had turned him crazy.
After afew years of bad publicity, Tom went back begging to Pat except she'd decided to retire so he joined the next best thing - a newly formed agency staffed by ex-Pat employees.
Tom was protected again. The negative Tom stories stopped. It's very rare to get a negative Tom story these days. The fact that it still happens shows how much power Tom lost when he fired Pat.
And no one has replaced Pat.
https://deadline.com/2009/01/end-of-an-era-pat-kingsley-exits-pmkhbh-8181/
Plus an interview she gave in retirement
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pat-kingsley-finally-talks-tom-664535
"@Acquitaine
I admire your wealth of knowledge in so many areas!
What is it that you do? Are you a historian, in government, in advertising or are you involved with PR?
You are the font of all knowledge!"
Thank you JennS. I'm really touched.
I'm really not that knowledgeable. Just incorrigibly nosy and OCD about information which i never seem to forget easily.
I do love history though. Particularly social history. So much fun or tragic depending on how it turned out.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14058919/meghan-markle-turned-her-life-into-cheesy-hollywood-film/
This is a very entertaining article! Arthur Edwards really has Meg pegged and doesn't hold back.
"When she gave birth for the first time, Archie was almost teething before we knew he’d been born."
Mr. Edwards also hints at questions surrounding the Sussexes that need to be answered.
He states:
"Even after last week’s High Court privacy case there are still lots of questions about that day. (the wedding)
Why didn’t Harry meet her father, make peace and persuade him to go to the wedding?
If she’d have wanted that to happen it would have. Meghan didn’t want it."
Yes, you are correct I was reading on a phone.
I did see your article post (thanks!) and did read it. I thought it was very interesting. But my eyesight isn't all that great especially when I'm tired. So I guess I didn't read it all because I missed the part that said Harry's mental health collaboration with O was just to draw them in for this kind of interview. I did remember the Doria/Oprah connection near the wedding but even back then, I wasn't sure who was playing who (because I wasn't buying the Saint Doria stuff.)
Do keep posting Times stuff please! I can't get behind the pay wall.
You're right- that is a very entertaining article. He definitely has her number.
I did read your Times article and also the one from the Times on Meghan's possible future in politics - the thought of which makes me cringe. I really appreciate the posting of articles- often I can't read them because I don't have a subscription to the particular paper. There has been so much coming in these past days that I find it hard to keep up with it all and haven't commented on anything. No offense intended to anyone- there is so much interesting information and I love the avatars- always look for the new changes. And me- I haven't figured out to do one for myself yet!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9271841/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-Meghan-royal-duties-didnt-understand.html
It's bloody brilliant!!!
I've just looked, the article is very long. I don't think it'll disappear.
Critical articles DO have a habit of disappearing sometimes!
I have a real life drama going on here at the moment so don't have the time to copy it.
It's the first day of Lent, and I'm here, having tossed this particular resolution to the winds. Too much happening in Harkleville, and Lent's not over til April 4th. Sure wouldn't want to miss commenting on the 'review' results (which have already happened, but I'm sure the media will mark the occasion.
I still say this 'pregnancy' was conveniently timed to be a *perfect* excuse for neither Grip nor Drip attending any summer events in England. Meg will be certain to overshadow the long-planned Diana statue unveiling by 'giving birth' timed exactly to William's ceremony. She's got superpowers that way.
Also she's copying/mocking the Cambridges by announcing this now--Kate's babies have all been impeccably timed to be two years apart.
All good wishes and prayers to HRH Prince Philip for a speedy recovery and return home. Please live forever, Sir, you and your good lady-wife. Apres vous--le deluge.
Okay . . show of hands/office poll: Who thinks she is REALLY preggers this time, show of hands? What does this mean for 'Archie' indeed? Even if it could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (DNA results) that Meg has a child for real and gets doctors' verified signatures this time that she gave birth--there won't be a title. Could be, when Charles ascends, but how to explain not giving a title to 'Meghan's firstborn' in that case? Things are gonna get more interesting, not less with this.
@Musty
It will be interesting to see the difference in births etc. Will they announce hospital/physicians or will baby magically appear (many celebrities name hospital, physician etc. Many do not).
No easel I'm guessing! And if one does appear will it have names of physicians?
Let's lay bets right now that Megs will not only name the hospital and her doctors, but she'll stage a photo op on the steps of said hospital after making some papp calls. If she gets (via whatever means) her little girl, she'll do everything she withheld for 'Archie' the Invisible Boy.
No easel. BP released 16 words of tepid congratulations but that's all she's getting. So maybe she'll put an easel out front of the gates of Mudslide Mansions and hire fireworks, too. At the moment she's trying to get Kim Kardashian West to organize a pink-themed baby shower for her, but Kimye has their own problems right now.
Bet Oprah knew before the Queen!
Bet you're right!
IF Archie was surrogate he is technically not allowed in the line of succession. Now that he has a brother or sister on the way (if true and of her body) that's really going to throw a spanner in things for the BRF.
No title for this baby either?
I'd say not, but who knows what Charles might do when he is King and the child(ren) could be named Prince & Princess at that time.
That's why this dog-n-pony show has got to be wrapped up by then . . William might have to take out a full-page ad in the Sunday Times. I don't know what else will light a firecracker under the House of Windsor. Because the grifting bunt is *doing it again* before our eyes. Again! She feels so safe and so smug. She's won against the MoS; she's hidden behind walls the grey suits can't get at her behind. Oprah's her pal.
She's gonna milk this as long as she can.
Thank you for taking the time to copy & paste the Times articles. I read the first one and just had a very quick look at the one on Meg's political ambitions. I can't imagine her in a political role at all, she is seriously delusional so I didn't bother to read the article properly but please keep copying & pasting :)
There's an old saying that the apple never falls far from the tree. Not true in my case. My father was a working-class Tory and I was a typical young Leftie. We argued about everything. Except the Royal Family.
One of my earliest memories of my childhood in Splott, a working-class area of Cardiff, was when the Queen paid a visit. The entire street — indeed the entire neighbourhood — turned out to catch a glimpse of her motorcade on its way to the city centre. But he stayed at home, ostentatiously slamming the front door shut and ordering us kids to stay at home, too.
Another memory was when he was thrown out of the Conservative club on a busy Friday night. He had shown 'disrespect' to the monarchy by refusing to sit in the only spare seat because it happened to be beneath a portrait of Her Majesty.
I cheered him on.
My own 'disrespect' survived my childhood and my early years as a cub reporter. Why, I demanded with all the wisdom of a stroppy teenager, was the nation in thrall to a family who had done nothing to earn their elevated status? Why should we bow our heads to someone whose only achievement had been getting born in the right family at the right time?
And then, many years later, I met her. I was reporting on the first visit of a British monarch to Mexico in 1975 and I remember two things vividly. One was that I'd cut myself shaving on the morning we hacks were introduced to her and had a great glob of toilet paper stuck to my chin. I was embarrassed and she obviously found it amusing.
The other was when her husband screamed at me for 'stealing my f*****g car!' I had commandeered the only remaining vehicle for me and my cameraman outside the airstrip where she'd landed to inspect an Aztec ruin so we could follow her. It was meant for Prince Philip.
We met again when he agreed, somewhat to my surprise, to be interviewed by me for a BBC TV special programme on his 70th birthday. He got cross with me again. I'd asked him why he had recently sold the yacht that he had so enjoyed sailing. When he told me it was because he couldn't afford to keep it, I pointed out that he was married to one of the richest women in the country. The Palace went bonkers and the BBC cut it out.
What I really wanted, of course, was an interview with the Queen herself. It's the holy grail for every interviewer. She's never done it and she never will but that doesn't stop us dreaming.
I allowed myself to dream the impossible when I received an invitation to one of the Queen's private lunches at Buckingham Palace. Would I get the chance to pop the question? Might she be even a little tempted? Why else would I have been invited to join the select few on such a relatively intimate occasion?
I confess I was feeling a bit scared as the courtier escorted me through the Palace to the private dining room. My attempt at a little casual conversation did not help.
'I didn't realise that people like me got invited to these private lunches,' I said.
He looked down at me. Literally. He was very tall. 'No Sir,' he replied, 'neither did I.' I think he was joking.
But lunch with the Queen was enjoyable and when we adjourned to a side room for coffee I was feeling pretty relaxed. We stood together — just the two of us — and I popped the question.
'I don't suppose you've ever thought you might want to do an interview with us?'
She did not hesitate.
'No.'
I waited and then fired the second barrel, my brilliantly argued justification for why it might be a good thing to do and how she would be in control etc etc.
Again no hesitation.
'No.'
Then a slight pause and she continued: 'What's more, Mr Humphrys, if one were ever to do such a thing, it would most certainly not be with you!'
I made one more attempt a few years later when she visited New Broadcasting House to formally open the building. I was ordered to present her with a radio as a small gift. I was also ordered not to try to interview her. But her husband had been admitted to hospital the day before and I thought it would be a little churlish not to reflect the nation's concern.
'How is Prince Philip this morning, Ma'am?
A big mistake.
'Why? He's not ill you know!'
And with that she stomped off.
But old hacks never really take no for an answer and as I write I am anxiously awaiting confirmation of an interview with another royal. Not Her Majesty of course. I'm not that unrealistic. But with somebody the very mention of whose name casts a shadow over the Royal Family and all its works.
I refer, of course, to Prince Harry. Plus Meghan.
Yes, I know they have agreed to do an interview with the American superstar Oprah Winfrey and the deal, according to a reliable source, was that nothing would be off limits. Many believe it has already happened and it is scheduled to run on U.S. television early next month. But I'm available to fly out to California at the drop of a tiara and, moreover, I am prepared to break the rule all self-respecting interviewers hold as sacred: never tell your interviewees in advance what you plan to ask them.
So what follows is a rough outline of the interview I have in mind.
You, dear reader, may feel that some of my questions are just a little hostile, but I'm pretty sure that both Harry and Meghan —especially Megs, bless her — will see this as an opportunity to deal with all those critics who have been judging them so harshly ever since they announced they were planning to strike out on their own.
So here we go...
One of the reasons you gave for wanting to free yourselves of the Royal Family shackles was that you wanted your privacy to be respected. Yet you have just announced that you have agreed to do an interview with the most famous TV celebrity on the planet which will be broadcast to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Isn't there just the teeniest contradiction here?
Not to mention the way you have a habit of popping up in the papers every other week. Isn't it all rather orchestrated?
The pictures of you laying a wreath all by yourselves on Remembrance Sunday might have been rather moving except that you weren't exactly by yourselves, were you?
There was a professional photographer taking the snaps at your request. You didn't think that might have made it look more like a PR stunt than a sincere tribute to those who had made the ultimate sacrifice?
Then there was the most recent picture of you both lying on the grass looking lovingly at the 'baby bump', possibly taken in the gardens of your home in the billionaire's playground of southern California. Those mansions don't exactly come cheap, do they Harry?
We have all noted (some of my more mean-spirited colleagues with a touch of envy perhaps) that you can trouser some pretty fat cheques for doing not very much.
Maybe you'd like to clear up the question of exactly how much you were paid for that little jaunt to southern Florida as the guests of one of the richest banks in the world. Some said $1 million, but I'm not sure whether that included the cost of the private jet to get you there.
Which raises another question for you, Harry, about greenhouse gas emissions.
I know I don't need to remind you about the deadly dangers facing our planet from global warming. Heaven knows you've lectured us ordinary folk often enough about it — and very grateful we are, too. But maybe you might reacquaint yourself with that wonderful admonition in St Matthew's gospel to practise what you preach?
Another quick question on the subject of money. As you will both know, it's been reported that you have signed contracts worth many millions of pounds with broadcasters like Netflix. I don't suppose you'd care to confirm those reports and, perhaps, tell us exactly what you will be doing to earn all that money?
I know you, Meghan, have said: 'One of the things my husband and I have always talked about is my passion for meeting people and hearing their stories.'
That is, of course, most commendable, but I'm sure you will both agree that a ruthlessly competitive outfit like Netlix doesn't pay out millions to just anybody because they enjoy meeting people — even if they have a 'passion' for it.
I know quite a few people who like meeting people. Maybe you could pass on a tip to them? Only joking of course!
Incidentally, Megs, you may have noticed that one of your many great fans in this country, my brilliant colleague Jan Moir, often offers you both a little guidance in these pages. She helpfully pointed out that your passion for meeting people seems not to extend to your own father.
Now that you're living only a couple of hours apart, do you have any plans to pop over to see him? It wouldn't take long — especially by private jet — and I bet he'd love it. He's getting on a bit and isn't in the best of health, after all.
What a shame he was unable to go to your wedding. Then again, I suppose not everyone can be there, weddings being so expensive and all that. Remind me how much it cost... £32 million, was it? Just as well the taxpayer was footing the bill, eh?
And you did manage to squeeze your old friend Oprah onto the invitation list. I say 'old friend' but I believe you'd met her only once before the wedding. How fortunate you are to make friends so easily!
Speaking of weddings, we all remember so fondly those sunlit days when you and Harry announced your engagement. One of the best things that could have happened to the Royal Family, most of us thought.
True, there were one or two cretins out there who disapproved of such a senior member of the Royal Family marrying someone of mixed race, but they were squashed flat by the overwhelming majority who approved, weren't they?
And they were very impressed when you said how keen you were to get stuck into royal life, with all the duties it entailed. What part of that word 'duties' did you not understand, Meghan?
Have you ever thought it was, just possibly, a mistake for someone as sensitive as you clearly are to expose yourself to what Hamlet called 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'?
I ask because of the interview you gave Tom Bradby of ITN on your tour of Africa. You complained that 'not many people have asked if I'm OK'.
You don't think that was just a tad insensitive given that you were literally surrounded by vast numbers of people who lead lives of utterly abject poverty? Did it not occur to you that your baby 'shower' in New York (private jet again!) cost more than those people can even begin to imagine?
You might just have come across as a little self-centred, eh?
But I see that, as always, I'm running out of time and I have left the most important question to last. And this one is for you, Harry.
Every ageing hack loves the story of George Best, the greatest footballer of his time, who had a number of fatal flaws — above all a weakness for drink and beautiful women. A reporter went to interview him in his suite at the Ritz. With him was a stunning model wearing very little, sipping champagne on a bed littered with £20 notes.
The reporter's immortal question to Best was: 'Tell me, George, where did it all go wrong?'
And that's my question for you, too, Harry.
You had it all. Yes, your childhood was marred terribly by the death of your mother, but you managed to rise above that tragedy and became a highly respected member of the Royal Family. You served with distinction in the Armed Forces and did some commendable charitable work. And then you decided you'd had enough.
You wanted to hold onto some of the royal connections — especially your honorary military titles — but it seems you will lose even them.
You have caused your grandmother anguish we can only guess at and serious damage to the institution into which you were born to serve and from which you have benefited so massively.
Now you are widely regarded as a sanctimonious, selfish young man who tells others how to lead their lives while you enjoy a life of luxury that is unimaginable except to a tiny few.
My question is this: Do you have any regrets and is there anything that might persuade you to come home?
THE END
Thanks for posting the Humphreys article - interesting reading.
Also thanks to others who post articles/tweets etc, I may not acknowledge them as the time has passed by the time I get to read them and the conversation has moved on, but it doesn't mean that they are not appreciated :)
Does anyone actually care that Meghan and Harry are having a baby? People were excited by Archie back when they were in the RF...but now? Does anyone care?
She might try to Merch this kid, but Meghan is an enigma and Harry is a Hostage....it’s not really *happy* times I can’t think of any celeb where people really cared about their new kid either? Kim and the clan post pics but they didn’t dramatically announce anything... did they? Kylie was completely silent about her child and Kylie is super famous in her age group.
Racking my brain
Thanks! 😏
She’ll shroud her delivery in secrecy to confuse the timeline and squeeze publicity. Maybe her favorite thing in the world is hiding children from boogie men. Maybe she has legitimate paranoia mental illness? Back a while I watched that body language reading of she and Harry at their final engagement and the narrator was explaining how Meghan is just a frazzled mess pissing of Harry all the time with her anxious gripping.
If they both have mental issues (obviously) then Oprah’s special makes sense. I do not buy for a single second that she will ask any hard hitting questions. She’s always referring to ‘M’ as her friend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0ZAXh9UGx8 It's around the 5:00 mark.
Thank God that it's not a girl for MM to put before the cameras as the Kardashians do with their children. They use their kids as props, especially the girls.
Let's hope this is true, if MM is really pregnant.
Maybe she wanted to reuse the Darren doll?
This just gave me the funniest mental visual. What to do with a used Darren doll when you no longer need it? You can't throw it in the trash for the paps/reporters to find. Burning it would tip off the paps because of the melting plastic odor.
I picture MM wrapping up the Darren doll in plastic, wearing the same puke green dress as at the polo, hair all askew. She then puts "Darren" in the trunk of her car and races out to the desert, where she will first burn Darren and then bury him. The end.
The positive from this is that we will see
see less of the Sussex PR articles, until this issue is resolved.
The majority of responses here to their baby news: who cares, thought they wanted privacy, rude to ovetshadow Eugenie.
I'm assuming that Oprah and the Harkles conferred about Oprah's questions and their answers in advance. Nothing will be a surprise to them, as the Harkles will know both the questions and pre-planned answers in advance.
Oprah will throw them questions about how horribly they have been treated by the BRF. Oprah will ask MM how she's doing because nobody has asked her, leading MM into a diatribe about the BRF and the British people in general. MM will look pitiful and do a Madonna (not the singer) pose, hands over heart, eyes cast upward to heaven. Harry will continue to talk about Diana, and how the press killed her. He will repeat how camera flashes cause him to re-live the pain, and that he and MM have all of the answers to good mental health. He will repeat his military career in glowing detail, and how all of his men loved him, including the one he called a racist name.
Harry or MM (maybe both) will say that they just want to be left alone, but will not recognize the fact that they are literally on TV for a 90-minute interview while saying that. They will describe their lives at Mudslide Manor as the biggest love story of all time, and that "Archie" just loves it, too. They are such a happy family!
Oprah will sit there, looking oh, so concerned, like a grandmother listening to her children. There will be worry on her face, and then tut-tutting about the big, bad RF, and all of the losses they have incurred, including the miscarriage. Then she will go into her Maya Angelou persona, giving sage advice. She'll wrap it up by wishing them all the best. A hug will finalize the show, because we all know just how close Oprah is to The Harkles- like the mother they never had?
Unbeknownst to the other, MM and Oprah will will try to outdo each other in how deep, slow, and presidential they can speak. Soon, they will be in James Earl Jones territory with their deep voices.
If she's lucky, Oprah will get one of them to cry on camera.
.
In other news I truly hope the old buzzard Prince Phillip pulls through.
O might be hoping for GodMother but, i really don't think it will happen. Of course, if I were O, i wouldn't want that lifetime tie to the Harkles.
I'm presuming some of it has already been filmed. They will leave some space for rewrites depending on what happens between now and the 7th. I cannot imagine a 90 minute special on them.
I wonder how Netflix feels about this O special? We've been presuming all the filming has been for their Netflix special, but.....??? I've read some gossip that Netflix is not happy.
My take aways: Flower's PR is dropping this blind to stress the DNA, but no broaching the gestational carrier and the current situation of the toddler know as "Archie." I think they know they have lost the war of the surrogacy issue and that they hope Charles eventually changes the Laws of Succession retroactively. Though I am not sure that is constitutionally possible in the UK. Changing the Laws of Succession retroactively would mean a constant reshuffle of the deck.
I believe that the debacle with the birth certificate (among other things, for me) is proof positive that Archie was carried by a surrogate whose legal jurisdiction provided no protection for the village sociopath and the village idiot. As they did not discuss this with any royal advisor, they managed to creat a major SS/CF, as is their MO. They do not have Archie. Archie is either with the birth mother and being supported by the Crown, or the birth mother would only give up the baby to the Crown. Either way, Archie has a guardian ad litem (term we use in the US) to negotiate and look after his well-being.
"Princess Tiffany read a tweet from a royal reporter today who just spilled the beans that MM's baby is a boy!
Thank God that it's not a girl for MM to put before the cameras as the Kardashians do with their children. They use their kids as props, especially the girls.
Let's hope this is true, if MM is really pregnant."
No way IMO. M's on record talking about wanting a daughter re: her watch. And yes, I think a daughter would be used as a prop.
But we have a "geriatric" mom who maybe used a surrogate to "get pregnant," within a few months iof her wedding. Who now apparently has gotten pregnant again very shortly after a miscarriage, a miscarriage that was hinted to be "not early." And one that resulted in hospitalization during a pandemic. Yes, it could all be natural but I doubt it.
Surely sounds like IVF was involved to me. And if so, I can't believe there wasn't sperm washing/sorting. Unless wanting a daughter was BS or that desire has changed... Better to be Diana 2.0 and have 2 sons? Or better to be surrounded by 3 adoring male family members instead of 2 males and 1 female who could be competition? Whatever is going on, I doubt it's been left up to chance/nature.
I think ‘Archie’ was probably a surrogate that opted to keep the baby. MM most likely didn’t know that was a thing that could happen in the UK.
I think they for sure did gender selection now. And maybe they did it with Archie to copy will and Kate.
1:00 mark is the clip where the woman congratulates the couple then Harry turns to Meghan and says. “What you’re pregnant?” And Meghan nervously laughs and gets shaky, puts her hand behind Harry doesn’t know how to respond, touches her hair then says “surprise!” Hahahahah (took her a while to ‘joke’ back, she was trying to find what to say). Then Harry looks at the woman and says ‘is it mine?!’ And Meghan keeps nervously laughing (gosh she is so awkward) and Harry looks down pleased with himself.
Maybe this is an extension of the umbrella dynamic where he’s putting Meghan in uncomfortable situations as pay back for the surrogate, quick pregnancy etc.
I get Harry being goofy making fun of the situation, but why was Meghan slow to respond with the big dramatics around what he said which should have been a simple joke. Was it an honest interaction where she was low-key humiliated by that sort of public comment and what it implies???
Given their history of using IVF (either with surrogate or without) his comments are pretty funny and in jest.
If it is a girl, it will be interesting to see the difference with show & tell. Diana will at least be her middle name if not the 1st name. I liked the earlier guesses of Doriana.
"......I think they know they have lost the war of the surrogacy issue and that they hope Charles eventually changes the Laws of Succession retroactively. Though I am not sure that is constitutionally possible in the UK. Changing the Laws of Succession retroactively would mean a constant reshuffle of the deck."
It's not upto Charles to change the law on surrogacy. It's first and foremost a peerage law and then a constitutional one. The Hereditary aristocracy abide by it for themselves and the Crown additionally abides by it for constitutional reasons. Surrogacy and adoption are the same in peerage law in so far as they are treated as absolutes and automatic bar to inheritance of titles, entailed wealth and the line of succession for aristocratic class and The Crown. Any families that use surrogacy or adoption either keep it a secret within their family and hope no one ever finds out or openly acknowledge it knowing the consequences the minute it becomes public.
Charles would have to persuade the hereditary aristocracy to agree to a law that accepts surrogacy. Peerage law is different in the 4 countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. So he'd need agreement from all 4 hereditary aristocratic systems to agree.
Then he'd need the individual parliaments of the 16 realms to agree to it as well. All 16 have to agree. If they do not, even if it's only one that doesn't agree, then the entire principle is rejected.
Currently Hereditary aristocracy are not in favour. A case was brought before the House of Lords in 2016 of a very understandable use of surrogacy and they voted it down ie it didn't sway them to change the law or to rule in favour of the couple in question as an individual case.
Secondly, the line of succession to the Crown is under the purview of parliament. Charles has no say in it except to show that his descendants were born within the criteria of it and therefore legitimate claimants to the Crown.
If Parliament decides to change it or to mothball anyone in the line, they can. It's how we got the Hanoverians in the 18th century. Parliament skipped over 50 eligible claimants on the grounds that they were unacceptably Catholic to give the Crown to Protestant George 1 of Hanover who was at no 51 in the line.
For now, parliament can mothball Harry and his descendants so the line skips them altogether or He can be persuaded to renounce his claim and that of his descendants.
However, if it is proven that Archie and Diana Sussex are surrogate babies even if by gestation carrier, they are automatically removed from the line of succession without Charles or Parliament intervention. Harry would remain in line because he was born within all the required criteria, but his children would be deemed illegitimate in law and subject to the absolute interpretation of the peerage laws of inheritance.
"Would it be difficult to overthrow the Windsors?"
Currently? Yes.
Systems of government are only overthrown during extreme economic hardship eg American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolutions, Chinese Revolutions etc. It usually involves a civil war.
Currently constitutional monarchy is working even if we hate the Windsors. The laws that govern the country are derived from constitutional monarchy and it would require a huge expensive exercise to change them all before we could change the system.
Realistically, the biggest barrier to change is that no one has proposed a viable alternative that is acceptable to majority opinion.
Even Oliver Crowmwell couldn't think of an acceptable alternative to a monarchical system in the 10yrs he was Lord Protector and supposedly against it.
Thank you for the detailed discussion regarding the surrogacy/adoption issue and how it appears to be a "no-go" at this time.
Since just about everyone and their mother believes that the toddler known as "Archie" was not of the body born, why would the BRF include him in the line of succession in position after the nit-wit on their website?
"It's not upto Charles to change the law on surrogacy. It's first and foremost a peerage law and then a constitutional one. The Hereditary aristocracy abide by it for themselves and the Crown additionally abides by it for constitutional reasons. Surrogacy and adoption are the same in peerage law in so far as they are treated as absolutes and automatic bar to inheritance of titles, entailed wealth and the line of succession for aristocratic class and The Crown. Any families that use surrogacy or adoption either keep it a secret within their family and hope no one ever finds out or openly acknowledge it knowing the consequences the minute it becomes public..."
As an American, I thank you @Acquitaine for the education on that topic. Obviously it's complicated! But even if it wasn't, why would Charles devote energy to doing such a thing? I realize the Divine Right of Kings isn't quite the thing these days. But even so, why would 72+ year old Charles go to all that trouble for a second son? Whose child is so unlikely to get close to the throne? And if Charles did, doesn't that weaken the essential idea of a hereditary monarchy?
I do realize Will and Charles have had conflicts. But I don't really see Charles doing anything that would potentially threaten succession through Will's family. Perhaps I'm missing something here (quite likely I am) but wouldn't making surrogacy and adoption A-OK mean there could be issues with out of wedlock births? Maybe not technically but in reality?
Their dilemma will be wanting to show off a real live baby, cuddled so motherly by Flower, and their need to create an Archie? Will Archie be a child actor? Would they be able to borrow the real Archie? Will Archie appear in some sort of artistic representational form, like his zodiac sign, or a shrub or in sculpture form (marble, glass, aluminum?) Perhaps a Jeff Koons bunny in the backyard?
"Since just about everyone and their mother believes that the toddler known as "Archie" was not of the body born, why would the BRF include him in the line of succession in position after the nit-wit on their website?"
As we do not have M's medical records, nor is there any credible public discussion of surrogacy and the Palace claimed him the minute they received the news of his birth, the assumption is that he was born of the body in legitimate marriage.
Unless someone can produce credible, verifiable proof that he was born via surrogacy, he will remain in the line.
From UsMagazine a source told Us after the news broke on Sunday. “It’s a dream come true. … Meghan fell pregnant again toward the end of last year. The baby is due at the end of spring.”
Why bother to change the system for the 6th, 7th and 8th in line? Moreover a branch that has proven to be disloyal, venal and avarice and determined to ruin his inheritance and that of his heir.
And if they did open it up to allow surrogacy and adoption it would definitely open up a can of worms not just for him, but for the aristocracy.
There is a new Blind Gossip, "The Calculated Baby." Take aways: IVF started before the 2018 wedding owing to her geriatric state, not in the US, not in the UK, but a third country (Canada?) A handful of successful embryos, using Flower's ovum and Nit-Wit's spermatozoa, so they say. Genetic testing to deal with one issue (Sociopathy?) Sex selection employed. But definitely the couple's biological child and presto, number two right on their pre-planned schedule. No one knew, save for a few close to the woman (Messica?) Male's family had no idea what was being planned or implemented. But, a big but, the gossip purposely circumvents the issue of a gestational carrier. It simply emphasizes the DNA.
I would hazard a guess that the genetic testing had to do with a trisomy disorder; Down's syndrome is the best known but there are more devastating trisomy disorders.
If we are to believe the Blind Gossip about the embryos, there were a "handful" that were successful. I looked up the definition; one definition was more than two and less than 10. There were some definitions that said five or fewer. She stated that she lost one to a miscarriage. Maybe she was allegedly pregnant for that rushed marriage as well; scratch two? My point is, if the 'handful' is correct, they may not have a lot of spares. Perhaps the folks here that have undergone IVF would be so kind as to comment?
If she ignores and pretends she can't see it, it stays ignored.
Only if The Crown and Monarchy (or her personal affairs) are threatened does she act. And act with lightening speed.
Until then, she pretends not to notice the car crash infront of her.
It can be frustrating. It's the reason the war of the Wales went on for YEARS until Diana directly threatened the monarchy via her panorama interview. Within days moves were made, Diana was frozen out and a divorce announced.
"If the Sussexes continue to stay in CA will there be any costs whatsoever to the UK/Crown/British Taxpayers for this new 'child'? Would there be any funds allocated to him/her?"
Using the York example, my answer would be an automatic no. However,Charles is not Andrew. Charles would make the case that unlike the York sisters, his grandchildren are important because of his own higher status than Andrew.
Yes, of course that is the situation on the surface, though I disagree that there is no credible discussion of surrogacy. One could argue just the empirical facts. Certainly BP is banking on this tried and true approach. And why not, it has worked well for them in the past.
But under the surface there are vast rumblings of what certainly was. People do understand what they saw and they understand the utter SS/CF surrounding the birth, Harry's stable show, the Windsor presentation, the debacles with the photography, the christening, etc., etc. All of this brought to us by Flower and the nit-wit, because they can not help themselves.
So, most people understand it is a lie. And, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there is proof out there and someday, somewhere, someone will come forward. If this was the 19th century or even the early 20th century, I would give it a solid chance of staying hidden, below the surface. My thoughts are much more speculative. But for now it possibly makes sense because being 7th in line is essentially meaningless. It is just a small meaningless lie. But it is a lie, nonetheless, and, ultimately small little lies add up to big dung heaps of deception and mistrust. Not a good future for the Windsors to behold.
In a LCC you tube chat, one in which LCC brought up her mother, she states, and I paraphrase, that eventually all narcissists dump in their own nest to such a spectacular degree that life simply can not continue on as before. We witness time and time again the scattershot bi-polar energy from the Harkles and their inability to calm any waters. Perhaps someday Flower will simply cop to the deception herself, thinking she will be seen as clever and to get back at the BRF.
I told someone recently it would be lovely if Catherine had triplets, naturally, of course.
Will Archie appear in some sort of artistic representational form, like his zodiac sign, or a shrub or in sculpture form (marble, glass, aluminum?)
I laughed aloud. If I were Meghan, I'd love the practicality of an abstract sculpture that one can pick up, carry around, pose, and lock in a storeroom at will, rather than the inconvenience of hiring a new child actor every few months.
@Hikari...the poll as to faux pregnancy...FAUX.
Read an interesting comment on Skippy, by Pilgrim, yesterday I think. She had another take : exactly who is on this mission insofar as the Onsitdown? Is it mutual, as in the tete a tete with Gloria? or who has the most to gain, and how? Also, Oprah could possibly play the role of *cleaner*, by those that puts Sumgs in action in the first place. This is a way to clean up her act.
Regardless of speculation about what has been done officially in public and behind the scenes, no one has presented official, verifiable proof of surrogacy to the privy council and the Palace isn't saying a word.
Think of this as evidence required in a court of law.
It can't be circumstantial, speculation or anecdotal. It has to be verifiable, legally provable evidence.
This isn't like the 17th century and the bedpan scandal where J'accuse +gossip was enough to remove them from the line of succession.
Right now it's a circular firing squad for the Palace to reveal surrogacy unless they have the evidence that proves they were duped because no one is going to believe the Palace was duped when the security services have daily reports from RPOs guarding the Sussexes.
Can we ponder that some of of Harry's poor habits and behavioral abnormalities are the fault of Mr. Dyer? Or are his issues innate? It is interesting to me that many found Harry so likable and relatable. I remember seeing the video of HMTQ and Harry when he turns to the camera and mouths "boom" with his snarky smirk on his face. I thought he came across as an entitled a**. I know Diana spoiled him rotten, but what was Mr. Dyer's influence? Did he help the nit-wit with his art exam?
I was speaking to my mid 20's niece the other day who is super smart. PhD program, etc., etc. She asked about Harry. I told her to think of the most stupid boy she could remember in high school (large public school) and then imagine that person was so stupid that they could only pass their art course, nothing else. Oh, and imagine the guy was a complete jerk. She looked at me incredulously, and said, "Are you kidding?"
Lastly, LCC's review of the first half of Samantha's book is a good overview. Well worth the time to watch her you tube video. The take away: Doria is the evil, deceptive culprit and TM, the naive enabler. Seems mother taught daughter well.
"So, most people understand it is a lie. And, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there is proof out there and someday, somewhere, someone will come forward. If this was the 19th century or even the early 20th century, I would give it a solid chance of staying hidden, below the surface. My thoughts are much more speculative. But for now it possibly makes sense because being 7th in line is essentially meaningless. It is just a small meaningless lie. But it is a lie, nonetheless, and, ultimately small little lies add up to big dung heaps of deception and mistrust. Not a good future for the Windsors to behold."
I think this post was addressed to @Acquitaine. So I'll limit my comment--- it's not the "crime," it's the cover-up that sinks people. Why would Charles dive into trying to change very far-ranging rules for a pretty meaningless line in terms of succession? Just to cover Harry's ass? If his ass even needs covering? We don't know that.
"....I get Harry being goofy making fun of the situation, but why was Meghan slow to respond with the big dramatics around what he said which should have been a simple joke. Was it an honest interaction where she was low-key humiliated by that sort of public comment and what it implies???"
I think Meghan is a very limited conversationalist and has no small talk. She frequently rans out of things to say to people she meets and often pays more attention to how she looks in a still image than making conversation.
She's extremely awkward to watch in video as a result.
She's also revealed herself to be singularly devoid of a sense of humour and to be extremely rehearsed so that if she knows a joke will be told or situation set up is humourous then she has stoke responses that she thinks give impression that she amused.
Anything done spontaneously and off the cuff elicits a frozen awkward response because she doesn't know how to respond in the moment or unrehearsed.
My take aways: Flower's PR is dropping this blind to stress the DNA, but no broaching the gestational carrier and the current situation of the toddler know as "Archie." I think they know they have lost the war of the surrogacy issue and that they hope Charles eventually changes the Laws of Succession retroactively. Though I am not sure that is constitutionally possible in the UK. Changing the Laws of Succession retroactively would mean a constant reshuffle of the deck.
I agree with this theory. BG usually has good stuff on the Sussexes that hints an insider is leaking to them, but this wouldn't be the first time BG let a PR person be the "leak." And what better site to give the Harkles credibility than the one that has been publishing unflattering blinds about them for years?
My impression was that the BRF was willing to cut its losses on the line of succession, where Archie was concerned. They had already played along with the moon bump, the birth and the Christening; to reveal the truth now would be very bad PR indeed. And even when William is king and Archie is acknowledged as fifth in line, that's still far away enough for Archie to be a non-issue. (Pun not intended!) All the Harkles needed to do, to have their cake and eat it, too, was . . . nothing! They just had to sit pretty, never complain and never explain. (Well, two out of three isn't bad!)
Now that they seem to be up to the exact same scam as before, however, I don't think the BRF are going to be as lenient. Are they going to get a free pass on every embryo that a gestational carrier is able to carry to term, until they are the parents of the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, etc. in line? I just can't see Prince William letting them get away with that.
Indeed, I wonder whether there will be retroactive repercussions. If the new baby is not in the line of succession because she was born of a surrogate, perhaps Harry and Meghan will surprise us all by renouncing Archie's place in line for him as well. So that their children will be equal. And for one more act of petty revenge, Meghan will make sure Prince Harry drops out, too. But only if they are allowed to remain Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
She is devoid of compassion. No matter how she evokes kindess at any opportunity, she is incapable of love, compassion.
It is, indeed, totally about her.
Archer as a tribute to Diana, should the baby turn out to be another boy, is actually pretty likely! But the real tribute would be in the letters of the name itself.
I'm recalling the launch of Archwell, when it finally dawned on us that she was just naming everything after herself. ("Archwell" contains "Rachel," after all.) Both Archie and Archer would be sons of "Rache." And because Harrison is already taken, perhaps the second boy can be Archer Fitzhenry.
Archie and Archer! The names practically roll off the tongue! Then when the second baby is born, we can have another "Arch Meets Arch" headline! And then a partnership with McDonalds! The merching possibilities are endless . . .
There's also Charlie! Imagine all the brownie points Meghan would earn from her father-in-law by naming a son after him!
She'll just have to hope no one points out that "Charlie" is actually "I, Rachel."
She wants to control the narrative even for the conspiracy theorists. She has been leaking positive information. First, was deux moi three weeks ago with the pregnancy announcement (I got banned from their Reddit for explaining the theories behind Meghan- massive amount of sugars there who will attack you). And now Blind Gossip as a ‘I told you so’. It’s not a typical snarky blind gossip item.
This is where Meghan is playing. And it’s weird. I think she’s setting up deals with the gossip sites btw.
I said that Meghan is actually very socially awkward and pretends to be a part of a conversation when she is actually being ignored (giving the example of Anne and Harry chatting and Meghan pretending to be part of the conversation). There are numerous examples of this, if you look 'behind' the perfectly captured photo. If you go way back, Meghan got herself onto one of those tours to entertain the troops, along with some other folk I had also never heard of. They are doing a sing-along. Meghan is happy, happy, happy ... but if you look at the video, the others in the group are ignoring her, pulling away from her and leaving her stranded in the middle. On the Australasia tour, the photos show her and Harry sitting at a table with some young folk, chatting happily away. The video shows her pontificating, the attention of the group she is with wandering, conversation drying up and then her animatedly trying to join in with Harry's genuine conversation.
Being a working royal and having to engage with people on engagements must have been a nightmare for her, but surely she must have enjoyed meeting and chatting to some people? And why is she so socially awkward? Is it all about her narcissism? I have always said she is narcissism through and through with no insecure core, but maybe I am wrong about that.
Yes I think it’s the fakery narcissism where one who has those characteristics is overcome by the ‘mask’. The disinterest in her, and her over the top reactions are par for the course. She doesn’t realize anyone is disinterested and she does not care. She assumes they are delighted to be graced by her presence. Everyone. So when she doesn’t register that no one is actually interested she just keeps going and going. She’s not paying attention to their emotional state in a conversation. Her conversations are scripted and one sided, filled with gestures. Once she’s done with her performance, she is pleased with herself not realizing she didn’t have an audience at all.
I’ve assumed this was part of her hatred for the Brits. It stood out to me that she said the ‘stiff upper lip’ was ‘unhealthy’ (no, it’s actually not). Why would she say this? Because Brits get to the point. They don’t wave their hands around maniacally and they have great social skills (that I’ve come across at least) where they show general interest in a conversation and are more interested in the other. Meghan is interested in herself and doesn’t have a lot of hobbies or interest in Royal life. She wouldn’t be able to genuinely connect with most Brits. She had to adapt and could not. Part of this was due to drinking the koolaid of her status.
I’m also of the opinion that if she did have Archie, she had a complete Narc ego reaction to him making her emotionally vulnerable, and left immediately to try to inflate her ego again with a larger goal to conquer America. Of course that was always part of her plan, but I don’t think they’d have left so fast if her ego hadn’t been affected. Now in America she feels fully in control (see behavior with her cucked husband)
Anyway those are my thoughts on her mental narcissism. Narcissist can take you for a ride, but she doesn’t seem like a very good Narc (unlike Oprah) because only one person likes her...damaged and codependent Harry. Otherwise we’d see a much more charismatic and refined ‘sales person’ that half of us would somewhat admire.
I know there are many reasons why she wouldn't want the court to have her phone, but I think this is a major reason.
I've read that members of the BRF have encrypted phones. Does anybody know if that's true?
A not-dissimilar restriction applies to ordinary folk in some circumstances - only lawful wedded spouses or full-blood, legitimate offspring, or their heirs, can claim an inheritance, whether directly or per stirpes, from the estate of those who die without leaving a valid Will.
This is the flaw in the current ITV serial `Finding Alice'. Lots of pointless discussion about who gets what. Boring...
It reminds me of Auden & MacNiece `Letters from Iceland' - apparently Icelanders had a saying `He's so mean, he wouldn't give you the smell of one of his f*rts'.
I would assume that since the phone hacking of voice messages on phones, from before when the Cambridges were married, that the royals would have encrypted phones, if they are working royals and thus representatives of the head of state. Previous to that, Diana, Charles and Camilla actually had their phone calls conversations hacked. I doubt that people would be behaving themselves and not hacking if they could.
But perhaps I am wrong and hacking now carries a heavy prison sentence so the tabloids have lost their appetite for such stories.
By the way, copyright and privacy laws were not designed to protect the wealthy entitled luvvies - they are simply spending vast amounts of money on exploiting loopholes so that they can protect themselves from scrutiny, control their image, and make sure no one makes money from them without them taking their cut. In the case of the Harkles, the only thing of value they have to build an image of something of value is the royal connection.
I wonder if Harry's family realize that Meghan used them from day 1?
I've read that members of the BRF have encrypted phones. Does anybody know if that's true?
Found this report
Could this reported network be what the RF now use use?
Royals and politicians are among celebrities and wealthy business figures who used the SAME secret phone network as hundreds of crime kingpins as UK police smash encoded EncroChat app
By Dan Sales For Mailonline12:32, 03 Jul 2020 , updated 14:43, 03 Jul 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8486915/Royals-politicians-celebrities-used-secret-EncroChat-phone-network.html
Wow!Great find. Thanks!
@Enbrethiliel said.
'Now that they seem to be up to the exact same scam as before, however, I don't think the BRF are going to be as lenient. Are they going to get a free pass on every embryo that a gestational carrier is able to carry to term, until they are the parents of the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, etc. in line? I just can't see Prince William letting them get away with it'
Your comment is very astute.
Imagine this scenario !
Russian woman, 23, who welcomed TEN surrogate babies in 10 months with her millionaire husband, 56, claims they hope to have 105 children carried by other women
By Latoya Gayle For Mailonline09:50, 16 Feb 2021 , updated 06:35, 18 Feb
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9262807/Woman-23-raising-11-biological-children.html
There is no oligarch like a Russian oligarch. These wild n crazy guys know how to have fun with their money. Very wealthy Americans and Brits tend to be a sour lot. Look at Jack Dorsey who runs twitter. Look at that Zuckerberg. Look at Bill Gates who just came out advocating a switch to lab-grown synthetic beef. No sane person will eat this crap. Gates who likes the Covid chaos. This is prime time for him to vaccinate the planet ---Btw-- He promoted a vaccination disaster in India a few years back.
Look at James Packer in Australia-- A billionaire 3x over but depressed and eternally in a state of confusion. Russky oligarchs are never depressed, they just want more more more money and an updated wife or girlfriend from time to time...A new and larger yacht to cruise The Med in the summer.
I have never heard of a Russky oligarch doing himself in. His American and European counterparts do this or at least some wealthy American/European sub-oligarchs
(if this is a duplicate, apologies. Family crisis and trying to get caught up with the reading).
@Swampwoman
Hope this helps
How many eggs is normal for retrieval?
My own 2 cycle aged 32 the esrly 1980s was unsuccessful at producing eggs.
A friend also early 30' in 1999
had her eggs harvested after 1 successful pregnancy The harvested eggs never produced another pregnancy
“If you haven't gotten a baby out of the first 20 eggs, the likelihood that the next five or ten will result in a baby will be small,” says Doyle. He explained that women 38 to 40 should bank 30 eggs to have a 75 percent chance of giving birth to one babyHow many eggs is normal for retrieval?"
'In general, an average of 8 to 14 eggs are typically retrieved from a woman's ovaries with IVF; however, its ultimately not the number of eggs that matter but the quality. 1 high quality egg is better than 20 poor quality eggs when it comes to success rates"
Is it possible that H fell asleep, as some chaps are wont to do, immediately after the act and that she collected some of his `premarital' excesses, popped them in the freezer then sent them to post-haste to the IVF centre? That he didn't realise what she'd done? That the `procreation smirk' was an `I know something that you don't know?'
Or did she tell him earlier that they had a child on the way? Before the engagement? Was the child already snug in another woman's womb at the time of the marriage?
Just speculating, playing with the possibilities.
"Thoughts about if they had a girl - much more darling merching options and PR photos. Would people notice the contrast between the two? and how much of Archie will we see (probably very little) and how would that be explained?"
I think people would notice the contrast. I am not sure how continued invisibility of Archie would be explained with a visible Baby#2. But increased visibility of Baby #2 likely would be explained by their more relaxed lifestyle in the US and greater happiness here because they claim to be happy, happy, happy! I do remember reading one of M''s supposed friends said she wanted to have her second child in the US for those reasons. And that was a long time ago. Might have even been while she was still pregnant with Archie. I can't remember.
I'm not sure about generally greater merching opportunities with a girl. I mean, I can sort of see that. But while my bias may be showing, an awful lot of merchable cute "girly" outfits are traditional puffed sleeve, smocked, dressy dress stuff or loose colorful play shift dresses and Kate's already done that with Charlotte (as Fergie did with Bea and Eugenie.) So would M? And risk "M copies Kate" articles? More unisex clothing or the child version of neutral color CBK...not sure a girl is so much more valuable than a boy in those cases.
I'm with @Lizzie in that I don't see how a baby girl would be better for merching than a baby boy, but since I don't know much about this aspect of marketing, I've been deferring to the opinions of others.
The celebrity baby with the highest visibility currently seems to be Stormi Jenner, the daughter of Kendall Jenner -- and part of the draw seems to be the matchy mother/daughter outfits. I recall similar coverage of North West's when Kim and Kanye paraded her around as a toddler. She was a little fashionista! Her brother Saint, on the other hand, is just as cute, but doesn't seem to be getting as much attention. (I could be wrong!)
As for boy babies with high visibility . . . Off the top of my head, I remember Maddox Jolie-Pitt, who helped his mother absolutely nail her maternal humanitarian brand. His mohawk was adorable! Brooklyn Beckham also got a fair bit of attention, starting with the announcement of his name. The Beckhams liked to trot their three boys out a lot, especially in football kits, which again helped David with his brand. And a grown-up Brooklyn still seems to be a bigger draw than his sister Harper. A quick Google Images search shows that Harper has more photos with her father than with her mother -- but she doesn't seem as sporty as her brothers were. Perhaps the Beckhams dropped the ball on what should have been obvious mother-daughter merching? (Even Harper's meeting with Anna Wintour happened with David rather than Victoria!)
These are the only ones who come to mind immediately.
When Archie was born, interest in him was so high. And organic. To be blunt about it, people were super curious about how a biracial British royal baby would look. Meghan couldn't have merched him then, but if she had let the world become familiar with his face, she could have done much more after Megxit. But all this is assuming that the reason he's hidden away is that the BRF have tied her hands in this area. Some of us have speculated, however, that the real reason is that she thinks something is "wrong" with Archie. Maybe Down syndrome or even a cleft lip. I wonder whether the real reason is that Archie came out too dark, favoring Doria rather than Thomas. Despite all the bronzer Meghan caked on during her stint as a working royal, I think she wanted a baby who would pass as white even more convincingly than she had.
I am not sure how continued invisibility of Archie would be explained with a visible Baby#2.
My thoughts exactly! Archie's absence from the birth announcement photo was notable enough.
@Sylvia
Russian woman, 23, who welcomed TEN surrogate babies in 10 months with her millionaire husband, 56, claims they hope to have 105 children carried by other women
I can't see Meghan of Montecito letting this obvious challenge to her surrogate fecundity go unmet. Let the games begin!
Of course Meghan engineered the meeting with Harry and started an intimate relationship with him while she was dating Cory! We all worked out the overlap, and the lies her and Harry told about their first meeting, pretty early on. Markus and Jessica and her husband know the truth but I somehow doubt that they will ever spill all in an Oprah interview.
Cory is the honourable one in the trio. He made a cryptic comment about people being able to work out timelines for themselves and then moved on happily.
He's a talented chef, a successful businessman, an affectionate husband, and a doting father. And as @Sandie reminds us, he has a lot of class, too. I'm happy that he dodged that narc bullet, but whenever another of his posts shows up on my feed, I think: "Meghan, you idiot, you chose the wrong man!"
Bill Gates has a little bit too much smile on his face when he talks about Cov-19. Smirk too. Usually the only red meat I eat at home is lamb, all lamb is grass fed. Also grass fed beef in ground up form from Aldis. In the US this just above 5 dollars per pound. I eat a good proportion of so called "plant based"....Swampy has cattle it seems. I am sure she is eating grass fed.
Australia only raises grass fed beef. I believe in Argentina and Uruguay it is the same. The only lamb I see in local supermarkets is Australian. The large organic chain called Whole Foods has Icelandic lamb. No Aussie lamb.
I loath the WEF. These billionaire would be controllers. Notice how Russian billionaires do not participate in WEF. But Prince Charles does.
She will write an autobiography/memoir which will be promoted by Oprah since Big O is "queen" of the Book Club. She and Oprah will attempt to create a genre of books.
Oprah promoted that loon Glennon Doyle who has been on the best seller's list twice now(!). Flannery O'Connor said 'There's many a best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.' Apparently Oprah hasn't heard that one...
She also promoted Marianne Williamson (though she was already very well connected)...
Another looney. They both stink IMO but are beloved by a huge fan base of looney, older women.
She will name the new baby Diana Meghan-Windsor. Very posh with the hyphenated Royal name added and to forever attach herself to the BRF. Like historically forever. UGH.
Sorry but I'm getting some vibes. Let's hope they are a result of too much second hand peyote smoke.
It doesn’t add up at all. People who are trying to protect their kids (like billionaires and aristos the world over with security for their children) don’t do this. This invites mayhem. She can’t talk about needing privacy anymore.
OFF topic: You are not alone. A friend who has a client producing organic grass-fed while exceeding top quality regulations has been raided twice by an alphabet letter agency. The agents threatened them, cursed at them, yelled at shocked staff...but a visiting young nutritionist caught it all on video via their phone. I saw the video.. Additionally, a known incredibly ancient billionaire spoke of this to scientists I know in Germany. Mr Micro G is also now the largest owner of US farmland, and still has his computer parts made in high polluting factories in China. Charles never seems curious about the plight of Congo child laborers mining the materials needed to produce batteries for electric cars. Odd.
ON TOPIC: But Charles: Celt Views newest video suggests the Charles now making hospital visits again isn’t Charles. The man does look....
So, why I really hopped on here just now: My connected friend heard rumbles from London club friends yesterday that line of succession is being discussed “and more” in meetings this week —— there is a related desire “to honor” a new demand of Philip’s.
From his conversations, my contact seems to think Harry’s actions and bitterness have well and truly finished him.
Complain about privacy to sue for money, money...and make low-IQ sugars think you are pure, meek innocents who need their vile “defense”.
Then, shoot and photoshop and sell your own photos and fake stories for...money, money.
It is all about money, money and the narc lust for gaslighting (for Megs, on a world scale now) and control. And of course, the Archie/MA/Doria/business cover-up.
The privacy was never about not sharing the intimate and private about herself, but about control, and also having sole rights to monetize her image.
She wants to not only control what is published about her but also make money from it. It is what she did before she met Harry.
Privacy laws were never about controlling and monetizing an image for influencers and other celebrities but this is how people like Meghan have used them, and they have thrown a lot of money into the legal system to do so. It is the epitome of narcissism and particularly galling coming from someone claiming to be a philanthropist.
Harry grew up in the glare of publicity so I think he may have a genuine need for privacy, but he has to please Meghan and he has no way of makng money to give her luxuries other than b pushing himself into the public eye.
Here is one of many legal descriptions of privacy:
"Privacy law refers to the laws that deal with the regulation, storing, and using of personally identifiable information, personal healthcare information, and financial information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organisations, or other individuals."
Privacy and data protection legislation were conceived to protect people from government overreach.
Warby let something slip in his judgment that to me revealed that he felt Meghan's case was a waste of the court's time. I don't want to drag up that subject again, but it is near the end of his judgment.
Thank you posting that — excellent information.
So, why I really hopped on here just now: My connected friend heard rumbles from London club friends yesterday that line of succession is being discussed “and more” in meetings this week —— there is a related desire “to honor” a new demand of Philip’s.
*
Oooh this is good...
Meghan baby #2, surrogates, & Summary Judgement; Media muzzled/cowardice
I think she got caught up in her fame, privileges, and protections in the UK. It was easy for her to promote and control her narrative in The Tig days. She wasn’t famous/infamous.
SO.....here is a mind-blowing 😳theory for you, for all Nutties.....
A friend’s mother has presented a fascinating thought, and after thinking about it a couple of days, I believe she may have a point.
We are all on about it being a baby girl, right? A little Diana. To merch.
My friend’ mom however has a VERY different view.
💫SIT DOWN FOR IT:💫
She thinks, since Meghan herself sees herself in the Diana role, the second coming,
she would NOT wish to purchase a daughter. A daughter would be competitive to a malignant narc.
She would more likely try to replicate the lost world of Harry to mess with his head, Totally, in true narc style.
So.....In her theory:
Megs sees herself as Diana, returned from the dead to carry on.
Harry is Charles, weak, fumbling, not a soldier, but a man she must turn into an organic nature boy albeit via prefab Montecito gardens. Harry, like Charles, is therefore the next king, in the construction in Meg’s feverish mind.
Therefore:
Archie is actually William. The one in the way. Because of this, Megs and Harry don’t feel much toward William, and even hide him, as Harry wishes William has been hidden and silenced. The stupid plebe name = one more slap at “William” via poor little “William 2.”
This means —- no Archie/William in the photo announcement— he’s nothing!
So......this next purchased baby will be a boy, Harry#2, the most important one to Diana, the rightful heir, the one who should heir.
Harry#2 will get the publicity, the merch deals, and praise, and “love”. While Archie/William gets hidden away.
This trick powerfully lets Megs enable the stupid bitter Harry to relive his life through Harry#2, properly raised high to the sun gods almost like there never was a pesky Archie/William.
Archie languishes in a corner, unseen, properly “punished” and the second child (Harry, and Meghan since she resented older Sam so much) ....the second child wins. He will be the photographed perfect friendly good with crowds future-king child. After all, narcs punish and demean all children except for one, which they glorify.
I think this theory may hold water and if so,
here comes Baby Henry Charles.
🧐
Re. the commodity known as Archie
When Archie was born, interest in him was so high. And organic. To be blunt about it, people were super curious about how a biracial British royal baby would look. Meghan couldn't have merched him then, but if she had let the world become familiar with his face, she could have done much more after Megxit. But all this is assuming that the reason he's hidden away is that the BRF have tied her hands in this area. Some of us have speculated, however, that the real reason is that she thinks something is "wrong" with Archie. Maybe Down syndrome or even a cleft lip. I wonder whether the real reason is that Archie came out too dark, favoring Doria rather than Thomas. Despite all the bronzer Meghan caked on during her stint as a working royal, I think she wanted a baby who would pass as white even more convincingly than she had.
Everything hinges on whether we have actually ever seen Archie. There are many 'invisible' disabilities, to be sure. It would be impossible to detect, say, autistic spectrum disorder or epilepsy or something like that from the very brief snippets in which we have seen a live baby. That's only twice, and Arch is nearly two. Still pictures are too vulnerable to tampering, and we've seen that, too.
We've gone round the mulberry bush many times viz. facial resemblances of this child/ren we have seen to either Harry or Meghan. In my personal view, Archie sightings have been comprised of at least two, and possibly three different babies from his presentation to 'Duck, Rabbit'. Babies can change a lot, but not, in my opinion, as much as Master Archie changed from September 2019, when he was supposedly 4 months old, to the Duck Rabbit video the following May, to celebrate his '1st birthday'. Both babies were significantly older/larger than the age advertised. SA Archie was a dark-haired and more delicately featured kid, though extremely active and based on the state of his too-small socks, was already cruising, a stage that occurs between 8-11 months. 'Four month old Archie' was closer to a year old . . 8 or 9 months, minimum, and was already quite an armful for Meg. He was wiggly and bright, and apart from the strabismus, seemed very healthy and on-target for a baby of approximately 8 months. He did *not* seem happy at all in the shot where 'Daddy' is mashing him up against his body--he looked scared and uncomfortable, in fact.
My assessment: This 8 or 9 month old little boy was happy and healthy . . and did not know these people purported to be his parents. Neither did either of them display any ease or comfort in holding him or interacting with him in a natural parental manner. This baby was extremely fair and didn't resemble Harry so much as Thomas Markle. Brown eyes, but no hint of any 'African' heritage from his alleged mother. Dr. Mendel could disagree, but I think a natural Afro of the magnitude of Meghan's would have asserted itself in the texture and/or color of her baby's hair. Texture more so . . I live in a community where racially mixed relationships are prevalent. I have seen many fair skinned, green or blue eyed children who are biracial, and many of them are blond, tawny haired or have some variation on red or copper. But their hair is curly or has that kinky texture. Such wispy fine duck hair on Arch would be highly irregular on a child who shares Meg and Doria's genes for hair. Just saying.
I am a librarian and we have this book in our collection. It's a cute book that is an award-winner, actually. But the visual play in it: Is this a duck? Or a rabbit, if the page is turned a different way? is intended for the 3-5 year old age group. By three, children are capable of grasping and understanding visual humor that way.
This baby also had a visual strabismus (on the opposite eye to the earlier baby, if I'm not mistaken) and his eyes were also brown. But I think it was a completely different kid.
Neither of these little boys presented with an obvious disfigurement or delay of any sort to me, apart from a minor and easily correctible eye quirk. I've had it done myself on both eyes. It's a weak muscle that causes the eye to drift in one direction or other. Since it seems unlikely, verging on impossible that Meg could obtain not one but (2) baby models with the same eye anomaly she has herself, I don't know what to make of this. That would bolster her ruse that she's the natural mother, but how would she audition only wonky-eyed babies for this role?
We don't know what is going on behind closed doors . . there was that PR, just as swiftly dropped as it appeared that Meg was consulting a number of specialist therapists for Archie. Specialist therapy can be expensive . . what better way to milk more $$$$ out of the bank of 'Pa' . . all without having to submit proofs of treatment (privacy, you know). Works a treat on judges, too, methinks.
It's murky. Not sure we are ever going to get to the bottom of 'Archie'. Hiding away an unacceptably 'imperfect' child is a very un-woke way to handle it. And it's been done in prominent families since time immemorial. Is Archie like the Queen Mum's mentally disabled cousins, hidden away in an institution all their lives?
I just don't think a real Archie, disabled or not, exists. But developments with the latest 'pregnancy' will be interesting. If Meg turns up in the pages of People magazine over the summer beaming in her multi-page merching spread with little Diana Meghan--will Archie appear? Meg notoriously has an attention span that only stretches to two years absolute max for any given project. Archie is supposed to be two in May but 'Mummy' has already moved on to her next project. Is she going to keep announcing a new fake baby/miscarriage every two years? Gotta keep that Narc fuel flowing somehow . . .
Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise, has a form of strabismus called esotropia (where both eyes turn inward instead of just one eye). It has been corrected. Maybe this is a genetic condition inherited from Harry's side of the family?
More food for thought is, if Harry had legitimately fathered a son with special needs, making Archie a genuine Royal baby who needed, even more than normally developing children, security, stability, regular access to specialist doctors, maybe special schooling when the time comes, one would suppose that his Royal family would be more actively involved in his day-to-day life and care and would have vehemently opposed the Queen's great grandson and heir being removed from the country and kept away for the bulk of his little life so far, as he's been dragged from house to house and jet to jet, all of which Harry's status pays for and makes happen. Is it that the Royal family can't intervene, or won't, for reasons? Because, considering who Harry is, and who his son is by extension . . Harry and Meg have absconded with a little person who is part of the Crown, and who individually and together provide plenty of fodder for an investigation into unfit parenting. True loving parents would certainly have included him in the latest photo project announcing his impending sibling. Archie has not been seen in the flesh (if ever) for nearly a year (counting the Duck Rabbit video but not various Photoshop art projects purported to feature him.) This is a matter of concern to SHAMs-watchers, but evidently not the Palace. They seem to be easy in their minds that Master Archie is not in any danger. If he does not exist at all, or if he's in very safe hands with an ocean between him and the SHAMs, and they know that too . . I'm glad the Palace can be so calm. I sincerely hope we get some clarity on this debacle before Master Arch is old enough to join the Montecito Montessori preschool. Maybe Megsie will merch some Diana style school runs commencing next year. Can't wait.
Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise, has a form of strabismus called esotropia (where both eyes turn inward instead of just one eye). It has been corrected. Maybe this is a genetic condition inherited from Harry's side of the family?
Possibly. Poor little blighter would then have the genetic predisposition on both sides of the family. Meg's is slight, but it's there. It's been mentioned in articles, that she learned how to pose for cameras to make it less noticeable. I find it puzzling in the extreme that with all the other cosmetic procedures she gets done routinely, more invasive ones than this, like breast jobs and nose jobs, that she wouldn't have gotten this procedure. I was referred by my optometrist to an eye surgeon who snipped me in a 15-20 minute outpatient procedure. With insurance, it was a few hundred dollars. Easy-peasy. If that's all that's wrong with Archie, that will be an easy fix when he's a little bit older.
With Harry as the paternal unit, I would be more concerned about intellectual disabilities that are not correctable with an hour in the surgeon's office. Stupid is forever. I've got many reasons for hoping for 'Archie's' sake that he is a fictional construct, rather than a real child of Harry and Meghan. These two should never procreate with their collective of genes.
Very, very interesting thoughts.
You know, I just looked up a little fact after reading your posts. Approximately 4% (range is generally 2% to 5%) of babies are born are born with strabismus in the US; the number is about 3% in the UK.
So, with about 3.75 million babies born in the US annually, for example, she could probably find a supply of baby models with untreated strabismus in LA. Maybe too big, too old, with different heads shapes, and hair types, but, for enough money, they could be found and hired for the handful of photos we have seen.
After a certain age, say about 3, and corrective surgery, there will be no further need for unique models.
As an "Archie truther," I find myself in the curious position of disbelieving everything the Harkles say about him and yet humoring them in order to comment on their activities. My rationale is: If they want us to believe their stories, then they have to act in a way that's halfway consistent with them. (I inserted the qualifier "halfway" because Meghan's Moon Bump Show was only partly such an attempt to be consistent . . . and often a dare to the public to call them out on it.)
So if they really are going to scam us with another "baby" -- presumably one who shall have less privacy than his invisible older brother -- I'd love to know their thought process. Even if I'm just throwing things at the wall at this point. For instance, maybe they're newly confident because they finally managed to traffic a toddler who will make a halfway passable Archie. (Again, that qualifier, because as you pointed out, she may have been consistent with the strabismus, but she totally dropped the ball on hair texture.)
@AnT
Archie languishes in a corner, unseen, properly “punished” and the second child (Harry, and Meghan since she resented older Sam so much) ....the second child wins. He will be the photographed perfect friendly good with crowds future-king child. After all, narcs punish and demean all children except for one, which they glorify.
I think this theory may hold water and if so,
here comes Baby Henry Charles.
I was just having fun when I named him Charlie Fitzhenry, but perhaps I'm more clairvoyant than I realize! Letting AnT's friend's prediction refine mine, well, I do see why Baby #2 would be another Henry rather than a mere Harrison or Fitzhenry. But they can't have two Harrys, so they might still call him Charlie. (Two birds with one stone: sucking up to Charles and letting Baby #2 be both the second Henry and the second Rachel.)
What really gets me here, however, is how a supposedly loving mother will explain the public exaltation of Baby #2 in the light of the tight privacy she has demanded for Baby #1. Narc parents in small communities or in big, anonymous cities can sadly get away with this sort of child abuse; but there are countless people watching the Harkles' every move.
Last year, we ruled out an accidental death for Archie because too many authorities would have to get involved and Meghan would actually have to produce a body. This year, I wonder if her and Harry's hatred of Prince William is truly so virulent that hiding Archie/William away will not be good enough. Only actually getting him out of the way would do.
From @Jack_Royston
NEW: Prince Harry's phone was hacked by the News of the World but his lawsuit is too late and he is therefore entitled to no compensation, publisher News Group Newspapers says. Here's a rundown of a few of the stories obtained by phone hacking:
https://twitter.com/Jack_Royston/status/1362431420065599490
.
Regarding your post above re: Baby Henry Charles. That scenario is really creepy. Something out of a Midsomer Murder mystery. I can't even find the words if PSGrip is actually ' thinking ' this way. Bugger.
xxxx. Re WEF. Have you clocked pics of Klaus Schwab in his official robes? Looks like an extra from Star Trek. What a weirdo.
AnT. That is truly scary. Hope the nutritionist keeps the video. Meantime, let's all eat real food and support our local farmers. Totally agree about the tragedy that is the exploitation of small children so the smug liberal elite can drive around in their e-vehicles. Thrilled to hear Haz might finally be cut off though. Not before time.
And Hikari. My daughter has many mixed race friends (as she is herself) and she and her chums all have hair that is definitely not Caucasian. I agree that Archibald's Barnet has always given me pause for thought.
For a baby that was supposedly overdue, and who looked like quite a hefty lad in the video, Archie was the smallest royal baby in a generation (other than the very premature Louise).
"Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise, has a form of strabismus called esotropia (where both eyes turn inward instead of just one eye). It has been corrected. Maybe this is a genetic condition inherited from Harry's side of the family?"
I'm surprised that was the only problem with little Louise. The pregnancy was extremely difficult throughout because it was an ectopic pregnancy. Louise was a 8mth premmie (4lb 9oz) born by emergency c-section. Mother and baby nearly died during the birth. Both required intensive care in specialist units in different hospitals immediately after the birth where they stayed for at month.
They really are letting loose on The Harkles now... 😄
ROD LIDDLE Prince Harry’s acting like some YouTuber with an inflated ego.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14082412/prince-harry-acting-like-youtuber-inflated-ego/
@Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells,
OFF topic: You are not alone. A friend who has a client producing organic grass-fed while exceeding top quality regulations has been raided twice by an alphabet letter agency. The agents threatened them, cursed at them, yelled at shocked staff...but a visiting young nutritionist caught it all on video via their phone. I saw the video.. Additionally, a known incredibly ancient billionaire spoke of this to scientists I know in Germany. Mr Micro G is also now the largest owner of US farmland, and still has his computer parts made in high polluting factories in China. Charles never seems curious about the plight of Congo child laborers mining the materials needed to produce batteries for electric cars. Odd.
@AnT, I just hopped on here (expecting more rain, again, hurriedly cooking lunch for the grandson and SwampMan before running back outside!) quickly to post about Bill G and his ownership of US farmland. As you pointed out, he 'pretends' to be concerned about the environment; in reality, he just exported the pollution to third world countries (and I am including China in that) where there are *no* pollution controls or labor protections for adults, let alone children. 'Humanitarian' my a**.
The Prince's Trust USA has just ben launched. Harry does not seem to be involved ...
Agreed. Appalling. Good luck with your rain, and hope it isn’t too extreme where you are....we are certainly in weather’s crazy season.
****
@Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells,
Happily, a filmmaker who is a friend is now doing a doc project that will contain the footage. And yes, we must continue to support small farmers everywhere.
****
@Miggy,
That Liddle op-ed is hilarious and dead on. Thanks for mentioning it, and supplying a link! Seems like the gloves are off in the press, AND the sleeves are rolled up.
https://princestrust.us/about-us/
https://princestrustinternational.org/about-us/
My heart breaks for Archie, if he's real. Now I'm kinda hoping he's not real.
@Hikari....
"Meghan caked on during her stint as a working royal, I think she wanted a baby who would pass as white even more convincingly than she had.
I have seen many fair skinned, green or blue eyed children who are biracial, and many of them are blond, tawny haired or have some variation on red or copper. But their hair is curly or has that kinky texture. Such wispy fine duck hair on Arch would be highly irregular on a child who shares Meg and Doria's genes for hair"
Doria is not 100% black. Research on ADOS has shown that statistically they are between 50% - 75% black, the other % being a mixture of European and Native American genetics. Even the dark skinned Michelle Obama is about 65% Black due to a multi-racial mother born of mixed parents on both sides and those white ancestors only one generation away.
At best, Meghan is no more than 25% - 40% black.
As for Archie's appearance, i believe SA Archie and book reading Archie in a onsie are one and the same baby. He has at most 10% - 20% black genetics.
The fact thst he is so pale shouldn't be surprising. Genetics are strange that way.
Also, it's not a given that mixed babies always have curly hair reflecting their Afro heritage.
Like you i've grown up around mixed relationships and the babies are on a spectrum as far as which side wins out in genetics. Anecdotally speaking, my experience of mixed babies of Afro heritage is that it's the luck of the draw genetically. I've seen mixed babies that favour one parent strongly over the other and others that are straight down the middle.
If they have a less Afro heritage, they tend to pop up closer to Archie than not.
I wasn't surprised at all by how white Archie turned out to ge because he's got less afro heritage than is assumed.
Here are some famous examples of women who are white passing like Meghan, procreated with white men, and their white babies.
Paula Patton & Robin Thicke and their blonde baby
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/18/09/4357170000000578-4800858-image-a-20_1503043516756.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/17/17/3C3623D100000578-4128902-image-a-11_1484673771913.jpg
Lilly Becker and Boris Becker and their blonde baby
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/26/15/29FD708300000578-3139976-Baring_it_all_Lilly_Becker_put_on_a_busty_display_as_she_stepped-a-2_1435327207234.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/01/17/4CD1A11700000578-5794463-image-a-12_1527870158274.jpg
Boris Becker's red head daughter - mixed race Russian mother
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/c1/45/4a/c1454a671743f6ba40219f668322ce89.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/03/08/4EC875EB00000578-6022423-image-a-34_1533281601072.jpg
Boris Becker with his two sons from first wife Barbara who is AA.
https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/1493101b/1cb9288f/barbara-becker-shutterstock-editorial-1493101b.jpg
https://static1.purepeople.com/articles/5/10/57/85/@/920839-noah-becker-fils-de-boris-becker-ici-950x0-2.jpg
https://ais.rtl.de/masters/1369639
Halle Berry ( mixed race, but not white passing) with her 2 kids (white fathers)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/db/ed/f5dbedc24b44d6da02c331a462fc93b4.jpg
Mariah Carey (white passing) + her kids with Nick Cannon
https://static.accessonline.com/uploads/155554.jpg
I feel like I have tumbled from my regular workday into a spy novel as well today and my hair is standing up. Let me explain, relative to your mention of KS: my German scientist friends at some stature at their respective Unis and on government committees. I have mentioned a funny mission they took me on. I have mentioned through one, I got to know a retired industrialist who was close to the,King of Seeden and hosted the Swedish royal family (very lovely and down to earth apparently) on ski trips and at his German country house outside Munich...
....well, both one of the scientists and this retired industrialist knew KS. Both felt KS and his wife, whose name I cannot recall, we’re not good people, trying to resurrect something very evil associated with Germany’s past, and they even spoke against him at some business symposium. Additionally, they were very vocal about KS’s plan to resurrect a modern version of Youth for H——r in Germany to promote a certain way of thinking among young Germans (their interpretation after being in discussion with him at some event). The scientist and the retired industrialist were extremely successful in their work but both also strong free thinkers and supportive of freedom of thought, democracy, etc. Not “training to think” groups. This all was discussed with me in about 2001-2004. A big point with them. KS angled for a royal dinner invitation. The industrialist told him to sod off.
Two years ago, I was chatting with a friend with two sons in Munich. She angrily brought up that KS and his wife had started some group called (in English) the Shapers for young people under 30, linked to the WEF and now we’re even trying to recruit kids under 12 in some city schools. She was ranting about how dangerous it was, why didn’t anyone see this, where it leads. She told her sons’ school to keep this away from her sons. She then moved her sons to a private academy.
I am the same age as the Countess of Wessex. I arrived prematurely by 10 weeks (mom's first baby). I was supposed to come mid-December; instead I insisted on being born in the first week of October. For somebody who's no good much before noon, it's a riot that that I got such an early start on life. My birth weight was 2 lbs 12 ozs, or approximately the same as a large jar of peanut butter. I had to live in 'the hot box' for many weeks and finally got discharged from the NICU around the time of my original due date. I had to double my birth weight to 5 pounds before they'd let me out. What a gas that it took me 2.5 months to gain 2 pounds--I have honed the talent of achieving that after one taco dinner and a couple of Dos Equis. But that would explain why I had strabismus on both eyes. The first one was corrected when I was 8.
So I am a miracle baby of sorts, because I may well have been the tiniest preemie ever to survive at that hospital back in 1965. They save smaller ones now, under a pound, even.
And that was the first and last time I have ever been small for my age! I love food, so after I got the hang of eating, I have not failed to thrive.
No doubt Grip and Drip will be given some kind of "Prince's Trust Ambassador" roles so that Charles can continue to fund them without criticism and without using his own money.
Just think--every dollar donated to the Prince's Trust USA would given Grip and Drip 95 cents and the worthy causes 5 cents. One would think Markle thought this up.
Sorry to do this to you, but I'm going to 'drag up' Warby again. I skimmed the court papers filed by both sides, (thanks to links from JennS, Miggy & others), & was struck by how tedious Megs' writing style is. She writes like a petulant, self-centered, 13 year old girl, & both sides quoted copious amounts of her letter. I doubt Warby is a fan of celebrity gossip, & probably didn't appreciate having to wade through what essentially was a family spat between two American commoners. Any freedom of the press or free speech argument the MOS may have had might have been weakened in Warby's eyes because he probably couldn't imagine who would want to read such tripe. If he pleased the rich & powerful in England with his ruling protecting them, so much the better. If he awards Megs substantial damages, however, he will deserve every verbal brickbat thrown at him, in my opinion.
So many great comments about the latest wrinkles in the Harkle mess, but I do wish they'd go away. If Megs is having another fakency, as I think the first one was, the Royal Family could sustain serious damage which would be much worse than loss of a bit of privacy.
Harry and Meghan are not involved in the Prince's Trust in any way at all. It actually stands for all the values they supposedly stand for and works exclusively with youth (their target demographic) but I doubt the people who run the Trust would want the Harkles anywhere near it.
I just find it ironic that what is perhaps Charles' biggest legacy now operates in the USA and the Harkles have no role in it at all.
- 1) you need to provide a valid reason for using a baby.
- 2) a parent, usually the mother, accompanies the baby/child and stays on set or where the modelling shoot is.
-3) in this case, how could the baby fly to South Africa? With the mother?
-4) wouldn't someone somewhere recognise the child? At that point (SA), there were precious few photos of Archie so any new photos would arouse curiosity. Surely in the case of a borrowed baby someone would have recognised him.
-5) finally, for the sake of 'continuity', you'd need to borrow the same baby/child. This might be difficult and when the child get older, he'll start asking questions.
Unless there is a surrogate who has the baby with her and allows him to be shown now and again.
Finally, personally I believe SA Archie and birthday Archie are the same. Babies do change (mine did) and the photos are 8 months apart.
SA https://thekit.ca/life/royal-report/baby-archie-royal-tour-south-africa/
Birthday https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1278561/Baby-Archie-birthday-video-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-UK-Royal-Family
@Hikari
The pregnancy was extremely difficult throughout because it was an ectopic pregnancy
I don't know if you were quoting someone but Sophie couldn't have had an ectopic pregnancy with Louise. An ectopic pregnancy is not survivable. That said, she did have a complicated birth and as you said, she nearly died.
It occurs to me that it will be a lot harder to keep up the act of two fake children versus one. Thinking of those scenes with twins changing clothes and darting around in that old movie, The Parent Trap. Only it would be Megs and Harry with their dolls and child actors.
Our Megs never thinks ahead, does she?
@AnT ... Such an interesting story, but who is KS?
@Hikari ... you were a miracle survivor! Born a miniature human!
@NeutralObserver ... By the time I got to the end of the SJ I really had the impression that Warby felt that her case was a waste of the court's time, but he was going to be professional and thorough anyway.
I do not see how she can walk away with much damages (copyright shared, gist of the letter already in the public domain, letter not stolen but freely handed over by recipient who had been defamed ...). ANL will be shocked at the size of her legal fees they have to pay, and may be more careful in future. Meghan will do the victim act and claim huge amounts for pain and suffering (miscarriage!). I hope she gets short shrift on that score, as she should.
This is the man who declares that as part of the great reset "you will own nothing and be happy." Observe use of second person here. He clearly doesn't include himself in this Utopian dream. Presumably we will be renting what we don't own from him, eating insects and fake meat and not travelling beyond our own neighborhoods. Sinister.
Apologies to Nutty and Charade for digressing. Now back the Harkles...
Imagine what Harry's family think about the huge drama Meghan has made of her early, not uncommon, miscarriage/failed IVF when you consider what Sophie went through to have children, and even Catherine with her severe morning sickness.
Constant Gardener. Guessing your choice of name means you're enjoying AnT's posts as much as I am!
As with M butting into conversations, pretending to be talking, the best example was when she took the overnight train with the Queen. The fun began while still disembarking from the train stairs. The gentleman greeting the Queen gave her a respectful bow, and the Queen walked on. Meghan stopped in front of the same gentleman for a few seconds, but he didn’t acknowledge her presence. She hoofed off, or is it huffed off? Anyway, when the Queen was seated outdoors, watching some dancers and very much enjoying herself, M pushed her way to the seat next to the Queen, not even saying sorry to the people she pushed or stepped upon. The people behind them, including the Queen’s Lady in Qaiting, and M’s female assistant, looked like they were going to howl. The wind blew M’s wig in every direction, and then she pretended to join the Queen in laughter and talk. Literally, she was mouthing nothing, and the Queen, while still smiling, turned to look at her. The expressions of other people were too funny. They looked as though they could not believe what was going on with the very mad woman. It was the weirdest thing I ever observed in the Royal family.
It is your lucky day, because I have had to cast and hire child and baby actors for commercial work. I have a friend who does this for movies as well. Others in this board will have additional knowledge and input. But to answer your questions from my experience:
1. There are casting agencies that are legit, those that are new and looser, and people who will thrust their kid at you on a shoot to be in an ad or scene fir nothing thinking it would be cool. In the legit world, you have all the needed forms ready and then approved. But in the random photographer world, anything goes sometimes, and legit orgs have to watch out like hawks.
2. Many people don’t care about laws or child welfare. Under the table payments, arrangements. Or, in a less sinister way, friends just trying to help friends shoot footage for art, or a pitch. Things get super sloppy in this latter area. In fact, you can drive thru S. America, and in some cities see your family and friends on billboards using images swiped brazenly from Facebook. Laws are not always followed in this world.
3. Sure with his mother, a temporary guardian, or a quiet cash arrangement with a rich couple who swear they have a good nanny. Or if Sophie and Edward are raising the baby, say, they hand over the child with a royal guard and stay in the background. We have had kids turn up at shoots with an au pair, or dropped off by a dad, and in those cases we chose to delay or cut the shoot until a parent showed up, or a different model with guardian, or an approved child agent. But we always followed the law. We have no idea how the Harkles might acquire the photo children. They don’t seem to be sticklers for the law.
4. Easy enough to say “Yah, amazing how he looks like our little Jaimie! ! How funny!” when you are pocketing a nice check and a promise for a future gig playing Master Archie. If your neighbors’ son looked like Archie, would you honestly think he flew to Africa or LA for a shoot? Of course not, so you would forget about it, unless you were a canny informed Nuttie. Luckily too, lots of babies and kids look alike to people who aren’t their close family members, or who aren’t that observant. That’s why doubles have jobs. Plus even half of us in this site who saw her bump fall to her knees, disappear at a meeting, and go absent for a night out in NYC will never believe she wasn’t pregnant, or that a stunt baby was hired. Perception is a funny old thing.
5. You’d think. But we have seen the many faces of Archie already. And yes, it will get harder unless they do have a particular child being raised elsewhere by someone, or a long contract with an actor. Or maybe they think people won’t notice. Look at he arguments here. But maybe that is why we only have seen a cartoon shopped image of a four year by a playhouse since his “first birthday” video....it is getting too hard or the care parents said no.
The world is a strange place. Logic and laws and morals and proper behavior don’t always apply. Hence, we are here.
I continue not to believe a word the Harkles say. I blame the RF for the fiasco which entertaining as it might be should never have been permitted. Unfortunately the DoE retired far to soon.
I have always maintained that Hikari looks younger than her age and now there is confirmation. Wow - so small.
@ Hikari was quoting me.
I know an ectopic pregnancy never goes full term and is extremely dangerous. No medical doctor would advice to continue with one if by some miracle it somehow managed to go ahead.
Sophie had already lost her first pregnancy due to ectopic pregnancy and when she got pregnantt with Louise and was rushed to the hospital to deliver her even though she was months away from her due date, it was reported widely that this 2nd pregnancy was also an ectopic pregnancy and Sophie's delivery was prompted by rapture internally and was in such a bad way by the time she arrived at the hospital that she had to be delivered of the child via emergency c-section.
She stayed in hospital ICU for close to a month during which time they thought she came very close to death.
Meanwhile the premmie baby was in an ICU unit in a different hospital several miles away.
Logically, i think the media conflated the complications of her earlier ectopic pregnancy, and reported her second pregnancy as being the same.
Unfortunately, all media reported the same thing which information would only have come from the Palace so i lay my doubts at their feet.
It was Acquitaine that posted the bit you attributed to me. I shared my own story about being a preemie (as told to me by my mother; I don't remember a thing, but even if I could, it would have been a very boring 2.5 months.) My parents told me I was baptized by the hospital chaplain shortly after my birth because chances were about 50/50 that I would not pull though. But my lungs were fully developed, which helped. All my systems were done; I just had to get bigger. My mom and dad had moved away from the hometown they shared to a big city, and they didn't have that many close friends there to tell. I was born before many people had even guessed my mom was pregnant. Because you didn't go around blabbing that people you weren't close to back then.
I enjoy seeing the Wessex famille out and about doing things. Louise seems to favor the Windsor side more, but I can see both parents in her. James seems to definitely favor his mother's side. Louise is 17 and will be off to university soon; it would be nice to see both of Edward's children given a higher profile and a few responsibilities within the Firm when they are finished with school and their father is promoted to Duke of Edinburgh. I know Ed and Sophie both chose a lower profile for their children on purpose, but I think either one of the Wessex kids would be a good fit for some of the smaller charities that have gotten tossed by the wayside with the departure of the Traitors. Perhaps when William is King, he will see fit to nurture his cousins into a new Fab Four of talent that can be called upon. He's going to need them. It will be nearly 14 years before George is old enough to assume Counsellor of State. Harry is for all intents and purposes out, even if they leave him in on paper. So when William ascends, apart from Catherine, he's going to need the York girls and the Wessexes until his own kids grow up.
Do any of us think Charles will still be on the throne past George's majority? It could happen . .he'd be 86 years old though.
Luckily, after three miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy, she gave birth to three healthy, beautiful daughters. Heartbreakingly, she died when the youngest one was just six years old.
That’s such an amazing story of your start in life. What a determined baby you were, thank goodness, and cheers of course to your medical team.
I must add that I kind of love that you went from tiny peanut-butter-jar sized preemie, to a strong unrelenting investigator here on a site named Nutty Flavor, seeking the truth about an invisible child who began its existence in mystery! Destiny, my dear, destiny.
I am not sure I see Charles on the throne at that age. I have zero reason to say that, except for a gut feeling about his health issues. He seems bright-eyed and engaged when he does appears, but we haven’t seen much of him lately and there was at least one clumsy use of a very obvious double for a live tv news interview. That worried me.
That plus the state of his hands, concerns me. It may also be that the work is too much for him after a few years, and he elects to return to his beloved countryside, and the soothing arms of his third wife, Meghan. (Just kidding about that last bit of course. No way would Queen Consort Meghan agree to live in the country.)
Oh my god, I am so sorry to about your sister. Truly heartbreaking loss. Lovely that she was finally able to enjoy her dreamed-of family for the time she had, at least there was that. But....how hard for you, for her daughters, all her family. Sending you a hug. Life just isn’t fair.
Thank you. I miss her every day, and she died nearly 20 years ago. I still can't look at a photo of her without crying.
Some of us have speculated, however, that the real reason is that she thinks something is "wrong" with Archie. Maybe Down syndrome or even a cleft lip.
@Enbrethiliel: My thinking is that if Archie has something “wrong” with him, there are a large number of disorders that either can’t be discovered via pre-natal testing, or genetic disorders that unless there is knowledge that the disorder runs in a family, no testing is performed for the genetic defect.
While various grades of trisomy are often tested for with geriatric mothers due to it being one of the more common problems, the other common disorder that you CAN’T test for are the autism spectrum disorders. Two of the most well known are autistic disorder and Asperger syndrome.
I know someone who was born when her mother was almost 42 who is mildly autistic. You can’t tell by looking at her there’s something wrong, and in short conversations about common everyday topics it doesn’t always become apparent. But in a deeper conversation, it manifests itself. It is also very apparent in the way she navigates social interactions such as at school and with making friends. She is also extremely sensitive to even small changes in routine and is easily led by other people who may not have her best interests in their hearts.
Although there is no way to prove it scientifically, I tend to think her autism is probably linked to her mother’s age when she got pregnant with her.
One of the reasons why there has been an increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism in the US is that decades ago, it generally wasn’t diagnosed unless it was a severe case. Professionals weren’t looking for it nearly as much as now. But in the last 20 years, as researchers are studying autism more, indications are that the risk for autism increases with the mother’s age.
Meghan will be 40 in early August, so she is in this at-risk group. I think if Meghan discovered she was carrying a child with a noticeable disability, it would be gone. But with disorders such as autism, you can have a normal pregnancy and not discover a problem like autism until after the child has been in your arms for quite some time.
From WebMD:
Women aged 35-39 are 31% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Women over age 40 are 51% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Women over age are 77% more likely than women under age 25 to have a child with autism.
Filliped
Come on Phil
You can’t be ill
Still many things to do
Most of all
Please make the call
Get rid of Gruesomes Two
@Pantsface,
Yes, Sam's book is that poorly written. I've said before that her use of quotes, sometimes several on a page, slow the reading experience down. I felt the need to have an editing pen in my hand while reading. I gave up reading it because it was so badly edited.
Sam would write something like, I "skipped to the store" to buy a cake, or when we were in our "early thirties," we loved to "go shopping."
The quotes had no rhyme or reason to them.
Also, she jumps from past to present so often that was confusing to the reader.
I think you're right about using a talk-to-type program, but all of those quotes didn't get there with a program.
I'll attempt to finish the book at some point, but I needed to get away from it. I agree that the editing is the worst I've seen. I think Lady C gave a good review, and I wouldn't suggest buying the book, although I had hoped that Sam would put out a best-seller and make a fortune for herself.
I just got an overview of how many Amazon books I've read so far this year, and it was 36. I've read everyday for 48 days straight. Good writing and proper punctuation are extremely important to me.
WildBoar - thanks for the info on
Masons, Buffs and Oddfellows.
I went out with a ‘Buff’ many years ago.
We were both in the Army, he was a
‘sneaky beaky’ would have had top vetting.
So I’m presuming the ‘Buffs’ aren’t too nefarious?
We had an ‘Oddfellows Arms’ pub in
my home town, not much activity but a couple
of the fellows were odd 😉
@AnT, your post on child actors convinces me more than ever that the Harkles are faking 'Archie.' It would be child's play to Megs. I don't think the second 'child' will present a problem for Megs. She'll just play hide-and-seek as she did with Archie. A very few photos with a 'child' augmented by sloppily Photoshopped 'cards' & so forth. Even the recent 'pregnancy' photo was so indistinct that it was almost impossible to tell if it was really a photo of Megs & Hegs. Megs has the excuse that hubby suffers from selective PTSD & must have selective privacy for himself & his 'family.' Your post is another example of the amazingly pertinent life experience posters on this blog have.
@JennS, I agree the trial & Warby's handling of it are worth keeping an eye on. Thank you for staying on the ball.
@Jocelyn'sBellinis, So sorry to hear of the loss of your sister.
Bless you!!!
This is the type of cause that she says she's interested in, but her actions don't show that. It's a shame to hide a baby with Down Syndrome or other serious illness, when so much good could have come from it. Unfortunately her ego got in the way, and she is ashamed of her own child. He's ruined her make-believe perfect little world in Montecito.
All that she is concerned about is power and money. Archie, if he exists, remains hidden due to her ego. I know two mothers who have children with Down Syndrome. They are proud of their children and their love for them knows no bounds.
Thank you for your kind words. I so appreciate that.
"I am not sure I see Charles on the throne at that age. I have zero reason to say that, except for a gut feeling about his health issues. He seems bright-eyed and engaged when he does appears, but we haven’t seen much of him lately and there was at least one clumsy use of a very obvious double for a live tv news interview. That worried me.
That plus the state of his hands"
Charles's hands are a condition he inherited from Philip.
As long as i've followed the royals which is decades now, Charles has had fat swollen hands, fingers and feet which condition has worsened with age.
Philip's hands became so swollen that he had to stop wearing his rings in the late 90s. There are few pictures of Philip's hands because he tends to hold them behind him or tuck them away or wear gloves.
I'm not sure what this inherited condition is, but they both have it. Charles worse than Philip.
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/Prince-Philip-health-update-941926.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RmKLLiEOXhI/WYHxyDHyjoI/AAAAAAAAJuQ/JyRgGrexdNAzNlvwme3hMHXUvvIycfszQCLcBGAs/s1600/philipgoodbye.jpeg
With his wedding and signet rings
At engagement
https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/8xPzjdQQlCa07zAeq2O8VMzMfEg=/396x0/https%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2F_%2Fmedia%2F2017%2F08%2F30%2F12%2F18%2F170830_Ring_Philip.jpg
Later you can see the gradual swollen hands compared to engagement pic above
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/b8/33/3fb83332d22738fbe1a3edfcf25895d5.jpg
Look at the state of them here. No rings.
https://avalon.fabiosacdn.com/image/20e2a0e4-8b47-43ff-a818-5f83f0ea9d6d.jpg
That family is long- lived. And have the best nutritionists and medical staff to keep them healthy and long-lived.
Sadly i don't think Charles will reign for long. He'll be another Bertie who waited 60yrs for his turn and then reigned for just a decade.
(Sorry for the delayed response-daily responsibilities get in the way sometimes!)
@AnT, I am going to read up on this guy. It is very concerning. If you really want to "change the world" so to speak, best to indoctrinate the youngsters first, then in time that takes care of the older generations, then boom, mission accomplished. It's been done recently by a few different characters/movements. The protocol is there, just need to plug in your stuff and you're golden. Cheers!
Anything may happen. Even if Charles stays pretty well, his mother could have 10 more years in her. Certainly she could live to see her eldest child turn 80, if she lives as long as her own mother. At this point Charles will be lucky to get 10 years on the throne. George will be an adult about 15 years from now, at which point his father will be in his early 50s. I think William will certainly be at least 50 before he has to worry about the Crown. If his family did not have such longevity, I dial that down by 10 years.
Thank you! My sister had a wonderful life, cut short, but you're right. She had the babies that she wanted and they grew into wonderful young women. She would have been so proud of them.
I think it's a little harder when your only sibling dies young. A part of you is always with her.
@Tunbridge Wells, Constant Gardener, xxxx, Lady Swampie
Modern environmentalism has many anti-human, anti-democratic elements. Elite ethics are concerned with the natural order, but not with sometimes irrational, independent minded people who may have different ideas about how they want to live their lives.
I think if it was up to Bill Gates, I am sure he would love to see the future farmers of America or African children (we are all the same, the sub-elites) shipped off to the moon or Mars to mine rocks, so he could save the planet.
Here is an interesting video I watched recently. I believe it is a bot channel (according to my kid who knows all about youtube), but with supposedly millions of subscribers. It is a not very well done, but very long for kids (15 minutes) cartoon called, What if Bill Gates Disappeared? on the aumsum youtube channel. It was very new world order/great reset in tone, for kids of course.
Guess who else appeared in the video a mention of Meghan and Hairy! It looks like the video has now disappeared. You can see commentary on it on the rt.com page. https://www.rt.com/usa/515616-kids-youtube-channel-bill-gates/
I wonder why it has been removed?
Charles, William and Hairy all use the environment as a carrot (donate to my cause, you get a prize) and a stick (I'm doing this for the environment, so tough) for PR, for political and social cache, which means they will align themselves with influencers and billionaires who may or may not have the best interest of the UK at heart.
Interesting question re royal jelly, so to speak. I can see why IVF would be a constitutional minefield. I think it would fascinating if a writer for the DM asked this same question.
I have a suspicion that the victim card they are going to play for the Oprah interview will be surrogacy. “It’s so unfair that Archie doesn’t count!” “We are sooo relatable because fertility! Miscarriage! And finally, pregnancy (it’s so awesome and no one has ever done pregnancy as well as Meghan)”
From my Chinese medicine studies, Charles' florid complexion is called Yin Deficiency, meaning his body runs hot, and he doesn't have enough cool in his body. I've forgotten everything else these many years. There are remedies for is, not sure anymore of he implications.
Maybe two years ago there was a video of Charles at a reception, and he had a full glass of liquor from which he was sipping. Didn't see anyone else with alcohol. Maybe that was his liquid lunch.
The alcohol on an empty stomach is not a good choice for Charles.
@Puds: Don't you think he'd meet with Camilla at breakfast for tea/coffee and a scone?
I have no idea if Charles is a large-size man, or if he's quite slender.
Whatever the case, IMO, Charles is not due for a long life.
https://twitter.com/rastaartist
Twenty years is nothing when you dearly miss a lost loved one. They are always with you, with regard to time, and though it can hurt, it can also be a beautiful thing that they stay so alive, and thus near, in your heart. To borrow an old world belief from my French-Russian grandmother, Whenever you think of her of speak of her, she smiles, and adds to the sun..
Off topic: Enjoyed reading about your being a premie, Hikari. It reminded me of my uncle, b ca 1926. He weighed 2.2 lbs and my grandmother carried him around in a shoe box. His siblings weren’t allowed to touch him. My grandmother thought he would not survive. The kitchen stove had warming areas on each side (separate from the oven); that is where my grandmother put him to stay warm. He was child #5 and lived to be almost 90. He was the tallest and mist healthy of the children and the sweetest man ever.
#RememberingGoodPeople
Thanks to all of our clever posters and to Nutty. The posts are thoughtful and funny. I couldn’t have gotten through COVID without you all keeping my spirits up with daily pithy comments.
Some comments are that it may be quite old when you catch a glimpse of his hair and that he doesn't seem terrible worried about the media.
And (most of all) no one is wearing masks.
It would be a great way to throw the RF under the bus- announcing that Archie was boring via surrogate. Then the RF looks bad.