Let's continue the conversation about the Sussexes...
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9504479/Pippa-Middleton-heads-two-year-old-son-Arthur-London.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed_desktop_tvshowbiz
From Scobie pidcast via The Star via @ AnTs, good find AnTs.
"The couple signed a $112 million deal with Netflix in 2020 and it was revealed to be an Invictus Games documentary." Says Scobie, so does this meanan Harry deliberately pulled out of the Amazon Invictus Games fundraiser
causing it to be cancelled in order to make a personel profit selling Invictus to Netflix?"
(Me: short answer, yes. "Take that, you Veteran suckers", sez our H.)
"There was a rumour Netflix have pulled out of the deal with the HAMs, but maybe they agreed to keep on the Invectis project but no way for $112 million Dollars."
Yep, I don't see them shelling out that serious kind of coin for just one production. But, I could be wrong. Other Nutties can clue us in on how much is required for production costs.
LOL!!!!!!! Okay, how about this: Megs goes into labor the night before the Cambridge's annniversary. A Source releases the news the second the first DM Cambridge stories begin to post.
But....heroic, better-than-you Meghan remains in labor throughout the whole entire month of May!!
It will be like.... those baby-in-well rescue stories with the whole world watching with bated breath.
We will get Omid Royal Labor Updates daily. We will get daily selfied videos from Harry's wife from her splendid birthing chamber inside Mudslide Manor, showing her incredible bravery beyond anything Chrissy Teigen came up with. Sorry Chrissy, get out of Harry's wife's way! She is brave x1000.
We get two Oprah Bedside Specials.
We will see the sugars lamenting online, burning digital candles in vigil, doing a Go Fund Me for the Dalai Lama to fly in to Montecito to pray for a miracle. Paps from backgrid will line the roads of Montecito!
A statement from the White House. Dr Fauci will be sent to help!
Harry will be seeing riding his bicycle sadly, and taking "Archie" to school a few times "as the world waits".
The labor will continue until July 1, when Harry's wife will finally give birth to Diana Oprah Queen Avocado. Astronauts from space will announce the news.
Harry's wife will appear that very afternoon at the gate of Mudslide Manor in a slim white Chanel sheath, glowing with her newest nose, smiling shyly and stroking her long glossy hair as Harry tells us how brave his amazing wife was the past two months, and he holds out a large unmoving white tamale for the first photos of Baby Diana.
@Lt Nyota said,
Possible translations:
1) They're too stoned to be bothered with the work thing, to actually achieve anything.
2) They've got some secret money source they're relying on. No way could those Netflix/Spotify/ButterCup deals pay them any money if they're not putting out product.
3) Maybe both.
----
Yes plus maybe:
4) "they have been cut off from Netflix and Spotify for producing nothing and being hated, assume Harry's jobs will pay enough, and are getting "future scathing story" cash from Oprah"?
_____
Me, I still don't see either one panning out ... am I missing something?? H's ButterCup thing might be worth a fair bit of coin, but only for the short term. These startup "environment coaches" seem to have a short shelf life. But who am I to say.
@ Lt.Nyota Uhura
Here is a listing of the medals worn at Prince Philip's funeral:
https://inews.co.uk/news/the-medals-worn-by-members-of-the-royal-family-at-prince-philips-funeral-961319
Apparently Harry is wearing the Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order neck order.
_____
Thanks for that. Yes, it appears he is able to wear the KCRVO medal based on his service in Afghanistan.
I agree with you. I am offering publicly acceptable “logical” reasons....
,,,,but actually I wear a tin tiara with these two, and I fully think they have Deals with Backers. Or Harry’s wife does, the extent of which Harry has yet to fully fathom, so he keeps frantically hustling while his wife and Doria manage the funds.
Lol! I forgot the famous lizard theory! And I’d just posted about possible Harkle backers above and read your comment.
My idea of backers are based on simply rotten humans. But if Harry is really a crocodile, or Komodo dragon, maybe he can dispense with his wife for us! Chomp, chomp!
@Lt Nyota,
I agree with you. I am offering publicly acceptable “logical” reasons....
,,,,but actually I wear a tin tiara with these two, and I fully think they have Deals with Backers. Or Harry’s wife does, the extent of which Harry has yet to fully fathom, so he keeps frantically hustling while his wife and Doria manage the funds.
_____
Mmm. Good point.
For some reason, this whole thing reminds me of something I can't put my finger on, something to do with either royals or other richie-riches paying Peter to pay Paul to keep their "lifestyle going." I'll give it some thought.
As for Doria, she's got a sweet gig as the CEO of the Loving Kindness Blah-Blah-Blah Senior Care Center. Of course, no insurance necessary. Cash only.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8778055/Meghan-Markles-mother-Doria-Ragland-64-takes-boss-elderly-care-homes-firm.html
I am NOT a queen of fashion. Here in South Florida, you have a pair of regular flip-flops, and then a "dress" pair, having leather etc.
But.
There is no. ..... way. ..... in ..... hell. I would have worn mules and being so pregnant. Plus, juggling sunglasses, etc.?!
Harry had the Order of the Garter on his coat at the funeral. Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
Pin on Harry’s coat
Harry had the Order of the Garter on his coat at the funeral. Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
_____
Yes, near as I can determine, he earned it as a combat Veteran.
Same old problem - she'd have us believe that she's `heavily pregnant', with an abdomen bulging with child, placenta, membrane and fluid. She's also apparently striding out but carrying a child weighing, how much would you say - between 20 & 28 pounds? Plus a day sac.
Total additional weight carried in front of her, in theory, is quite considerable.
Where's her Centre of Gravity? Why isn't she leaning back to keep her balance, especially in those stupid shoes?
Moreover, she's looking at the bloody phone, in her right hand, not where she's going. As has been said, the child is held with only one hand - he's not a baby monkey hanging on to her fur/wig or being carried on her hip.
Only explanation I can imagine involves air-filled moonbump and/or photoshopped child. To accept that this is a truthful image I'd have to subscribe to the Phlogiston Theory and believe that both bump and child are loaded with this hypothetical material of negative weight/mass.
To think, she calls herself an actress.
https://pagesix.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/meghan-markle-archie-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all
However, I will say that as a mother, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would carry a child that way if I were pregnant with another, much less wear mules to go out in public.
(Flip-flops are different.)
(But I'm South Florida.)
(Mules are notoriously unreliable, in the best of times.)
(Don't want to have unreliable footwear at any time, much less extreme pregnancy.)
My assumption: This is probably a photoshopped image.
The Witch and the Baby:
Same old problem - she'd have us believe that she's `heavily pregnant', with an abdomen bulging with child, placenta, membrane and fluid. She's also apparently striding out but carrying a child weighing, how much would you say - between 20 & 28 pounds? Plus a day sac.
Total additional weight carried in front of her, in theory, is quite considerable.
Where's her Centre of Gravity? Why isn't she leaning back to keep her balance, especially in those stupid shoes?
Moreover, she's looking at the bloody phone, in her right hand, not where she's going. As has been said, the child is held with only one hand - he's not a baby monkey hanging on to her fur/wig or being carried on her hip.
Only explanation I can imagine involves air-filled moonbump and/or photoshopped child. To accept that this is a truthful image I'd have to subscribe to the Phlogiston Theory and believe that both bump and child are loaded with this hypothetical material of negative weight/mass.
To think, she calls herself an actress.
____
Yes, to each point you made.
As I said before I don't want to subscribe to any conspiracy theory on anything. But, without answers to legitimate questions, the only way forward is speculation.
NO WAY IN HELL I would carry a child that way if I were pregnant with another
Absolutely agree! Plus toddlers kick with their legs. Who'd risk that?
This is probably a photoshopped image.
I think the image is the real deal... but the pregnant tummy isn't. A lovely firm silicone moonbump is perfect for resting a toddler on. :)
Should have said toddlers swing their legs and kick with their feet!
@Lt. Nyota Uhura,
NO WAY IN HELL I would carry a child that way if I were pregnant with another
Absolutely agree! Plus toddlers kick with their legs. Who'd risk that?
This is probably a photoshopped image.
I think the image is the real deal... but the pregnant tummy isn't. A lovely firm silicone moonbump is perfect for resting a toddler on. :)
___
Being an avoider of conspiracy theories, I would NOT have thought of this. But it makes sense. Honestly ... WHY would anyone do such a thing.
Kind of reminds me, though I don't want it to, of those women who cut open other women for their babies. Okay, all right, time to step back from this line of thought.
Keep taking a look at the photo (https://pagesix.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/meghan-markle-archie-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all)
What, in anyone's estimation, is the deal with all the hair all over her chest?
Hot off the phone with the docent I know --- with better intel than I expected. Apparently a family member's ex is a top restauranteur in LA, they are all still close, and he already declared that everyone knows there is no possibility a staff member, or guest, at that particular restaurant would have spilled the tale about Harry meeting with Mrs Annenberg. No one there will be under suspicion.
"B--- S--- and Balderdash!"
What's more, "everyone knows" who would have told the press about this sort of lunch. [Some ripe comments about "a Z-list no one" like Harry's wife "who was never anything in LA" and would have no concept of the level of discretion there in the top circles, among top people in the industry or the city's top business people in general. She is nothing but an "unwelcome little hustle, fooling no one" and her husband should be ashamed of himself for allowing her to infiltrate in this manner. "They may have orders to put up with it in England, but that sort of behavior won't fly here."
Again --- "already talk about what's going on from Foster and others" --- so I guess that's real.
And: Neither Harry nor Harry's wife will be welcome in the better restaurants after this, because very important, very wealthy, very connected people seek these spaces out for private meetings and private conversations, and it is not worth risking losing that business after this difficult past year, simply so "two nobodies" can sell secrets to the press.
And, "the Sussexes don't even have staff they can blame for this leak." <----- !!!!!!?!!
And, "No one believes it came from the Annenberg team, but if it did, she would face consequences as well."
Upshoot: the Harkles have just erased their top-top tier access in LA.
????
William and other Royals wore the Garter Star on their coats but I hadn't found a match at that point for H's embellishment. That's why I asked about it further back. It's almost a Maltese Cross.
I see though that H is a KCVO - Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order - that cross does match. That's for `distinguished personal services rendered to the Sovereign' - well, I reckon he should be stripped of that.
I know an MVO, who received the honour for being in the RHA (Royal Horse Artillery) detachment that took the Queen Mother's mortal remains on the gun carriage to the Abbey in 2002.
If we succeed in hastening the wife's total departure from the RF, I shall consider we've earned MVOs ourselves (non-Commonwealth citizens should get Honorary ones) but we'll have to remain unrecognised, like the Unknown Warrior!
Can you imagine being Rachel and getting ready for that shot? The wig, the makeup, the bump,the calling your friend over for use of her baby. Seriously what a nutjob. Next story idea "Rachel's Big Day Out" 🤣
Loving how the papers are not releasing photo. When/how did Catherine finally earn this respect?
You know she is merching backpack too. How does she even have one? How does that call go? I wouldn't want this for my life ever.
Thanks for that. 👏👏👏👏👏
Hot off the phone with the docent I know --- with better intel than I expected. Apparently a family member's ex is a top restauranteur in LA, they are all still close, and he already declared that everyone knows there is no possibility a staff member, or guest, at that particular restaurant would have spilled the tale about Harry meeting with Mrs Annenberg. No one there will be under suspicion.
"B--- S--- and Balderdash!"
_____
So, in other words, Ms. Annenberg has been Markled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Knights_and_Ladies_of_the_Garter#Members_ex_officio
"Harry had the Order of the Garter on his coat at the funeral. Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter"
????
William and other Royals wore the Garter Star on their coats but I hadn't found a match at that point for H's embellishment. That's why I asked about it further back. It's almost a Maltese Cross.
I see though that H is a KCVO - Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order - that cross does match. That's for `distinguished personal services rendered to the Sovereign' - well, I reckon he should be stripped of that.
I know an MVO, who received the honour for being in the RHA (Royal Horse Artillery) detachment that took the Queen Mother's mortal remains on the gun carriage to the Abbey in 2002.
If we succeed in hastening the wife's total departure from the RF, I shall consider we've earned MVOs ourselves (non-Commonwealth citizens should get Honorary ones) but we'll have to remain unrecognised, like the Unknown Warrior!
______
I knew there were Kingly/Queenly reasons why these Orders are awarded. Thanks for correx.
What, in anyone's estimation, is the deal with all the hair all over her chest?
-----------
Her hair is never neat, she seems to always wear it loose these days. Very long loose hair tends to fall on one's chest, unless it's pushed back all the time. Personally, I wouldn't read anything into it.
~~~~~~~~~
I can't see a phone in her left hand, only sunglasses in her right. The child looks as big as Pippa's kid (4 years old).
----------
@AnT
The Mr Men and Little Miss series are genuine titles. I'm sorry, I meant to specify for our non British Nutties and forgot. The author is Roger Hargreaves, an English author and illustrator of children's books. I bought these books for my children. They're still available.
@Puds LOL! Clever!
Can you imagine being Rachel and getting ready for that shot? The wig, the makeup, the bump,the calling your friend over for use of her baby. Seriously what a nutjob. Next story idea "Rachel's Big Day Out" 🤣
_____
Still would like to know the reason why her chest is covered with hair!
@Lt Uhura said
What, in anyone's estimation, is the deal with all the hair all over her chest?
-----------
Her hair is never neat, she seems to always wear it loose these days. Very long loose hair tends to fall on one's chest, unless it's pushed back all the time. Personally, I wouldn't read anything into it.
_____
It seems to go down all the way to her stomach, in a way that does not allow for the original hair-do.
Unless, of course, it was her wish to wear human hair as part of her outfit that day.
triplets!
in these IVF cases, it's not unusual to implant more than one embryo in case they don't all make it. I wonder if that's the case here, or if it's just a pillow
OT: I felt that gender reveal explosion Tuesday night(in NH)that's been in the news today. Totally wild to find out what it was. At the time I had thought it was a tremor. It was so weird.
she will be spitting nails since the UK papers are not running the pic I am thinking she is testing the waters to see how much she can get for exclusive dorito pics (and now i am craving those cool ranch suckers ugh!) and page six is part of that strategy. am confused why not tmz did they call false on some of its or didnt want to share the $ and they dropped her?
as for the pic,carrying the toddler, if he was walking or in a stroller we would all be looking down at her knees and not at her. had to bring his face up to hers so she can be part of the pic true narc. its really pathetic
AnT said...
NEW ARCHIE from Page Six is a version of pompom hat girl! It’s real name is probably Lorelai!
...............
@AnT
Do you think this latest Archie looks like the one someone recently tried to pass off as him? I'm too tired to look it up right now but it was the child of someone who had written an article about how MM's miscarriage story helped her get through her own loss.
April 23, 2021 at 11:03 AM
____________________
AnT said...
@JennS,
Yes, I think t could well be the pretty young child of Silver Tree again, though the face seems more feminine to me esp around the mouth.
_____________________
hunter said...
Also - the lady who wrote the miscarriage article for CNN - Bryn Gringas, her child is Gavin Gringas and yes it may be her son.
VERY interesting that nobody will post the new Archie pics.
_____________________
LOL! There have been so many different 'Archies' it can get mighty confusing when trying to reference all of them!
**@Hunter - Thank you for your post above - Bryna Gringas and her son Gavin were who I was talking about in my earlier comment and I couldn't remember her name.
**@AnT - I do have the pics of the Gringas version of Archie which I'll be back with shortly. From what I remember this new Archie seems to resemble him...🤣
Meghan Markle was papped yesterday with Archie. Page Six has the exclusives, which you can check out on their website and their Twitter. As we’ve seen, Meghan, Harry, and especially Archie are not papped very often. This is the first time Archie’s been photographed by the paparazzi in LA, actually. He and Meghan were papped in Canada but since they moved to the US a year ago, they’ve been able to stay out of pap range for the most part and keep Archie completely out of pap range until now.
When we’re talking about celebrities and paparazzi, particularly in LA, there’s always a conversation about staging and whether or not pictures are set up. Today is Prince Louis’ third birthday. And House Cambridge has released a new photo to celebrate the occasion:
I love how thrilled he looks to be on his bike heading to nursery with his backpack on. LOL. This is the age when there’s real excitement to go to school. Remember when it used to be fun to go to school? In my case that lasted about a week.
Anyway, given the timing of Louis’ birthday and this Archie sighting, some are wondering if this is a petty-off. I live for petty, so I wouldn’t be mad if that was the case but we don’t know yet if it is. Here’s what we’re working with. Page Six and the pap agency, so far, have not revealed WHERE these were taken and WHEN they were taken specifically. In fact, they’ve cropped out any identifying location details for the shot so Meghan and Archie could be on any sidewalk in California really, and the details have been presented generally. They were in LA, OK, but what neighbourhood? Pap agencies often tell you – Brentwood, West Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Century City, etc. We don’t know where Meghan and Archie were. And we don’t know when they were where they were.
That may be because they don’t want to give it away to other pap agencies so that they can keep their exclusive, in the hopes that they secure another set. But that doesn’t explain the date and why that hasn’t been shared, at least not yet. The date is important though because if there really is some petty sh-t going on, it depends on when these shots happened since the whole petty theory hinges on Louis’ birthday. If they were indeed taken super recently and intended for release now, then sure, petty it is. But if they were taken not super recently and held –agencies have been known to hold pictures to protect the shots and not alert either other paps or the celebrities to their presence – the question is why.
Harry and Meghan have, up to this point, actively pushed back on paps. They sued a pap agency and sent it into bankruptcy not too long ago, specifically because they took photos of Archie with Meghan in Canada. Based on that, I’m not sure that we can rule this as a paparazzi set-up. We may end up hearing a few weeks or months from now of them going the same route with these recent photos. There are many ways that the Sussexes have gone Hollywood but given their history, and their documented stance against their child being photographed, I don’t know that these pictures are an example of the Sussexes going Hollywood.
cont'd
Speaking of going Hollywood, according to Page Six, in yet another Sussex exclusive, Harry had a meeting with philanthropist Wallis Annenberg on Wednesday, the day after returning from London. Harry and Meghan have a charitable foundation, they’re working on various social justice causes, and it’s totally pedestrian for foundations and non-profits to be making connections with potential donors. The meeting, then, isn’t necessarily noteworthy, it’s the location: San Vicente Bungalows. Going to San Vicente Bungalows is VERY Hollywood, it’s as Hollywood as it gets. San Vincente Bungalows is these days what Soho House was for a long time. Not that Soho House isn’t around anymore, it’s just that right now, San Vicente Bungalows is the preferred members-only situation in town. The reason I bring up Soho House, however, is because of its familiarity to Harry, well before he started dating Meghan. Soho House was started in London and Harry’s been through there along with his friends many, many times. It’s long been rumoured that that’s how he and Meghan were connected. San Vicente Bungalows is the same vibe – exclusive membership, privacy prioritised, but sometimes compromised. There was a breach at San Vicente Bungalows recently with Justin Bieber. And this seems to be another breach, if a member is going to Page Six about Harry showing up there.
As much as San Vicente Bungalows will try to shut down these violations though, it’s also a very Hollywood thing to do, trade secrets and information, and share insider tips, to the media. Publicists, agents, studio reps, celebrities themselves, they do this all the time. That’s the world Harry and Meghan are now a part of.
Interestingly, though, it’s a world they just left. The royal institution, as we’ve seen, leaks out information to the tabloids all the time, compromising Harry and Meghan to the point of betrayal. They may have bounced from England but they won’t be able to escape the paparazzi and scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours game with the media, certainly not in Hollywood.
On a less serious note …
Archie in jeans!
British royal children aren’t allowed denim – and royals in general are very sparing with their denim wear, usually – but here’s little Archie rocking up in jeans. That’s definitely something the Sussexes have been able to escape: the weird pearl-clutchy rules and regulations that get imposed on royal family members, even the little ones.
lainey lui so you don't have to read her and give her the hits:
Meghan Markle was papped yesterday with Archie. Page Six has the exclusives, which you can check out on their website and their Twitter.
_____
Page Six is a conservative outlet of the New York Post. Personally, I trust them. Why? Because they are slammed by all the other ones.
As to your other suggestions, yes. I think you're right. At least mostly right!
and the dig about the jeans. the kid is not rocking jeans when they are cuffed for 3 inches. we all had to do that since buying clothes that fit for more than a minute is nearly impossible. that dig about royal kids not wearing jeans? didnt the cambridges christmas card pic have them in denim. that criticism is all miss M and warms my heart. someone is still spitting nails
Archie's never been papped in LA? What was that lawsuit over the Archie in push car with Doria photo about then?
British royals children aren't allowed to wear denim jeans. Well, except in a few of their parents' Christmas card photos seen by millions of people. And on other outings. Not even close to "not allowed "
so you are making up new rules because this is the first I've heard of this?
Here is the original article that contains 2 pictures of the Archie look-a-like I'm referring to in my post above:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/opinions/miscarriage-brave-women-pandemic-santa-gingras/index.html
If y'all will remember - a couple of months ago someone took the second photo of the woman and the boy on the beach and circulated it around claiming it was Meghan and Archie, and it made its way here to the blog. I had researched it and found out it was not them but this woman Gingras who works for CNN. Since then there have been claims that this child has been used as an Archie 'substitute'. The boy does look similar to a lot of the other Archie photos and I think in particular resembles this latest one. Could he be a borrowed child or photoshopped in to the pic?
What do Nutties think?
🤔💭🤔💭🤔
Richard Eden
@richardaeden
How sad that paparazzi pictures of #Meghan and Archie should appear in the U.S. on the same day as the official photograph to mark Prince Louis's birthday is released by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge #royal
Jen Garner is the *closest* I can see to what Meghan wants to be. Jen Garner though has a decent acting career, and was married to Ben freaking Alfleck. Their family is pretty much Hollywood royalty and yet we have Jen prancing around with her kids every other week playing doting stay at home mom to the paps. I get it- Jen needs to remain relevant, too.
What exactly is Meghan selling? If I were trying to cater to *huge* donors I’d be more discreet. If I were trying to gain public infamy I’d aim for a reality show with Harry showing us as normal everyday people. They can’t swing both and get away with it, can they?
She still following the 90s playbook. Pimping out the kids is looked down upon nowadays. Or so I thought, as we are in the era of Privacy and data protection.
it didn't sound like a polite request is all I'm saying. And, even if you were, I wouldn't abide by it. Because there's some interesting info to be garnered there. Especially about that club in today's column.
also, if you're not remarking positively about any of my comments, ever, I just don't think you should be suggesting anything to me.
I ignore a lot of people here because all I see from them is criticism.
Assuming a divorce is inevitable, Angelina would be the aspiration.
I'm a long time lurker, but just recently decided to step out of the shadows and start talking because I was jumped on spectacularly after I posted to social media that I thought H&M were full of sh*t during The Interview. I used to run with a pretty woke crowd, and had my 15 minutes of fame a few years ago fighting the confederacy, and pretty predictably, my loyalty to Black people was called into question after I (rightly) stated that Meghan is full of herself and no one should be drawn into her trap by accusing people who disagree with her of being racist. She's monetizing the long overdue discussion of race in the US for her own personal gain, and not because she has anything of note to contribute. There are important discussions to be had, important changes being made, but none of that is coming from her, nor is she adding anything of value to the discussion of such topics and police murder of unarmed innocents, white nationalism taking over one of our major political parties, or any other important issues that the US is currently grappling with. (How do I know this? Where have been her woke statements on the Floyd verdict, the Toledo shooting, or the America First caucus? She's been quite silent.)
I believe it's important to call people out on their BS, but I am a librarian, so I like to have my facts and I've been reading up on these two and their misdeeds for well over a year.
I was hugely excited when M married into the Royal Family--I got my (Black) daughter up at the crack of dawn to watch the wedding and touted the modernity of the institution celebrating this union. Just a few short years later, I'm forced to eat my words, and explain how people can have odious intentions of abusing a platform they could have put to really compelling and good use, instead blowing it all up for their own personal gain. I admit I am truly happy that after the initial "Poor them!" post-Interview explosion of positive press, people are figuring it out.
I never had opinions of Harry one way or the other, but what's going on now is an absolute travesty. The more I read, the more disgusted I am, and the more compelled I feel to make sure that people who don't know better are educated about what these two are up to--Meghan for her own personal hunger for fame and fortune, Harry out of (my guess) petty jealousy and a lack of purpose in his life.
I won't be getting personal about face lifts or hair, and I don't care to go down the rabbit hole of is she/isn't she pregnant, because that doesn't really interest me. What does interest me is the fact that these two are taking advantage of a long overdue movement in the US that doesn't need to attract two people who really have nothing to add to the conversation or any way of advancing it or moving it forward (and I hate that people I think are otherwise thoughtful and passionate about the topic of race relations are signing onto these two just because they scream RACISM!) and can only bring illegitimacy in my opinion, and I just truly feel sorry for the people they've burned in their wake. Additionally, it's clear that they have no direction other than wanting to be wealthy--nothing they've done has really borne fruit and I hope people don't support their grift. When I ask people "OK, what exactly is it that they're doing? Can you tell me what their foundation does?" no one really can, and then the light comes on.
I've been a fan of the BRF since I was 6 years old and my own mother woke me up to watch Britain get a new princess in Diana on her wedding day, and this whole saga saddens me.
Happy to chat and respectfully debate with anyone! :) And thanks for the warm welcome as I step carefully out of the shadows.
--Kate
“Since then there have been claims that this child has been used as an Archie 'substitute'. The boy does look similar to a lot of the other Archie photos and I think in particular resembles this latest one. Could he be a borrowed child or photoshopped in to the pic?
What do Nutties think?”
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I’m not sure about this one.
Presumably, this child has grandparents, aunts/uncles, and other relatives. His parents have friends and coworkers. At some point, if Harry’s wife were borrowing this child, I would think someone would step up and say something. At least one person would find it odd that he kept appearing with Harry or Harry’s wife without his own parents around. It would be too hard to contain with Harry and his wife being so public with everything.
I’m probably an outlier around here, but I think he is theirs. I do not believe Archie is “of the body” and I think they are using a surrogate again this time around. Archie looks too much like young Harry and I see bits of Harry’s wife in him. I also think she is just not maternal, which is why she always looks so uncomfortable with him.
a tweet from Angela Levin - journalist and Prince Harry biographer
Angela Levin
@angelalevin1
What a gorgeous happy photo of Prince Louis to celebrate his 3rd birthday.
Presumably Meghan Markle will sue whoever took the picture of her carrying Archie. What a coincidence we can see the cousins on the same day.
I hope you understand that we here do not like to assume suppositions are true. Naturally, we insist on receipts.
Thanks for contributing. Please don't think we're being rude.
If you trusted the photos, you would have believed her.
A DNA test didn't agree with the photos, however.
I don’t think we should publish photos of other people’s children. I think it’s wrong on multiple levels.
.................
The way Nutty has Google blogger set up for this blog does not allow for pictures so we have NOT published anyone else's child's photos. I don't think providing a link to a story that has somehow gotten entangled into the Markle mythos is a crime. There are numerous references to those pictures with endless speculation all over the Internet about there being some kind of connection. I think it's worthy of diplomatic investigating. If the situation was entirely innocent I wonder why the parents of this boy haven't said anything about it. I know I would if it were me and my child.
I love the avatar.
Queen set to get bulk of Prince Philip's £10million fortune - EXCLUSIVE
THE Duke of Edinburgh arrived in Britain as a penniless and stateless refugee but he left this world with an estimated £10 million fortune.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1424840/Queen-news-prince-philip-will-latest-royal-family-news
And check this out...
The Express managed to write an article about Markle's Walking-with-Archie-in-Dangerous-Shoes pap photos without showing the actual pics!!!
Meghan Markle fans outraged at 'torrent of abuse' over claim Archie snap 'upstaged' Louis
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1427035/meghan-markle-news-picture-archie-harrison-paparazzi-prince-louis-birthday-snap
Harry has ginger hair and now it’s kind of course - kinkyish or with some kind of body. but as a young child it. seemed more blonde/straightish no texture to me.
his wife has treated , straightened?, extension hair. but as a child seemed to have dark brown kind of course / kinkyish hair.
maybe they are ashamed of the hair or lack or hair on the baby? I think they are hiding it. not sure why, baby and kids hair changes as they grow up. both of their parents hair changed when they grew up.
I plucked this from the first page, and I meant to say something before. Charles has been on my heart lately, ever since his emotional pilgrimage to the hospital to see his father. For someone whom Diana continually ran down as 'a cold fish', it seems to me that Charles is possibly the most emotional member of the Family, certainly of his generation.
I have a soft spot for underdogs, and Charles, who grew up in a palace wanting for nothing and being spoiled, ironically Charles is an underdog. He was outshone by his mother, then his wife, and now his kids. Some of this is his own doing, yes, but he can’t take a step forward without someone pushing him two steps back. Decades of work in the Princes Trust is never mentioned, nor taken up by his sons. His environmentalism is ignored during this time of climate crisis. His statements of embracing and recognizing all faiths (I paraphrased that badly) was seen as an attack on the Church of England rather than the modernizing approach it was. And now he is alone in Wales (the one story the media seems to agree on), recuperating from his father’s death and his son’s betrayal. But the press got one stunning photo of Kate. That’s what really matters.
In the years since Diana died I have become a Charles defender. I was really angry with him for years over the failure of his marriage to Diana and the reasons for it, but now that I know more about what the RF was dealing with behind the scenes with Diana, I think the marriage would have failed even without Camilla in the picture. All these years on, we think there has finally been some healing. Camilla is generally respected as as asset to the Firm and good for Charles personally. He seemed happier in the last decade than ever in his life . . but through the actions of his younger son, the toxic legacy of Diana once again rears its head to deprive him of peace of mind. He has got to feel the weight of blame for this situation, regardless of how much of it he may or may not be responsible for.
Like Charles, I'm the eldest of four children, with a pretty large gap between me and the younger ones. Like him I have felt the burden of parental expectations and the sting of feeling like a failure on that account. I have always felt tuned to a different frequency than the rest of my family. I know about being sensitive, emotional. I can appreciate how active he's been as PoW; all the initiatives he started that his children have flung away as of no interest to them. Will may be coming around. But H is a lost cause and for Chas it must feel like he's buried a son--or at least all the hopes he had for that son as well as a father. It seemed for a long time that H and C were closer than C and William, due to the complexities of mentoring the son who is waiting for you to die. No more. If Charles and William can be closer now, at least that's one good thing to come out of all of this.
One of the things that gets me so mad is her sugars saying we were all prejudiced from the start. I was delighted (because I hadn't done any digging) and thought she would be an asset. I was glad H was no longer going to be playing gooseberry or third wheel to the Cambridges. I had actually felt sorry for him because of that, even though I never liked him. She has let all of us down. I feel as if I've been ripped off personally. Magnify that feeling by millions in the UK and you understand how deep this goes. It's a gigantic fraud happening right in front of us. Some people are taking SO long to realise it.
@nope, @Maneki Neko and @Hikari
Re the witch holding Archie, I've never seen a photo of her gazing at her son, never mind gazing lovingly at him.
Good point. Also notice how the child is never looking at her either.
Isn't it exceptionally difficult to photoshop people making eye contact when they're not? I remember as well those old movies like Gene Kelly dancing with animated Jerry from Tom and Jerry in Anchors Aweigh. Or Esther Williams swimming with both Tom and Jerry (they got around). Their eyes never quite meet. Probably the same with Mary Poppins and the penguins.
H needs a Mary Poppins to make him dress tidily and polish his shoes and stop telling tall tales. I'd love to see that.
I agree. When I watched Catherine, William, and Harry walking after the church, to me it looked that as soon as Harry inserted himself, Catherine found Sophie and took off as soon as she could. And I don't blame her. What Meghan said during The Interview was pointed directly at her and Harry, with whom she was formerly so close, did and said nothing to defend her. I'm sure she wants as little as possible to do with him and more or less told her husband "He's all yours!" I don't think it had anything to do with giving them time together or being a peacemaker, only to do with getting away from someone she views as someone who broke her heart.
I agree she's using a hat to cover his hair as a disguise for whatever reason. It's not cold enough in CA for a woolen hat right now and it's quite obvious she is covering up something.
The baby we saw in the first few pics and in the SA video was nearly bald.
Then he appeared in the "cartoonish' Christmas card with a thick thatch of what appeared to be reddish hair.
Next, we see what may be him in the Silver tree photo with afro-texture hair...
Followed by black and white footage of him on the beach with full hair.
I don't know how he grew his hair so quickly between photos.
But there is something about his hair that she needs to hide - either it doesn't match earlier photos because they are using different children or she doesn't like his hair.
.............................
@ShadeeRrrowz
I'm definitely open to them having a child in their custody and I agree with you that if they did he would be from a surrogate and not 'of the body'. I've always been pretty convinced of the pillow theory but not as certain about the result. I like to explore all options! When we bring different ideas or info found here to the blog I just like to try to puzzle it out. No one can say for certain what is going on although I do hope we find out some day!
@Jenn,
I love the avatar.
.............
Thanks! I don't know if folks here are familiar with Markle being referred to as having a SpongeBob-body since it's an older MM joke, but my latest avatar is MM on "Deal or No Deal". Creating goofy pics of her as well as Harry somehow makes it a bit easier for me to handle their never-ending awfulness.
As it happens, I'm a librarian, too. (children's) I trained as a teacher, and have taught or worked with kids in some capacity from infancy to teens for nearly 30 years. I often invoke my observational knowledge/experience of child development when dissecting what may or may not be possible for a normally-developing human child as opposed to some savantic alien species when presented with the tableaux of Archie's accomplishments. Rather like Alice in Wonderland, he grows/shrinks, exhibits Mozart-like precocity beyond his years or regresses to 'Baby Archie' depending on the PR needs of 'his mother' at any given time.
The whole pregnancy/clandestine ops around Archie and now this new moonbump she's sporting is the most frustrating/potentially sinister piece of this puzzle to me. Take away these reproductive mysteries and they are just two spoilt petulant arrested-development cases who quit their jobs and ran away to the beach. But while the road was bumpy with M even before the engagement, things started to seriously go off the rails after events of October 2018 and Eugenie's wedding. If we entertain, theoretically, the scenario in which she does NOT have a toddler, was never pregnant in England and is not pregnant now . . the lengths to which she is prepared to quadruple down on this fib she keeps telling is extreme. She wants to be like Angelina Jolie so bad . . will she keep producing a fake infant every couple of years until she's 50? She is after all, a medical marvel!
I think this Archie matter is at the crux of their schism with the family. The RF might have been more willing to negotiate some of the terms the Harkles were demanding in order to keep more loving oversight on the child who is listed as 7th in line to the throne of Great Britain. I think if Archie were in fact a flesh and blood reality, the RF would be more invested in keeping him as part of the family. Apart from the statement by the Queen at Megxit and the tepid, nervous congratulations offered by William when he was press-ganged the day of 'Archie's birth' . . H's child has never been spoken of. Witnesses at the polo say that there was a physical altercation between H and William when M appeared with 'the baby'. William does not want his family anywhere near M's con, in my opinion.
When Charles becomes King, he could, and would ordinarily invoke his constitutional right to become the legal guardian of all of his grandchildren, including Archie and little Diana 2.0 and any other spawn M claims to produce, until they come of age.
Re: The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family (1717) granted George I and subsequent monarchs legal custody of their minor grandchildren in all matters. George I had custodial custody as well, seeing as his son and daughter-in-law were deemed unfit parents. In practice the monarch rarely leans heavily on this statute, which is not an act of Parliament, but ER did invoke it to decline permission to Diana to take the boys to Australia to live.
This is what I mean about M having no clue about normal reproduction and child development. She's so impatient for everything to happen immediately but she can't rush nature according to her time table or she'd have three pregnancies every year.
I know you said you didn't want to speculate about Archie or any of this and actually that isn't even what I wanted to write. I got sidetracked. I meant to echo that at the time of the engagement, I thought this was good news for H. I'd never heard of her and her show only vaguely. Just the sight of the two smug faces of Patrick J. Adams and Gabriel Macht on a billboard while passing convinced me that I would never watch it. It seemed like it'd be a lame-ass cut rate version of L.A. Law only, not good. Basic cable, summer replacement . . how'd it even get 8 seasons? I watched about 20 minutes of the first episode out of boredom one day when it came up on my Prime Video, just to see Markle 'act'. It really was as bad as I feared. The very first time we see 'Rachel' her boss is rolling off her in bed. You'd think M's acting might be enhanced when she's lying down with only a slip on but not so much. Even though I though she'd bizarrely dressed like the Little Match Girl for their engagement photo call, I thought they'd make it longer than this before imploding. I saw Andrew and Fergie 2.0, and figured that there would be some non-Royal behavior ahead, but the mistake I made was thinking she actually wanted to be there and learn how to be a Duchess. Nyet!
As someone (sorry, can't remember who now) astutely put it: They are as bad as each other. All this has happened because HE has allowed it to happen. H is the key. It boggles the mind.
Welcome to this blog! Agreed—even after thinking about it and discussing it with a friend, I still feel she had no interest in being near Harry, and that she actively (cleverly) sought and found a way to slip smoothly away from the brothers. William’s problem to deal with. And, Harry and his wife have mounted such a focused attack on hurting Catherine, from the Rose Hanbury tale to Charlotte to Oprah, there is no way a strong, balanced, family-loving woman like Catherine would want to be bothered by Harry’s pap games and jabber on a sad day.
Like you, I also started out as a MM fan, thought it was great Harry found love with her, breath of fresh air who was accomplished too, thought she would bring a lot to the table and that they would be brilliant for the U.K. and little girls could look up to her. I bought my copy of the Grenfell cookbook, watched the wedding with a friend, thought Thomas was being unkind. And then ...it began to unravel with a sudden bad feeling watching her in the engagement interview, and strange smile and odd wedding demeanor, the celebs and no family, the merching and bump and sloppiness...the cobbled-together thin resume...the rumors and gaffes (met him where? How. When?)....the lies (didn’t know about Harry) basically pissing on the institution while grabbing cash and spending like a drunk.....then I slowly began to eat my words too. Gave away the cookbook. And found my way here. I after being so let down by the reality of her, it helps to talk and laugh here about it, and look at it as an analysis of a sort of strange historical war game, I suppose.
Thanks for posting that from Lainey as dictated to her by MM. Hilariously, breathlessly sucking up, piece from M/H's Lainey stooge.
______
Also the husband paying for children that do not have his DNA due wife cheating. These laws vary from state to state. Lets say the married couple divorces after two years. The ex-husband demands a DNA test for their child and legally gets it. In some states this Ex-H will have to pay child support even though their baby has zero of his DNA.
In other states he is off the hook. There is no Federal law on this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9505515/Duchess-Cambridge-Queen-says-uncle-Gary-Goldsmith.html
I was glad H was no longer going to be playing gooseberry......
Never heard "playing gooseberry" before. I had to look it while I was eating my bubbles n' squeak with me Bedfordshire clanger
What lovely spicy chai you've spilled!
So the whereabouts of the top-secret meeting between Hapless and Ms. Annenberg was released to the press with glee by the "little hustle?"
lol, she sabotages everything, doesn't she?
The greedy, grubby pair are going to wallow in their self-created pond of dead dreams!
“All this Montessori schooling for Arch - apparantly hours away from his home, from the woman who couldn't attend Mother and Baby clubs because of her fame - give me a break. The only reason Montessori is mentioned is because Prince George attended one in Norfolk when the Cambridges lived at Anmer Hall. Surely there are suitable nursery schools in Montecito, unless of course they don't actually live there.”
There are actually two Montessori schools in Santa Barbara. Either the press is playing fast and loose with California geography by saying “LA” or Harry and his wife are being very environmentally unconscious driving into LA for preschool.
I think we have seen several babies and children being photographed in the role of Archie. Some boys, a girl. I think a few have been used for a few photo shoots. I think others images are, or are formed of, the children of others:
1) Harry’s friend’s daughter with the pompom hat (I think they lived in Turkey)
2) Messica’s newborn son a few times (the first sad infant image with large man hand by it)
3) big baby in the photoshopped formal Christening photo
4) staff baby in Africa and the Duck Rabbit book images
5) wodgy-head B/W photo crawling to camera Christmas baby
6) the Silver Tree child
7) the Gingras child
8) paid and paid-off model or two
9) polo doll
10) Canadian park walk doll
11) the giant child being loaded onto the Elton John trip private jet
Because I have often had to help cast men, women, teens, and children for print, digital and television ads, I can tell you that you would be surprised how many people will happily sign their young child up for an ad run, and stay quiet for money and regular work. Some don’t want a spouse or friends or in laws to know, some do. People know some people don’t approve of hiring out kids for ads, much less thus sort of ruse. And the idea that all parents are paragons who wouldn’t agree to a secret baby campaign....well. Think again.
I can also tell you that if you do a photo shoot with a child one week, then suddenly need a reshoot two weeks later, but the baby’s family is busy or away on vacation, it isn’t that hard to find a reasonable substitute to double in, when the children are that young.
I see nothing remarkable about Archie, nothing so distinctively H or M about him, that I can’t see even if I walk into Target or take a run in the park on a Saturday. The nose, the eyes, the strabismus, are simply not that hard to recast at that age.
However, the hair, the head shape, the ears would be giveaways along with plumpness or delicacy of arms and legs. Hence hat, clothes, angles. And the computer painting of the gaudy playhouse Christmas card, and use of easily tweaked black and white.
The other giveaway is child energy, outgoing spark, or meekness. Some Archie babies look scared, some laugh, some play.
Finally, there is always the reaction of the child to the adult acting as the parent in the ad. Some kids are instantly interested with strangers and can act well with a good actor who likes kids willing to rehearse a bit for the cereal bowl or clothing or dog or car scene, whatever.
Some kids only have eyes for mom behind the cameraman, so they are usually just booked for basic retail clothing stills or similar.
And some kids have nearly zero interest in non-familiar people and will simply focus on the book, playhouse, dog, beach or chickens. Especially if they are working with a disinterested actor who isn’t good with kids.
I think if there is a surrogate-born Archie, he lives elsewhere with others. These people have yet to become actual parents. In fact if these two had walked into a casting session acting as distant to or uneasy with the child as we have seen H and M be with the various Archie’s, I think there might have been some flags raised, some concern, and some questions asked by a legitimate agent.
Also the husband paying for children that do not have his DNA due wife cheating. These laws vary from state to state. Lets say the married couple divorces after two years. The ex-husband demands a DNA test for their child and legally gets it. In some states this Ex-H will have to pay child support even though their baby has zero of his DNA.
In other states he is off the hook. There is no Federal law on this.
-----------
Didn't this become the case (short term) for Larry Birkhead and the Anna Nicole saga? She left for the Bahamas, gave birth to her daughter and put Howard Stern on the Birth Certificate, be damned for Larry Birkhead.
But when she died things turned around and DNA was performed and Larry Birkhead won his daughter back.
I disagree with most here that this Archie is a fake, doesn't exist, and using other children for photo ops.
Does anyone really believe that the Royal Family would go along with a fake baby story?? Even more importantly that baby looks just like Harry and he could never deny Archie as his own.
Now is it MM's biological child, that I don't know, Archie just doesn't share a lot of her features, but regardless, Archie is her future ATM and so is the new baby that's coming.
I get that MM is just evil and has some serious mental disorders, but can anyone really hide a humanbeing? Won't that child eventually grow up? Then what, the child passes in some freak way and once again, no need for any accountability for his existence. I just don't buy it. It just doesn't make sense to me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9505141/Oprah-surprised-Meghan-Harry-open-went-way-interview.html
Talk about sing her own praises.
Archie looks exactly like Harry. Then if you go find the pic of Di holding a 2 year old Harry, Archie is a carbon copy of Harry. There is no denying Harry is the boy’s father.
“maybe H&M are playing fast and loose with geography so people cant zero in exactly where they are and notice no archie at any of the preschools.”
LOL! There’s that.
I only brought up the press thing because it really annoys me that a lot of reporters think that they have to relate every place in California to either LA or San Francisco. As much as I don’t like it here (and I’m trying to get out in the next year or so), I find it to be really lazy on the part of the reporters that do it.
@Pantsface
“it's all a bit odd, why drive a 2 year old that many miles to nursery?”
Everything with these two is a bit odd. I don’t think they are driving him that far, I think it is just lazy reporting.
I disagree with most here that this Archie is a fake, doesn't exist, and using other children for photo ops.
Does anyone really believe that the Royal Family would go along with a fake baby story?? Even more importantly that baby looks just like Harry and he could never deny Archie as his own.
Now is it MM's biological child, that I don't know, Archie just doesn't share a lot of her features, but regardless, Archie is her future ATM and so is the new baby that's coming.
I get that MM is just evil and has some serious mental disorders, but can anyone really hide a humanbeing? Won't that child eventually grow up? Then what, the child passes in some freak way and once again, no need for any accountability for his existence. I just don't buy it. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm of the same opinion. 👏
Love reigns! Stunning photographs celebrate the love between Prince William and Kate Middleton on their 10th wedding anniversary.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9500367/Stunning-photographs-celebrate-love-Prince-William-Kate-Middleton.html
I completely agree. We're all somewhere on the spectrum here - I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, believing that Archie exists and that he's H's son. I'm willing to accept M is his biological mother but I don't believe she gave birth to him. Therefore he shouldn't be in the succession.
This for me is the biggest issue of all. I want H out of the succession because of his unforgivable disloyalty to his family and his country; Archie out of the succession as he was not born of the body, but also because there's something ludicrous about a child being relatively high in the succession who is being raised by two disloyal, treacherous people in a different country.
Those two broke every rule going when they were in the UK. They still take us for fools. Like the idiotic people today who insisted the pap photos were a coincidence on Louis' birthday. The Sussexes have become so accustomed to the gullibility of their sugars, they forget the rest of us have brains in our heads.
Ava, I hear your point. I have no opinion on succession.... it’s not my country. I’d likely have an opinion (I assume) if it was my country...
1)favor to the queen and royal family
2)click bait because of the timing it insures more eyeballs
either way - it really made the harkles look poorly on the timing, which coincides with theory number one. If so she maybe getting really pissy about now.
That man is a hot pan of sizzle and has had the good sense to stay faaaarrrr away from Miss Megasaurous Rex.
The photo - I do not believe it is Photoshopped, sorry. Nope. Not like the composite family shots, nope.
Also - the hat is covering his hair but also his ears. Ears are unique identifiers.
PLATELL'S PEOPLE: What Meghan Markle could learn from Kate Middleton's family snaps.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9505913/PLATELLS-PEOPLE-Meghan-Markle-learn-Kate-Middletons-family-snaps.html
Snipped:
Oh, what her sister-in-law could learn from her! From the very outset, it appeared that Meghan chose to keep Archie from us.
There was no traditional photocall of mum and baby after the birth — although Meghan later said that was because she was not asked to stage one. When we were introduced to Archie a few days later, we didn’t get a proper look at his face. The impression conveyed in comparison to Kate the sharer was Meghan the shielder.
Of course, Harry and Meghan want to guard their family’s privacy. One of the main reasons the Sussexes went to Los Angeles was to escape unwanted intrusion from the media.
Yet the irony is they have suffered more from the paparazzi over there than would ever have happened had they stayed in the shadow of Windsor Castle at Frogmore Cottage.
Only this week, a paparazzi shot of a heavily pregnant and masked Meghan, casually dressed in jeans and a black T-shirt as she carried Archie, appeared on an American website.
Early last year, Meghan was snapped holding Archie in a park by paparazzi. Before long the couple were filing a lawsuit over invasion of privacy.
In comparison to their life in Britain, the U.S. is paparazzi Wild West.
No doubt the first pictures of the proud parents and their new daughter will be released in due course in America, carefully choreographed and taken by one of Meghan’s photographers in arty black and white.
Perhaps Oprah Winfrey will be there at the birth!
But give me one of Kate’s home-snapped pictures of her children any time.
That's about when the Leukemia sets in though, just a guess. Poor kid is hospitalized/on home care doncha know?
https://twitter.com/salty_duchess/status/1385346403371782145
I found the comment below. The replies were interesting as well.
As a GP referral consultant I can safely say carrying anything heavy is not advised due to the hormone called relaxin which is produced during pregnancy. Doctors advised you NOT to lift anything heavy during late pregnancy. She is NOT pregnant
Like other posters, I thought the photo looked real, but the bump looked as ludicrously fake as Megs' bumps always do. I assumed she was really holding an 'Archie,' as heavy as he looks, (30 lbs?), but was only able to do so because her bump is fake & lightweight. I clicked on the photo to get a closer look, & little oddities popped up. The hands seem to have different skin tones. The left hand looks pinker & even a bit larger than the right hand. (Harry's hand?)
The logical way for a pregnant mom to handle a large toddler like 'Archie' would be to let him walk & hold his hand, or put him into a stroller (a merching opportunity!), but Megs is carrying him ON HER BUMP. I recall being quite protective of my bump when pregnant, & didn't want anyone or anything to touch it,( my ob/gyn, maybe.) As others have pointed out, little kids can kick, (as well as be jealous of an unborn sibling that everyone seems excited about). If you were really pregnant, & carrying a toddler, as Hunter and others have pointed out, you would rest the toddler on your hip, & encircle him with BOTH arms. I had swimmer & tennis player arms, but there is no way I could have nonchalantly managed a heavy toddler with one hand loosely wrapped around him, as Megs is holding 'Archie' & I certainly wouldn't let the toddler use his unborn sibling as a seat! So now the photo looks weirder than ever to me.
We've been down that road, in this blog, before. Children that "look" like a parent doesn't guarantee paternity. I have a niece that people would always, always, comment how much she looked like me. It was remarkable, even as an adult she looked a lot like me. Only problem? Zero blood relation. Zero. Product of a previous marriage.
And remember the pictures of Archie side by side with a baby Tom Hanks? Looked very much a like. Is Tom Hanks the father? Genetics are funny.
I've alway believed there is an "Archie" (although I still don't think that's his legal name). I vaguely remember rumours right before the wedding that H & M had visited fertility clinics. To make sure everything was ok. Because, you know, her age, etc. I think Archie is their s but was born via surrogate. No woman who has ever had a baby would willingly turn down the best OB/GYNs in the UK only to have a child delivered by unnamed sources. Does he live with them? Who knows. I only hope he has a nanny that is a good, solid person to raise him.
Given that, resting the kid on a support pad would greatly improve my ability to hold him. The bump is fake and Meghan is doing what would come naturally to get the shot.
These are not subjects to be messed with.
It would be really difficult to pull off something similar to that from JH and Harry's wife. Theirs have a more scripted look.
Is there a reason why they seem to target W&K?
Yeah, I think for several reasons. They "seem" to equate popularity to some how meaning more important/relevant which they value. Maybe they think that would have given them bargaining chips to use to make others (beginning with the BRF, and now expanded viewing audience) to dance to their tune perhaps in the Influencer world of how to make money and show you have more followers than this other person.
FF had some posts about how popular they were and more searched for than the Cambs at one point (when they were new and shiny, yada). But the BRF does not make major changes based on popularity. They are aware of it, they tweak their SM but they aren't thinking that they ought to do or say X to gain popularity.
LA/HW, on the other hand, does incorporate this (popularity) as part of their model in how to do business (or so it appears).
And, basically, as others have pointed out: Catherine has it all. Thin, tall, athletic, the great hubby, the darling photogenic kids, the supporting parents plus siblings and ... the future as next to William.
Sure, she had a lot of bumps and for a long while but that is not what as obvious now especially when there is someone else to compare to after they have worked out bumps. So ... the long history of bumps and not nice names in the headlines - that was more than just a year or a couple of months more. What it was was years and now ... that she has it all - and the great future (that others walked away from their part of it - by their choice).
@Tatty - Archie looks exactly like Harry. Then if you go find the pic of Di holding a 2 year old Harry, Archie is a carbon copy of Harry. There is no denying Harry is the boy’s father.
I completely agree. We're all somewhere on the spectrum here - I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, believing that Archie exists and that he's H's son. I'm willing to accept M is his biological mother but I don't believe she gave birth to him. Therefore he shouldn't be in the succession.
.................
Gosh, I don't see either Harry or MM in the current version of Archie at all. And what's more indicative to me that he is most likely not Harry's bio son (and this is just a gut feeling) is Harry's lack of interest in Archie. Very sadly, he spoke more about his dogs during the interview than he did his 'son'. And it was his dogs that we saw during his scheduled photo session at the beach - no boy with his dad.
The boy is almost 2 years old and we have never seen Harry cuddle nor interact much with the child at all. Folks are usually proud of their child - particularly a firstborn child.
In this case, one would expect a member of a Royal Family in a 1000-year-old monarchy to be especially excited over a first born son, and yet there has been virtually no sign of Harry's pride in this child...beyond the weird manic way he spoke to reporters outside the stables following the delivery.
And I don't believe the reason has anything to do with privacy or saving him for a major magazine payout. There is simply NO normal excuse for his lack of interaction or discussion of his child.
In addition, there have been too many different "Archies" for this story to be normal.
And something tells me that if there really was a child especially one related to the royal family, that the firm would have been more aggressive in seeing to his welfare...perhaps even interfered in him being taken out of the country knowing the Harkles are most likely quite disturbed.
The story of Archie really doesn't make any sense no matter what way you look at it. But whether they have a child with them or not, I don't believe it is related to either of them.
The RF definitely needs to remove Harry and his descendants (actual/future/pretend/etc) from the line of succession. If H is no longer part of the firm, is not recognizing or respecting the role of the monarchy, and is not even living in the country he should be removed from it all.
And what role can his children be expected to play as US residents who will not be brought up to understand anything about the monarchy or even Britain?
It's frustrating to see the vile pair still highlighted on the royal family website. They really need to cut them loose in every way possible. It may require waiting for the right moment but it will have to be done.
IMO, H's wife brought the whole thing on herself with all the secrecy nonsense. Maybe she thought it would generate interest (even negative). If so, she was right.
_____
Blogger AnT said...
@JennS,
"I think we have seen several babies and children being photographed in the role of Archie. Some boys, a girl. I think a few have been used for a few photo shoots. I think others images are, or are formed of, the children of others:"
You have aptly pointed out how this could be done. Others have said there is no way the RF could either A) not have known or B) participated in such a colossal ruse.
I retire as a still questioning person, exhausted by it. I don't understand the whole secrecy thing. But then, I don't understand anything these two do.
Only makes me despise them even further and deeper than I have ever done.
Given that, resting the kid on a support pad would greatly improve my ability to hold him. The bump is fake and Meghan is doing what would come naturally to get the shot.
Exactly! You've echoed what I said earlier in this thread. The silicone bump makes a perfect 'shelf' to balance Archie on and would render him much lighter and easier to carry.
She really isn't fooling anybody. On second thoughts.... maybe just a few!
What the actual ..... does this woman actual WANT!
@jessica,
Given that, resting the kid on a support pad would greatly improve my ability to hold him. The bump is fake and Meghan is doing what would come naturally to get the shot.
Exactly! You've echoed what I said earlier in this thread. The silicone bump makes a perfect 'shelf' to balance Archie on and would render him much lighter and easier to carry.
_____
I did read somewhere, I believe it was LSA, that it was believed she may have been pregnant, but still used a moonbump. Why, I have no earthly idea.
(sorry)
it was believed she may have been pregnant, but still used a moonbump. Why, I have no earthly idea.
How about... because she's stark raving bonkers!?
It's time to call it a day... so Goodnight. :)
I think I understand Meghan's thinking about motherhood. It may bear some resemblance to Lainey Lui's take on it. Lainey laughs at people who are into the home, family and kids track by calling them the "white minivan crowd". She is constantly making fun of celebrities who try to appeal to the "white minivan crowd" by taking pics with their kids, or announcing pregnancies. She also says that celebrities who fall out with the "white minivan crowd" or also "soccer moms" destroy their careers. (Lui doesn't have children, by the way)
It's a constant theme with Lui, at least until she discovered that giving up her whole site to the BLM crowd might be her ticket.
If Harry's wife and Lui are close, it might be a feeling they share.
@Lt Uhura,
I think I understand Meghan's thinking about motherhood. It may bear some resemblance to Lainey Lui's take on it. Lainey laughs at people who are into the home, family and kids track by calling them the "white minivan crowd". She is constantly making fun of celebrities who try to appeal to the "white minivan crowd" by taking pics with their kids, or announcing pregnancies. She also says that celebrities who fall out with the "white minivan crowd" or also "soccer moms" destroy their careers. (Lui doesn't have children, by the way)
_____
Hmmm. We may finally be getting somewhere here. Thanks for this.
I can absolutely see the contempt H's wife might have with the whole normal lifestyle, something with which she is utterly unconnected.
To think Lui and types like her are responsible (at least partly) for the whole RF blowup ....
@Lt.Nyota Uhura,
it was believed she may have been pregnant, but still used a moonbump. Why, I have no earthly idea.
How about... because she's stark raving bonkers!?
_____
Hahahahaha! I'll buy that 😄
Good night :)
Harry was knighted by the Queen into the ROYAL VICTORIAN ORDER. I messed up before and went back and looked up the honors again. I should have waited for from the UK answer you.
Info is here, scroll for picture of cross he wore to the funeral. Service to the Queen is the requirement.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111370/Just-case-needed-title-Prince-Harry-KNIGHT-grandmother-appoints-Royal-Victorian-Order.html
So glad to have you back, by the way!
All this Montessori schooling for Arch - apparantly hours away from his home, from the woman who couldn't attend Mother and Baby clubs because of her fame - give me a break. The only reason Montessori is mentioned is because Prince George attended one in Norfolk when the Cambridges lived at Anmer Hall. Surely there are suitable nursery schools in Montecito, unless of course they don't actually live there.
Remember when the tabloids (excuse me, PR) were talking about all the specialists that were tutoring Archie? I wonder what happened to them.
@Lt. U — Harry’s honor/medal at funeral.
Harry was knighted by the Queen into the ROYAL VICTORIAN ORDER. I messed up before and went back and looked up the honors again. I should have waited for from the UK answer you.
Info is here, scroll for picture of cross he wore to the funeral. Service to the Queen is the requirement.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111370/Just-case-needed-title-Prince-Harry-KNIGHT-grandmother-appoints-Royal-Victorian-Order.html
So glad to have you back, by the way!
_____
Thank you brown-eyed, glad to be back :)
Thanks for the link. Near as I can tell from this and other sources, the Royal Victorian Order is only given to members of the RF for "service to Queen/King and country" and only by the grace of the sovereign. H did in fact serve in wartime, so deserved the honor ... as the Queen saw it.
(Not in my book, though, but that's another story)
Cheers :)
Good rundown on the Archie debacle. Harry's complete distance from him speaks volumes. Especially, in this day and age.
I think Lui is wildly immature and doesn't exactly understand celebrity business. She is a sensationalism writer.
She most definitely has no maternal bone in her body and indeed dismisses mothers as the "minivan majority."
Ironically, she used to HATE when pregnant women "belly-cupped." Like, she would point it out in disgust every time a pregnant celebrity would pose with a hand on their belly. So quite funny that her pal comes out and is the most unnatural, excessive belly cupper I've ever seen in my life and suddenly that gets a pass. So transparent.
FWIW I have no issue with belly cupping- when I was pregnant my hand just naturally went there. But I didn't constantly clutch it with both hands like the freaking psychotic wife of Harry.
Also I have no issues with women that have no maternal bone in their body- to each their own. :)
It really seemed like some sort of coordinated effort to put the future wife of Harry on the map. Just sayin'.
And that article has a nice picture of the children clapping for, I believe, the NHS while the Duchess of Cambridge holds Louis on her hip like all the rest of female parents do around the world EXCEPT for the Beast of Montecito.
And I want to add- the only reason I ever heard about Harry's current wife was from Lainey's site dropping the news that Harry was secretly dating her. Then all of a sudden it was a thing.
It really seemed like some sort of coordinated effort to put the future wife of Harry on the map. Just sayin'.
_____
Exactly what I and several zillion others were wondering. Thanks.
I think that Lainey was also talking about how celebrity women would cup their pregnant bellies to appeal to the maternal instincts of the minivan majority so I think we have her to thank for that from the evil one.
I occasionally go over to her site to see how she is twisting reality to excuse Harry's wife's behaviour, because I know that that's the same reasoning that the Duchess of Darkness will be using.
JennS,
Good rundown on the Archie debacle. Harry's complete distance from him speaks volumes. Especially, in this day and age.
.....................
@Not Meghan Markle
Thanks NMM...it really does speak volumes and it's a relief to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. The lack of interest really hit me after they moved to the US and we still didn't see any Harry interaction with the boy. Harry is detached and disconnected from Archie - whoever he is.
In South Africa, I thought Harry seemed distant and indifferent in the one visit we saw with Archie.
When they filmed the birthday video of MM reading to him, assuming it was Harry behind the camera, I thought it normal to expect that he would step out at some point and interact with the boy on camera. Harry is the royal family member yet he couldn't be a part of this first birthday video? How Weird!
And the footage of MM and the child at the beach...once again why wasn't there any footage of HARRY with the boy? HE is the one who supposedly passed down an historical lineage to this child and yet we see nothing to mark that. No father and son proud moments.
I compare all of this detachment to Harry in Africa laughingly twirling children around giving them airplane-rides or playfully sharing popcorn with a toddler at a game. I expected some cute moments like those with Archie.
The near silence from the RF regarding Archie also speaks volumes. He has been mentioned but is never spoken about.
So...I just think either there is no child and they are scamming with substitutes or they have one who is not blood-related.
I simply do not understand the secrecy. I lean towards surrogate, but I also think she could have not shown much and wore bumps early and often for attention. Totally agree that neither of them show one iota of a sign of any kind of bonding with any of the babies they have been seen with, which stokes the fires of conspiracy theories. (Harry did look pretty happy with Pom-Pom hat baby, but that was the only time I saw anything remotely like joy emanating from either of them with their child)
The thing that blows my mind the most as far as the baby goes is that ginormous Duck Rabbit baby. Every child we have seen since them looks to be about half the size of him, with an awful lot of hair having grown is a short time span.
FWIW, at this time of year in coastal SoCal they experience of weather phenomenon referred to as June-gloom. It can start any time in April and I have known it to still be in effect in July. It's basically a lot of cold, damp fog in the mornings, which burns off in the afternoon; I say this because it would explain her coat and possibly the baby's beanie, because it can get quite chilly.
However, I will also say that after seeing Playing-On-the-Beach baby's hairline, with its weird bald spot along the side of the head, I wondered if Harry's wife had attempted to dye the poor wee one's hair to make it appear redder, and it burned his sweet head somehow? Is that too monstrous even for her? I remember one of you clever Nutties blowing up the pic of Playing-With-a-Carrot Toy baby and seeing violet patches photoshopped in, wondering if she was trying to make him more red-headed?.
Regardless of WeverTF is going on, she sure has found some adorable babies to use, if Archie doesn't exist. I could eat this latest one with a spoon, he is just that darling, as was little Gavin. (I also wondered if the miscarriage story his mama posted was a signal that Gavin was no longer for hire?)
@xxxxx Please keep up with the poems because I love them. Plus your music recommendations are always gold!
Many thanks charade! I am coming off my poerty jag but shall do, but less often. My best music recommend I will post again--- Ry Cooder with his song Prodigal Son. Done live in studio with his son Joachim on drums and two other musicians. Ry was on a few Stones tunes such as Sister Morphine - His slide Guitar
Prodigal Son by Ry Cooder
https://mobile.twitter.com/kennn21710790
There are shots of both Catherine and William holding George firmly in front of them. I'm not sure if C was pregnant at the time but am sure William wasn't! Both are leaning slightly backwards to adjust their balance. I don't recall ever seeing a photo of the Wife ever doing that whilst being Preggers M*****s.
There are other shots of how to hold young children securely.
I realize now that I wasn't fat. I was a normal weight for my height, and when I see pictures now I see how good I actually looked. Sadly I couldn't see it then.
Worst thing is when he said son "isn't the kind of baby you show off."
Daughter, who was first born, looked just like his side of the family. She's the kind of baby you show off I guess.
If you could photoshop a Bane mask onto Harry's wife in the latest pap shot I would be forever indebted to you.
xo, Ziggy
Is H's wife planning to be involved? Sending flowers? Condolences to those who don't make it?
There's a clutch of articles if you search Markle Oscars - eg Harpers last year stated she'd turned down an invitation to host in favour of that bank gig - but the best re the 2 saying she `deserved' an Oscar for her performance with Oprah.
I can't recall if these were posted at the time so here's the one from Celia Walden:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/meghan-actress-bones-performance-lifetime/
and here's the one from Piers:
https://www.insider.com/piers-morgan-meghan-markle-deserves-oscar-oprah-interview-prince-harry-2021-3
Needless to say, the Wokerati have to retaliate.
How will she attempt to steal the limelight/thunder?
Part 1
Daniela Elser: Kate Middleton never befriended Meghan Markle because she was too 'intimidating'
23 Apr, 2021 11:20 PM7 minutes to read
news.com.au
By: Daniela Elser
OPINION:
Never has a pair of tights gotten so much coverage as the ones which may or may not have caused one of the greatest schisms in royal history.
The time: 2018. The place: A drawing room in Kensington Palace (I'm guessing) filled with excitable small children and a lot of frayed adult nerves.
The countdown was on for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's modern-day fairytale wedding, the regular girl who had been plucked out of B-list stardom to be transformed into a bona fide royal.
However, what happened next in that palace room, something involving not only the bride but also Kate, Duchess of Cambridge and an alleged argument over flower girl tights, has been the subject of thousands – literally – of news stories since then.
The only thing that anyone seems to agree on is that someone ended up in tears.
While it was first alleged that it was Kate who ended up crying, last month Meghan told Oprah Winfrey and a global TV audience of 50 million that it was in fact Kate who had made her well up.
In the long and winding annals of the barely two-year story of the Sussexes, this controversial incident has been held up as the juncture at which point things went off the rails for Meghan and Kate.
However, now a new report has proposed another reason why the two duchesses fell out and it has nothing to do with tights.
Writing in The Telegraph, Camilla Tominey, who broke the news Harry was dating the Suits star in 2016 and who first reported on Tights-gate, has suggested a surprising, new explanation may lie at the heart of why the two duchesses never became close.
"They were not only very different women with very different personalities but very different women who came from very different places," a palace insider has told Tominey.
"Kate spent 10 years as a girlfriend learning the ropes. Everything happened much more quickly with Harry and Meghan, who entered the royal scene with her own, fully formed ideas. I think Kate found her quite intimidating."
If insecurity on Kate's part did lie at the heart of the Great Duchess Debacle it would make sense. While both women are university graduates, that is where the similarities end...(Comment about Di's only school prize)
...By the time Meghan moved into Kensington Palace in 2017 she was a successful actress with five seasons of a cable network dramedy under her belt, had launched a clothing line for a Canadian department store, and had set up a blog that was a fairly generic melange of Maya Angelou quotes and lipstick suggestions.
More impressively, in my book anyway, was the fact she had also served as a globetrotting ambassador for World Vision, was a counsellor for One Young World, a UK-based charity, and had worked as a UN Women advocate including giving a speech at a UN world conference event in Beijing.
And Kate?
Well, before she married William she once organised a charity roller disco.
The fact of the matter is, while Kate might now be hailed for her Early Years and mental health work, back when she was a single gal she was hardly blazing a shining professional path.
The two women took very different approaches to their royal roles.
After having graduated from university and headed to the mean streets of London's Chelsea she then promptly set about … not much. To be fair, the constant flick of rapacious paparazzi who stalked her every move would have made attempts to start a career that much trickier. Still she didn't seem to really try that hard.
In 2006 she took a job at British high-street clothing chain Jigsaw as a part-time accessories buyer. According to Daily Mail royal editor Rebecca English: "She went to the boss and said to them, 'I need a job, but it needs to be part-time so I can work it around my relationship with this very high-profile man.'"
(Emmeline Pankhurst must be rolling over in her grave right now.)
The following year Kate started working for her parents' children's party business, taking photos of products for their website.
In 2008 it was reported the Queen was worried Kate was starting to look work-shy.
A royal source said, at the time: "There is concern at the very highest level that Kate Middleton still does not have a job. The Queen has made it known that she feels Kate should get involved with a charity, possibly an animal charity, where she can be seen to be doing something proactive."
Quick! Fetch some photogenic puppies with sore paws!
It could also be argued that her seeming professional apathy was not rooted in laziness but in a prevailing fear of doing anything which might jeopardise her potential royal future.
All of which goes a long way to supporting this new explanation for the falling out between Kate and Megan. It would make sense if she felt threatened by Meghan's extensive CV and even the fact the Los Angeles native had one that was longer than a double-spaced one-sided sheet of A4.
"I don't think that she ever pulled Meghan under her wing and said, 'I'll show you the ropes,'" a friend told Tatler last year.
"Catherine and William were very circumspect from the beginning about Meghan, which hurt and incensed Harry. William rightly cautioned Harry to slow the relationship down. That's why they all fell out. As the rift got deeper between the brothers, Kate, who used to be so close to Harry, tried to pacify things. But her loyalty will always be to William."
The two duchesses' vastly different pre-royal adult lives also explain their diametrically opposing approaches to their palace careers.
Turns out the falling out between the two duchesses wasn't over a pair of tights after all.
When Kate joined The Firm she eased into things, taking a considered if notably gradual pace. It took eight months after the wedding for Kate's official patronages to be announced and a full year before she gave her first speech.
By contrast, Meghan hit the royal ground running, bringing with her a surfeit of American can-do pep. Only four months into her royal tenure, Meghan had spearheaded and launched a charity cookbook, undertaken a one-on-one outing with the Queen and gave her first speech, a seminal moment in any HRHs career.
What none of this changes though is, if there is real substance to this new thesis, then damn, what a huge bloody shame.
Imagine how wildly differently things might have gone if the two women, non-aristocratic outsiders who married into a 1000-year-old institution had, instead of being foes, become allies.
When their husbands fell out, they could have, working in tandem, helped patch things up. They could have joined charitable forces to create the most powerful royal double act since the Queen got her first corgi or Charles first met a pocket square.
They would have been, quite simply, unstoppable and a potent force to propel the monarchy into the 21st century.
Imagine the twinning of Kate's reserve and Meghan's gusto, Kate's studied focus and Meghan's up-and-at-'em 5am zeal. They would have been a glorious sort of yin and yang and together they would have done more for the monarchy than the invention of bunting and the royal walkabout combined.
The combination of Kate plus Meghan would have been so much greater than the sum of them as individuals. It would have been a heady, heady time for the house of Windsor.
Instead, today, the words "royal family" have become synonymous with rancour and discord.
I've said it before and chances are, I'll say it again: If only. If only so many, many things had happened differently. If only Kate had put her alleged insecurity aside. If only there had never been a squabble over tights.
If only the monarchy wasn't edging towards disaster right now.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-kate-middleton-never-befriended-meghan-markle-because-she-was-too-intimidating/H76UG6KVGI4A72LFBAFCRBI73E/
I think we can safely say that Elser is still on the Dark Side.
As my SIL said of the Step-Monster, at least she gives us plenty to talk about (until we all left town).
"I think we can safely say that Elser is still on the Dark Side."
Most definitely. (Thanks for the article, BTW.)
Funny thing is, I agree with much of what Elser wrote: The Queen probably was understandably concerned in 2008 about 26-year old Kate's lack of apparent work or charity experience, after the big pre-wedding build-up (saying Kate was the most educated/qualified royal bride ever), Kate was slow to become involved in royal life, and I don't doubt pregnant mother of 2 Kate didn't try to take M "under her wing." But the parts I defintely do not agree with are Elser's main points: that Kate was "intimidated" by M, that M's resume was wonderful, and that M's UN involvement was sincere and meaningful.
If it were still 2017/2018 or maybe even early 2019, I could see how Elser could reach her conclusions (although I still wouldn't agree.) But in 2021 after watching the spectacle of superficial woke bandwagon-jumping and repulsive behavior to the Queen and the BRF that is M and now H, I don't understand how Elser can maintain her position, much less write about it.
The Sole of Dissension
Another pap stroll
For madam la mole
Poor Archie hanging on,
what a life
Her boat shaped canoes
Shoes that hide cloven hooves
What lies beneath, is the real
Harry’s wife
Some of the things I came away with:
Riven Rock Road looks to be in much poorer condition than the road the car was pictured on.
(could have been resurfaced/repainted since the StreetView images were taken?)
The verges on RR Road look much more "desert-like" compared to the "homecoming" pics which have lush green verges.
(could be explained by time of year the pics were taken and/or planting having been done since the most recent StreetView images?)
RR Road seems to be slightly narrower than the road in the pics.
(could just be my eyesight and/or the difference between the SV camera and whatever camera the paps used?)
I was looking for a driveway pattern similar to in the pics - two turnoffs next to each other with a pole on the tiny verge between them. Found nothing at all.
(assuming that utility poles are a long term fixture - do new driveways get built around them or are they moved?)
In the pic where the car is turning into the driveway, I can't find anything that looks remotely like that white wall(?) pictured in the distance behind it. I also can't find that mature leaning tree in the middle distance with the rock at the base.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/04/21/07/42015358-9493697-Harry_s_car_was_seen_arriving_at_his_home_in_Montecito_at_around-a-2_1618987498454.jpg
(the wall could have been built since the last SV, but I'd assume that tree would have to have been there for years looking at the size of the trunk)
I can't find the "Hill Blocks View/20mph" signs featured in the other pap pic.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/04/21/07/42015366-9493697-Pregnant_Meghan_who_is_expecting_a_baby_girl_in_the_summer_was_t-a-8_1618987498469.jpg
(could this be a recent addition since the current SV pics? It looks kind of new, although it could be a new replacement of an older one that had been damaged/come to the end of its life. I don't know how US signage works but I'd assume if the hill is enough of an issue to need a sign some form of warning should have been there long term already?)
The only road I saw similar signs on was East Valley Road (the yellow diamond at the top with a yellow speed limit underneath, but the ones I saw were warning of bends not hills). I thought Hot Springs Road might have been a contender at first but the speed limit signs on there are all white rectangles from what I can see. East Mountain Drive also looked promising, but again no joy. All three of these roads seemed visually to be a better fit than RR Road, but as all I have to work with is (probably outdated) online maps of a place I'm unfamiliar with I can't be sure.
I was concentrating on areas close to bends as it appears the photographer may have been standing on a bend in the pic where the yellow sign is visible, but scanned along the straights as well just in case the curve in the road markings is an optical illusion from the hill. Nothing matched.
The only place I couldn't get to on SV was the private roads leading off RR Road, but from eyeballing in aerial view, they look even narrower than the road in the pap shots, and don't appear to have the double yellows down the middle.
---
Is there anyone here who knows the area (or even just the basics on US road signage/painting) who can clarify any of these points? I've tried to debunk my conspiracy-theory-esque findings as I've gone along but I'm still not entirely sure that where the car was papped is where we're supposed to think it was.
Hope all of that makes some kind of sense, I've ended up confusing myself somewhat lol
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-kate-middleton-never-befriended-meghan-markle-because-she-was-too-intimidating/H76UG6KVGI4A72LFBAFCRBI73E/
Part 3:
"I don't think that she ever pulled Meghan under her wing and said, 'I'll show you the ropes,'" a friend told Tatler last year."
_____
What a screed. Meow-meow, all the way through. As though M somehow "deserved" to be hand-held. Boo the hoody hoo. "I never looked up the royal family nor Prince Harry." Suuuure, Jan. Pull the other one.
Wasn't it some Tatler woman that was revealed to be a secret M source of some kind? And isn't Tatler the kind of publication that would automatically thumb its nose at someone like Catherine? Seems to me I've read where Catherine was snubbed, looked down on and otherwise despised by the aristos, perhaps no doubt encouraged by types like these.
As for Catherine's so-called lack of (feminist) credentials, who the .... cares? Who hasn't taken a variety of jobs or non-jobs? (Meaning within royal/aristocratic/upper middle-class circles)
I've read where H's wife was only a walk-on at those so-called UN and political events. A panelist of sorts, based on her so-called acting credentials. Something for her CV.
____
"I think we can safely say that Elser is still on the Dark Side."
This person can twist and spin all she likes. It still only adds up to the bottom line, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, is still going to be Queen Consort, and H's wife will not, however hard she and her sympathetic press try and paint things. Now, all they've got is trying to tear the Cambridges down.
I'm getting sick of this "end of the Monarchy" BS. Not gonna happen, IMO.
_____
Thanks for the share, @ Wild Boar Battle-Maid. We aren't going to defeat the Dark Side unless we know what they're saying, so thanks for that.
Maybe the firefighting topographical maps may help?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fire+map+montecito+california&atb=v222-1&iax=images&ia=images
The Sole of Dissension
Another pap stroll
For madam la mole
Poor Archie hanging on,
what a life
Her boat shaped canoes
Shoes that hide cloven hooves
What lies beneath, is the real
Harry’s wife
_____
Graveling at your feet 😄
If G-d Himself ever designated a poet, you're it :)
Taz's latest - almost literally on fire!
What Katy Didn’t
The sugars are still blaming Kate
Who failed to become madams mate
It was kate, Kate alone
Who declined madams bone
Good on her, she didn’t take her bait
William and Catherine weren't engaged until November 2010 .
Whose name rhymed quite nicely with Agatha
She cut to the quick,
To the pair who the Nick,
Should rightly have had it right there.
Blimey, she scared the bejesus out of me with that stare at Eugenie's wedding - and I was a couple of hundred miles away, safe on the sofa in my sitting room. The threat it implied was chilling. Imagine being close up to that. At that time, I was still reserving my judgement about her - but that didn't last much longer.
No, they'd already clocked her as a thoroughly nasty and downright dangerous individual - who in their right mind would want to cosy up to that?
I do hope that Catherine paid her for that knife - there's little doubt in my mind now that the Wife meant it in the most malicious way possible.
"Criticism of Catherine on 2008 - have the critics forgotten that W & C split up in 2007 and that in 2008 , although they were back together again, it was by no means certain that they would marry?
William and Catherine weren't engaged until November 2010."
I agree we didn't know if they would marry. However it has been reported Will told Kate he would marry her when they got back together after the 2007 breakup but he wasn't ready yet. It was also reported conversations along those lines occurred with the Middletons. Of course, I don't know if those things are true. But if they are, I can imagine the Queen may have also known.
We also don't know if the Queen was concerned about Kate's lack of a career or charity work. But Elser is certainly not the only one to report that was a royal concern. (And it was reported at the time.) And IF the Queen had a concern, I'm pretty sure she didn't call Kate in and tell her directly. More likely it went through Will. We did see a burst of activity-- charity event organized in late 2008, Jigsaw, talk of studying photography for a career. So it's perfectly possible things were going on behind the scenes. And we do know there was a big build up during the engagement about Kate's qualifications to hit the ground running in her royal work. But then the day after the wedding it was announced she would be a "housewife" in Wales for awhile. It was also reported Sophie offered to help Kate but Will said no. I don't think that overall approach did Kate any favors.
Has she paid her dues?
Thank you Lt. Nyota
Hope I’m hitting the bill
with my quota
Good to see that you’re back
We’re all on the same track
Get rid of her quick, and demote her
Sigh. I just want to kick her in the *ss and point out that as a middle-aged female, she ain't no little chick to be sheltering under somebody's wing who is YOUNGER than she is! Stand up like a woman and take responsibility for your actions, witch. The Duchess of Cambridge didn't screw this up, you did.
Strong, independent women don't constantly whine about their failures being other people's fault. Your failures belong to you; they don't belong to the people of the UK. They don't belong to the RF. They aren't the result of racism or sexism or anti-Americanism. Own them and move on, or stay in the house and tend to your husband and children because you are too delicate to venture outside.
Doesn't care who gets lost in the cause
She casts all aside,
And the world heaves a sigh,
But the world shall have its last word
:)
(Eh, I know, LOL)
@Lt. Nyota Uhuru
Sigh. I just want to kick her in the *ss and point out that as a middle-aged female, she ain't no little chick to be sheltering under somebody's wing who is YOUNGER than she is! Stand up like a woman and take responsibility for your actions, witch. The Duchess of Cambridge didn't screw this up, you did.
Strong, independent women don't constantly whine about their failures being other people's fault. Your failures belong to you; they don't belong to the people of the UK. They don't belong to the RF. They aren't the result of racism or sexism or anti-Americanism. Own them and move on, or stay in the house and tend to your husband and children because you are too delicate to venture outside.
_____
If you ask me, she's spitting in the face of ALL of us WOMEN who have done our best through life, supporting both daughters and sons.
Shouldn't we be about building each other up, rather than breaking down?
Why, after a decade of marriage, is the press referring to Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, as "Kate Middleton"?
Cathartic
Kate has paid all of her dues
Unlike madam, who inevitably sues
It’s really not fair, to compare
the wife of an ex spare
Against Catherine, the wife of an heir
That the truth of the true,
Is that who will be whom
and shall always be.
Pretenders may bleat,
and bleat until death,
but the bleating of sheep
is a breath in the wind
and shepherds know who will be left
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-not-allow-monarchy-23967870
I like the picture they use. You know the one where he looks completely perplexed by a book . He really does look like moron
Let's also not forget that H's wife is officially less than 6months older than Catherine and at the time of their marriages into the RF they were at different stages of their lives. H's wife's `working life*', for want of a better term, was, we believe now, inappropriate for Royal life and the `positive' achievements with which she was credited have been shown to have been nothing of the sort.
Comparisons between the two are unfair and unjustified in the light of what has been revealed over the last couple of years.
*I do mean that in it's nudge-nudge wink-wink sense.
The DM refers to Catherine as KM because that’s what people google her by. It’s hugely irritating. I’m convinced the DM, on the day of William’s coronation, will write “ King William left Westminster Abbey after being crowned, accompanied by Kate Middleton....
Prince Charles-- His statements of embracing and recognizing all faiths (I paraphrased that badly) was seen as an attack on the Church of England rather than the modernizing approach it was.
6-10 years ago Charles declared himself "Defender of all Faiths" -- after centuries of Kings and Royals calling themselves "Defender of The Faith" the Church of England -- Uproar ensued, after a few days Charles retracted his statement. It was humorous to see Chas walk this back.
DM's take on this ---- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6335719/Prince-Charles-wants-defender-faith-instead-defender-faith-says-Robert-Jobson.html
The degraded, loony lefty Archbishop of Canterbury ain't saying, but he probably considers himself a "Defender of all Faiths" or "Defender of no Faiths" or perhaps "zero faiths"
______________________
Archbishops of Canterbury and York respond to Church of ...
https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2021/04/22/...
1 day ago · Archbishops of Canterbury and York respond to Church of England Anti-Racism Taskforce Report Posted 2 seconds ago [Archbishop of Canterbury] The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued this statement in response to the Anti-Racism Taskforce report published today.
Shouldn't we be about building each other up, rather than breaking down?
If you are talking about women collectively, there are probably anthropological studies about competition for men's attention because that was how power was derived in patriarchal societies. A physical confrontation such as men engaged in could result in broken nose or teeth knocked out and remove their only currency, sexual attractiveness. Therefore, they worked in the shadows through gossip and innuendos and poison rather than direct conflict.
If you are talking about people regardless of gender or origin, I'm all for that and always have been.
IF people looked inwardly for validation instead of outwardly, there would be no need for building up.
I think that the whole "self esteem" movement, where children got praise and trophies for being there rather than putting forth any effort, has been really bad in that those children grow up and when instant praise and rewards are NOT showered on them for sitting there breathing, get very unhappy when they are actually expected to produce measurable results.
I still call Diana Lady Di.
It’s what I’m used to.
Same with Kate.
I still call Diana Lady Di.
It’s what I’m used to.
Same with Kate.
I was beckoned over to the table of a very wealthy local southern lady at the local BBQ restaurant last week. "You must forgive an old lady, but I don't remember who you are. Who ARE you?" I answered with my name and husband's last name. "No, I know your husband's people, who are YOU?" I told her that none of my people were local but I am a from a branch of (rich and powerful local family) but mine are from Tennessee. "Oh, that's fine, we'll take you!" was the response. She has an idea of my character, in other words, from my ancestors. (I didn't tell her about the Cajuns.)
Perhaps people do not wish to subsume her identity into her husband's? I think Kate Middleton is more of a 'people's princess' than Lady Di, frankly.
I am so sorry you went through that. What a horrible human being to say that about his child or the mother of his child.
I had a similar experience. One day, when a photographer from Women's Wear Daily asked to take my picture for his photo expose on the beautiful women from my city, my narc had to shut up and stand by as I was being held up as an example of beauty.
She was however very slow changing after marriage, but again I believe this was William's choice as he was not ready for working royal life himself. I was very unhappy with them both through that entire period and thought the Queen was far too indulgent allowing it to continue. However, again in retrospect, if they had been forced to that life earlier, unwillingly, they could easily have carried resentment right up to today - at least William would - and both brothers would be scowling and petulant, Harry far worse than William of course. Whereas we now have a radiantly happy Cambridge family we all enjoy.
Honestly, given the mess created by Andrew and Harry, the difficulties flowing from the tortuous nature of Charles' character and a 75% divorce for the Queen's children, I wouldn't care if William and Catherine did nothing in these years but bring up their family properly. That would be by far the greatest service they could do for the nation. That's not a great or useful lesson for the rest of us, but I'm just being pragmatic and recognising their unique situation, being responsible for the future of the monarchy.
Metoo @Swampie
@Ava C
Can you blame them?
Must be hell living in a
goldfish bowl?
I typed Montecito into what3words and the three words given are... tools, commented, crowns. I can't help laughing at it. The tools who think they should have crowns are definitely commented on!
I'll spend a bit more time playing with the maps later on, been gardening and just popped in for a quick coffee and sit down :O)
@Ava C
Can you blame them?
Must be hell living in a
goldfish bowl?
Nope. Quite understandable. I'm amazed Camilla took it all on when she was middle-aged, living in a beautiful old manor house, enjoying her grandchildren and with a comfortable income (presumably). Also knowing what an agonising end her mother endured with osteoporosis, which could well make Camilla hesitant about taking on a job that would be for life. I don't think people appreciate what she has given up and taken on.
She remembers her time in Malta before her father got sick and wanted them to have a somewhat normal life while they could.
they should hire you as their PR manager
@Curious
I know! when I opened Brynn Gingras' facebook page, I thought she had a photo of Harry's wife as her profile pic. As far as I know, Brynn doesn't seem to be African-American.
The 75% divorce rate isn't peculiar to the Queen's children. My kids used to be *very* unhappy with us because all of their friends had Christmas at Momma's house, Christmas at Daddy's house, presents from the old family, presents from the new family, etc. I'm the only *original* in-law in husband's family as is he in mine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/22/church-england-institutionally-woke/
"The term UKME*, the Church’s rebranding of BAME, is used throughout the report. The acronym may be different, but it still lumps together all ethnicities that aren’t white within one homogenous “community”, accounting for no differences in culture or values.
The report calls for positive discrimination, including by ensuring a minimum of 30 per cent “UKME” people in the Church’s leadership development programme. Shortlists for every senior position should include a “UKME” person. Failure to do so will require a written explanation to the director of HR. I had always believed that there was no such thing as “positive” discrimination: all discrimination leads to division and resentment."
*UKME = UK Minority Ethnic
I don't know whose woolly mind thought up the 30% quota - my reaction is that Welby, as a former finance chap, ought to be capable of thinking about the figures - where are the candidates going to come from to fill this quota?
It seems to have escaped the notice of this report's writers that a very substantial proportion of our `minority ethnic' population are not Christian. If they are from the Indian subcontinent, they are likely to be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Or they maybe Jains, Buddhists or Parsees.
Some states in India do have older Christian traditions, but not Anglican ones.
As an earlier report* put it: `The report shows the stronger tendency for African and Caribbean people to be church members compared, for instance, to Asian people,' That is not the same as saying that there is a sufficiently large number of black people in the CofE to meet the quota - I'd like to know if it's possible or not.
*Church of England national parish congregation diversity monitoring 2007 https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/celebratingdiversitygsmisc938_0.pdf
There's not-dissimilar row going on now about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) being `racist' in respect of how the dead of WW1 were treated - this ignores both the practical difficulties in identifying bodies and that the CWGC's procedure can't be applied to those religions that cremate or otherwise dispose of their dead rather than bury them:.
This war graves row shows racism claims are given more credence than real history
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/23/war-graves-row-shows-racism-claims-given-credence-real-history/
Welby must be in his element.
You will like this even more Link to and by SC. Done better than the original version.
This tune applies to Hapless (and everybody), Haps you should have been more careful who you married-- "You don't marry actresses". You only step out with them." So you were warned by your grandfather.
At the time of the Cambridge marriage, it did bother me that in the 21st century, a vibrant and educated woman like Catherine felt that waiting around for her man, a man who was incredibly slow to make up his mind, was the ‘safe bet’. She’s got a lot of energy, and certainly keeps her self fit, but I did think she could apply herself to more than tennis and shooting photos for Daddy’s website while she waited for William to make up his mind. Growing up rich is a great disincentive to work—And Catherine’s parents are multimillionaires, even though they have worked for that money “in grubby trade”. Catherine does not seem to be a spoiled person, but if she had been raised by her ambitious mother to focus above all in marrying well, Any sort of entry-level job she could’ve taken after university would absolutely pale in comparison to becoming the future Princess of Wales. But even if a typical 9-to-5 office job would have been logistically difficult for a serious girlfriend of a Wales man— given the resources of her family and her comfortable life that meant that she was not obligated to earn a paycheck in order to pay the rent on a bachelor girl flat and subsist on beans and toast like other recent university graduates, Kate could have found something more meaningful to do with her time. She could’ve found some volunteer opportunity in the arts, using her art history degree, or tutored children in reading with a literacy Council or Giving her Athleticism, thrown herself into sports charities. Beatrice trained for the London marathon to raise money for a charity; Catherine could have done similar in her local area.
I continually regret that working for my meager living prevents me from doing so many more things I would rather be doing, like traveling and giving back two charitable causes in a meaningful way. If I were freed from having most of my time taken up with keeping a roof over my head, I could be a lot more involved in volunteer work. Kate’s lightweight reputation as a bachelor girl was rather deserved. But once she joined the RF, it seems like the criticisms of her not being highly visible in her first years were misplaced. Like legions of other new brides, she accompanied her husband to his military deployment. As a newlywed Duchess living in a new country, was it her place to find herself Royal work to do? Surely she was not expected to work the phones and find her own patronages to assign herself to. In that Elser article, it’s stated that it took nine months for her patronages to be announced. Surely such an announcement emanated from the Queen, the source of everyone else’s roles. Considering that William and Catherine will potential he have 40 or 50 years on the throne, easing them in with a slow start seems like a wise strategy to me. It has paid dividends because now we see the couple plugging into their roles in earnest, and doing so very effectively. They are most important contribution during their first 10 years of marriage must be in the creation of their family—the future of Britain. Anything else pales in importance for lasting impact. Also, I’m sure the queen was bearing in mind that it was important not to overshadow her heir and his wife. HM knew W & K’a time would come, and she kept them in reserve. Now I think we can say their time is here.
https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex-announces-patronages
From the official RF website: Harry’s wife’s official royal patronages were announced in late January 2019, nearly 8 months to the day of her wedding. So that kind of delay in official patronages Assignments is the norm, and not because C. had any say in the matter.
IIRC, the Grenfell cookbook project was something MM inserted herself into as a way to show off her Black roots to the ‘ethnic’ London community, Importing her black mother all the way from Los Angeles for the occasion, and was not an official Royal charity. Her actual contribution seems to have been a brief forward in which she mentioned herself 27 times and implied that she was the author of the cookbook when in fact she didn’t even contribute a single recipe. She also arrange the photo up on the grounds of KP where she could be photographed in an apron waving a spoon. And the SmartWorks launch came more than a year after her marriage, not within 4 months of the wedding as she claimed. She must have meant to write “four months after she went on maternity leave”.
@Lt.Uhura
The DM refers to Catherine as KM because that’s what people google her by. It’s hugely irritating. I’m convinced the DM, on the day of William’s coronation, will write “ King William left Westminster Abbey after being crowned, accompanied by Kate Middleton....
_____
Ugh! Hate to say it, but you're right ... I've seen numerous comments in the red-tops from people stridently against Catherine being called by her maiden name, and now, it appears, the only reason for continuing to do so is the almighty algorithm.
Which is what H and his wife are so assiduously seeking.
_____
Blogger SwampWoman said...
If you are talking about women collectively, there are probably anthropological studies about competition for men's attention because that was how power was derived in patriarchal societies. A physical confrontation such as men engaged in could result in broken nose or teeth knocked out and remove their only currency, sexual attractiveness. Therefore, they worked in the shadows through gossip and innuendos and poison rather than direct conflict.
.....
I think that the whole "self esteem" movement, where children got praise and trophies for being there rather than putting forth any effort, has been really bad in that those children grow up and when instant praise and rewards are NOT showered on them for sitting there breathing, get very unhappy when they are actually expected to produce measurable results."
_____
Of course, valid points. I think I was railing against H's wife and her faux "feminism." Didn't come across right. You put things much better.
_____
@ Lurking With Spoon, glad to be of some help, however small :)
If this name means anything to anyone, would appreciate associations.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming :)