Royalty Thread #9. Welcome Archie, the red headed heir, don’t care!

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,166
Crown Princess Mary plays tennis. In a pretty long skirt.

This is a rookie move, really; Kate would have worn one of her beloved skinny pants/Breton striped top combos for such an event, or perhaps some sporty thing. But good for Mary for playing along anyway.

(I'll post about Archie when he does something interesting)
 
Last edited:

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,599
So from the last thread:

Where to find crazy conspiracy theories. As someone found, there are youtube videos. I have not watched any. I like train wrecks but not that up close.

A few places for the quick versions:

Instagram Accounts: Messy the Duchess and What Meghan Wants are treasure troves of crazy. Both were suggested to me because I follow other royal oriented accounts. I don't follow but both are public last I checked and you can see the nonsense.

Twitter: Wallis Simpson (@YankeeWally) And the source for a lot of the rampant speculation a very odd account called TorotoPaper (@torontopaper1). My guess is it is someone screwing around with the Meghan haters, but they take it completely seriously and the vague things there seem to have begun the whole treason/Tower ideas.

And finally, a weird blog called Harry Markle on wordpress. The author claims to have expertise, degrees and professional experience in just about everything (history, media, PR, marketing, etc...) and fancies herself an authority on all things evil associated with Meghan. This is the sophisticated conspiracy site pretty much claiming that Meghan worked with friends to con Harry into marrying her. This blogger never makes bold accusations but latches on to stupid things to conclude that there are lies and conspiracies. There is a long post about the announcement on the Buckingham Palace Easel being slightly different than those for the Cambridge babies which, of course, means something is being covered up. Since she is sophisticated about it; she mostly leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions about what exactly the lies/cover ups are. She also has a Facebook page.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
There are also some avid YT commenters. One is a "Michelle Khan":

Michelle Khan3 weeks ago
@Vickie Wyatt No I am not the joke and I am definitely no hater for your information, if you were intelligent enough you would notice and pay attention to Meghan and her body are there any changes in her weight? Any swelling? Her tummy dropped? then you will see what alot more people aside myself are speaking about but clearly you are not that smart!
and

Michelle Khan3 weeks ago
Give birth to a pillow or fake bump!! which apparently she forgets to put on at times I wonder if when the surrogate is in labor if Meghan will feel contractions?? This is the largest scam I ever came across. I deal with facts only idiots cannot see the truth, I do not hate her that's the first thing that flies out their mouth oh you're a hater, if someone is screwing up they need to be exposed especially when they got innocent people fooled.

Divine Deschabel
3 months ago
Due to her age and jobs as a royal she probably wouldn't be able to conceive naturally. But an heir must be produced so surrogacy might be an ideal way. It's just the lies of the Royal Mafia's again that's all. You will know if a woman is pregnant by looking at the middle of her neck - the centre part should appear deeper like a well, indicating a life is living inside her. People are not fools but there's nothing much anyone can do! The Royals will do anything to keep everything controlled and secret.. So yeah so be it
and finally this one:

Mehitable Storm5 days ago
Amazing My guess is something happened with the surrogate's pregnancy so they're trying to figure out how to get the baby from another source. Many think Markle is even a transgender, and I'm not going to argue - anything's possible nowadays.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
While we're royal watching if you follow the Duchess Kate blogs every time she wears skinny jeans there is a meltdown of sorts. I once pointed out to people that Catherine has the sort of body where she has to wear skinny jeans. She has a long torso, narrow waist with no hips, and skinny jeans flatter that sort of figure. Has nothing with her wanting to be immodest.

Admin Edit: Please do not embed images here. Use links.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,622
While we're royal watching if you follow the Duchess Kate blogs every time she wears skinny jeans there is a meltdown of sorts. I once pointed out to people that Catherine has the sort of body where she has to wear skinny jeans. She has a long torso, narrow waist with no hips, and skinny jeans flatter that sort of figure. Has nothing with her wanting to be immodest.

Admin Edit: Please do not embed images here. Use links.
I have noticed that as well. As someone who is similar in height and proportion to Kate I totally get the skinny jean. Wide leg pants look seriously bad on me. The only time I can wear a bit of a flare is if the pants are high waisted and cropped.

I have also noticed that people call her jeans leggings. They are so not leggings!
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
I have noticed that as well. As someone who is similar in height and proportion to Kate I totally get the skinny jean. Wide leg pants look seriously bad on me. The only time I can wear a bit of a flare is if the pants are high waisted and cropped.

I have also noticed that people call her jeans leggings. They are so not leggings!
Here is a pic of Kate with wide leg trousers. They look awful on her:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/fashion/royal-style/2018120565306/kate-middleton-cyprus-visit-wearing-trousers-olive-green-blazer/0-307-927/kate-middleton-trousers-z.jpg

Here she is in skinnies. They just fit her figure so much better.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WdvFO_oYDPs/XNM_mo5cNFI/AAAAAAABfbY/WwnnT1uUWSE7bDcvW9-Q0SX3_l4YOlORgCLcBGAs/s1600/iapr15.jpg

I do notice Kate always seems to wear the SAME black skinny jeans. I wish she'd mix it up more by wearing indigo denim skinnies.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,020

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,988
So from the last thread:

Where to find crazy conspiracy theories. As someone found, there are youtube videos. I have not watched any. I like train wrecks but not that up close.

A few places for the quick versions:

Instagram Accounts: Messy the Duchess and What Meghan Wants are treasure troves of crazy. Both were suggested to me because I follow other royal oriented accounts. I don't follow but both are public last I checked and you can see the nonsense.

Twitter: Wallis Simpson (@YankeeWally) And the source for a lot of the rampant speculation a very odd account called TorotoPaper (@torontopaper1). My guess is it is someone screwing around with the Meghan haters, but they take it completely seriously and the vague things there seem to have begun the whole treason/Tower ideas.

And finally, a weird blog called Harry Markle on wordpress. The author claims to have expertise, degrees and professional experience in just about everything (history, media, PR, marketing, etc...) and fancies herself an authority on all things evil associated with Meghan. This is the sophisticated conspiracy site pretty much claiming that Meghan worked with friends to con Harry into marrying her. This blogger never makes bold accusations but latches on to stupid things to conclude that there are lies and conspiracies. There is a long post about the announcement on the Buckingham Palace Easel being slightly different than those for the Cambridge babies which, of course, means something is being covered up. Since she is sophisticated about it; she mostly leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions about what exactly the lies/cover ups are. She also has a Facebook page.
How do y'all have time to find and read all this shite?
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,635
So from the last thread:

Where to find crazy conspiracy theories. As someone found, there are youtube videos. I have not watched any. I like train wrecks but not that up close.

A few places for the quick versions:

Instagram Accounts: Messy the Duchess and What Meghan Wants are treasure troves of crazy. Both were suggested to me because I follow other royal oriented accounts. I don't follow but both are public last I checked and you can see the nonsense.

Twitter: Wallis Simpson (@YankeeWally) And the source for a lot of the rampant speculation a very odd account called TorotoPaper (@torontopaper1). My guess is it is someone screwing around with the Meghan haters, but they take it completely seriously and the vague things there seem to have begun the whole treason/Tower ideas.

And finally, a weird blog called Harry Markle on wordpress. The author claims to have expertise, degrees and professional experience in just about everything (history, media, PR, marketing, etc...) and fancies herself an authority on all things evil associated with Meghan. This is the sophisticated conspiracy site pretty much claiming that Meghan worked with friends to con Harry into marrying her. This blogger never makes bold accusations but latches on to stupid things to conclude that there are lies and conspiracies. There is a long post about the announcement on the Buckingham Palace Easel being slightly different than those for the Cambridge babies which, of course, means something is being covered up. Since she is sophisticated about it; she mostly leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions about what exactly the lies/cover ups are. She also has a Facebook page.
I've just spent an hour or so reading some of the content on the Harry Markle blog on wordpress and it is certainly well written but with some glaring errors and jaw dropping assumptions. I can see why some of her readers might decide that what she has written in truth as she takes incidents that have happened and put her own twist on it - weird!!

I don't really do Instagram, twitter or youtube but did try to check out the Messy the Duchess and What Meghan Wants Instagram accounts and saw that the first one is still public but the second one - What Meghan Wants is now private and one needs to follow her - I decided against that!!

It certainly makes you wonder what goes through these peoples minds!!
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,834
https://www.instagram.com/p/BxXS3l4pz2j/

So very sweet. :saint: A message from the Sussex Instagram with such a lovely photo.

Sending my best wishes as well for a Happy Mother's Day to mothers everywhere!

https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1127570925887660032


balletmaus said:
... Because this baby's totally special and completely different from other newborns. :drama: :shuffle:
And I'm sure Archie is, especially in the eyes and hearts of his parents, and his grandmother Doria (for whom Archie is her only grandchild). :)


Disney created a Winnie the Pooh animation as a baby gift for Meghan and Harry:
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1126580022150598657

Yuzuru needs his own Pooh animation pdq! :D
 
Last edited:

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,834
A round-up of all the theories floating around regarding how Archie got his name. :lol:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/every-theory-where-baby-archie-164500222.html

I particularly like the video of the little boy from New Zealand who describes how he met Meghan and Harry, and after telling the Sussexes his name, Harry responded: "Archie, I like that name..." The video of the little boy telling the story was posted by someone on Twitter so it's been around and was picked up for this article, along with the mysterious Prince George anecdote I mentioned in the other thread. :)

I'm not certain of where this theory originated, but someone figured out that the name 'Archie' is close to being an anagram for 'Rachel' (except for the letters 'l' and 'i') :rofl:

Rachel is Meghan's first name and the name of her character on Suits, but this anagram happenstance is probably just a coincidence. Altho' it's as good a theory as any, and probably better than most! More than likely the 'Archie' choice is a combination of factors, e.g., both Harry & Meghan liking the name, Meghan having enjoyed the comic growing up, and then having noticed that the letters in the name 'Archie' are nearly a perfect anagram for 'Rachel.' Perhaps she'd figured that out long ago, especially since she'd named a childhood rescue cat the same moniker. Thereby, the name 'Archie Harrison' is a nod to both of his parents. ;)
 

kittyjake5

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,356
Actress comedienne Amy Poehler (SNL) named her first born son (2008) with then husband Will Arnett, Archie.

I had been wracking my brain for awhile on which Hollywood actress named her son Archie and as I was watching
SNL last night and Amy Poelher had a cameo appearance and Bingo it came to me.

Of course this information has nothing to do with the Royals just a tidbit that Americans do name
their children Archie. ;)
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,419
Of course this information has nothing to do with the Royals just a tidbit that Americans do name their children Archie. ;)
Very few do, though of course the Duchess of Sussex is an American citizen and Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is himself as American as apple pie. 🥧

In the United States, the name Archie had its peak in the 1890's and virtually died out in the 1980's. http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/boy/archie
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
22,488
Actress comedienne Amy Poehler (SNL) named her first born son (2008) with then husband Will Arnett, Archie.

I had been wracking my brain for awhile on which Hollywood actress named her son Archie and as I was watching
SNL last night and Amy Poelher had a cameo appearance and Bingo it came to me.

Of course this information has nothing to do with the Royals just a tidbit that Americans do name
their children Archie. ;)
Also, her Archie is a ginger.

Most of the theories are so OOT that it's impossible to believe them (unless you're credulous) but IMO the one that may be true is that Archie is older that M&H say. When they 1st revealed him I thought he doesn't look like a 2 day old baby. Also his birth weight was a surprise if he was overdue. And today's photo shows his feet longer than I would expect. Plus Harry's slip-up about him changing the 1st 2 weeks. I hope I'm wrong because IMO that's taking wanting privacy to a ridiculous length.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,635
Interestingly I see from some headlines that Harry and Meghan are apparently not going to release the birth certificate of Archie to protect his privacy?!? What on earth?!?! Do they not know that within a few months the certificate will be available via the .Gov website as all births are a matter of public record here in the UK. William and Kate released them ahead of that time for their 3 kids as they knew it was a public record and would eventually be requested by someone for historical reasons.

And this level of secrecy is what leads to conspiracy theories - if in fact that is what is happening. I know some question why the Buckingham Palace announcement had no doctors signatures but I can understand protecting a private doctor who is not of royal appointment as all the signatures of the 3 Cambridge kids birth announcements were/are. But refusing to release a document that will eventually be accessible by anyone who can pay £11 and get a copy sent to them seems futile and to be honest a little silly - if in fact that is what is happening!! Unless of course they do have something to hide but unless they somehow get a court order in their favour - and I doubt that would happen - then what ever is recorded on that birth certificate will be seen by all in due course!! If - as someone posted above - the baby was born earlier than said well just say it - why the secrecy!!
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
I wonder if Meghan had a C-section and doesn't want to admit it. This whole shame around not having a vaginal birth is very real. For instance another "Megan" I follow, Megan Fairchild (dancer with NYCB) recently had a baby where a C-section was necessary. She gave this interview:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/megan-fairchild-postpartum-ballet-interview#slide-4

SEE ALL SLIDES
4 OF 6

PHOTO: ERIN BAIANO FOR NEW YORK CITY BALLET.
Did it help having other mothers in the company to look up to?

"I actually deferred to Ashley [Bouder] a lot, because we had almost the exact same story, and the same surgeon. I felt kind of safe, because I could be like, How do you deal with it? I borrowed some of her confidence. I was able to go through all of that [with her], instead of being jealous and feeling like a less-than person because you can’t make it happen the other way.

"There's just so much pressure to [have a vaginal birth], and that's a nice thought, but you're not in the driver’s seat. I'm not going to do anything to risk my baby’s health, so it is what it is. I'm really embracing it as part of my story, but it took so long it was really hard for me. I couldn’t hear about friends having baby in a vaginal way, I couldn’t hear about family members, I was in such a bad place with it. I struggled with it and I know it’s an issue for a lot of people."
I really, really don't get why this is a thing. I've known women who had C-sections. I've known women who had their babies while being driven to the hospital. Very very few women had that perfect birth in a bathtub surrounded by scented candles and Mozart playing in the background. The end goal is to have a healthy baby for whom you WILL spend the rest of your life mothering.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,635
I wonder if Meghan had a C-section and doesn't want to admit it. This whole shame around not having a vaginal birth is very real. For instance another "Megan" I follow, Megan Fairchild (dancer with NYCB) recently had a baby where a C-section was necessary. She gave this interview:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/megan-fairchild-postpartum-ballet-interview#slide-4



I really, really don't get why this is a thing. I've known women who had C-sections. I've known women who had their babies while being driven to the hospital. Very very few women had that perfect birth in a bathtub surrounded by scented candles and Mozart playing in the background. The end goal is to have a healthy baby for whom you WILL spend the rest of your life mothering.
Well if she did have a C-section she is in good company as our present Queen was both born by a C-section as well as having one herself when giving birth to Prince Charles after 30 hours of labour!! Of course we would never know if that was the case as that is not recorded on the birth certificate.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,599
@Lorac I wonder if she herself is a year or two older than what she said when starting her acting career and that's the information she wants hidden.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
@Lorac I wonder if she herself is a year or two older than what she said when starting her acting career and that's the information she wants hidden.
That's quite possible. Katharine Hepburn was two years older than she claimed her whole life, and a bunch of actresses have nipped a year or two off their birth certificates. However she graduated from Northeastern in 2003, which would make "1981" as the birth date make sense.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,834
IMO the one that may be true is that Archie is older that M&H say.
That's one of the 'conspiracy theories' that sound very far-fetched to me. I don't see any reason they could possibly have for not providing the correct day and time of birth, which officially appears on their Instagram and in announcements by BP. I can understand why they didn't immediately announce when Meghan went into labor. It was the middle of the night. Once she gave birth at 5:26am, it was still very early in the morning, and so they apparently took the time to bond and to enjoy all the wonderment, and practical concerns, etc., that come in the immediate hours after giving birth.

It's been speculated that BP wasn't immediately informed either. At some point the Queen and her staff at BP were informed. The labor announcement to the press was reportedly supposed to take place at 12 noon UK time, with the birth announcement a couple of hours later, but it was claimed that a technical miscue at BP occurred, and that's why the labor announcement was released around 2 pm UK time, with the birth announcement coming quickly afterward around 40 minutes later. I haven't seen any official confirmation of any of this, but there may only have been verbal explanations provided to certain members of the press by BP reps.

In regard to the Sussexes supposed desire to not release the birth certificate, I've heard that rumored report too, but once again, I haven't seen anything officially confirmed, nor mentioned by the more reliable royal reporters regarding the birth certificate story. And it wouldn't serve the claimed purpose of protecting anyone's privacy by the Sussexes not releasing it themselves, since birth certificates can be obtained as part of the public record.

... And today's photo shows his feet longer than I would expect. Plus Harry's slip-up about him changing the 1st 2 weeks.
Perspective in photos can be deceiving. Possibly someone else is helping to hold the baby up in the air, while one of Meghan's hands cups both of his little feet. Archie's legs are crossed at the ankle and positioned in the palm of Meghan's hand. So, although Archie's legs appear to be long and his feet large, in order for both feet to fit in the palm of his mother's hand, they seemingly are tinier than they appear in the photo.

The fact that the flowers in the background are reportedly favorites of Diana's (forget-me-nots) is rather poignant. Also, Harry's Botswana charity, Sentebale, means 'Forget-me-not.'

Harry didn't slip-up in his comments. What he actually said appears to have been misinterpreted. It can be interpreted in different ways (unfortunately some reporters are reading too much into it). Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJZHpqQjUDs
Harry: "Everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks, we're basically sort of monitoring how the changing process happens over this next month really, but his looks are changing every single day ..."

And then in answering the next question, Harry says: "Yes, ... parenting is amazing. It's only been what [Harry looks at Meghan], two and a half days, three days?" Meghan says, "Yeah."

The conversation seems straightforward to me. I took what Harry said to mean that people have told them babies change a lot over two weeks time, not that Archie is two weeks old. An official time and date of birth has been provided. Also, during Harry's joyful birth announcement interview on May 6, he revealed that the baby was "a bit overdue." Later reports speculated that Archie was possibly a week overdue and that Meghan had been taken to the hospital on Sunday night, May 5, with labor commencing sometime after 2 am Monday morning.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
22,488
IF there is anything about this that is different than reported it would come back to really bite them in the butt & the criticism would go on for years so I sincerely hope that my post above is wrong & he really was born on May 6.

As for the forget-me-nots, on my screen they were just blue blobs impossible to identify so were they really a tribute to Diana?
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,622
I wondered about the feet when I looked at the photo. My kids were all early so I assume overdue baby maybe just look a bit better cooked :p As for the birthdate, I am sure little Archie was born when they said he was. There is no way that kind of secret could be kept in this age of google!

One small note I would like to make. There have been a number of posts here, and articles and comments out there about “bonding with the baby immediately after birth.” I know lots of people think that is a thing, but it really isn’t. Yes, it is lovely to be able to hold your baby right after it is born, but many, many, mothers and fathers can’t for lots of different reasons. As the mother of a child who I didn’t get to hold until 24 hours after birth, the perpetuation of this myth can be really difficult. So many people made comments to me about how sad it was that I couldn’t hold her and asked me if it was difficult to bond with a baby who spent its first weeks in ICU. The answer to that is: no, it isn’t sad I am so happy she is alive, and no, bonding does not happen in the first moments or even hours after birth. Bonding takes place over years, not hours. Parents and adopted children bond, parents and children in ICU bond. It is just another one of those things people talk about and make comments about out of ignorance. Most mean nothing by it, but that doesn’t make it any less hurtful. It doesn’t bother me now, but in those first few weeks my dd was in hospital it created yet more stress in an otherwise stressful situation.

It might be better to use the phrase “enjoyed some private time” rather than referring to bonding.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
I wondered about the feet when I looked at the photo. My kids were all early so I assume overdue baby maybe just look a bit better cooked :p As for the birthdate, I am sure little Archie was born when they said he was. There is no way that kind of secret could be kept in this age of google!

One small note I would like to make. There have been a number of posts here, and articles and comments out there about “bonding with the baby immediately after birth.” I know lots of people think that is a thing, but it really isn’t. Yes, it is lovely to be able to hold your baby right after it is born, but many, many, mothers and fathers can’t for lots of different reasons. As the mother of a child who I didn’t get to hold until 24 hours after birth, the perpetuation of this myth can be really difficult. So many people made comments to me about how sad it was that I couldn’t hold her and asked me if it was difficult to bond with a baby who spent its first weeks in ICU. The answer to that is: no, it isn’t sad I am so happy she is alive, and no, bonding does not happen in the first moments or even hours after birth. Bonding takes place over years, not hours. Parents and adopted children bond, parents and children in ICU bond. It is just another one of those things people talk about and make comments about out of ignorance. Most mean nothing by it, but that doesn’t make it any less hurtful. It doesn’t bother me now, but in those first few weeks my dd was in hospital it created yet more stress in an otherwise stressful situation.

It might be better to use the phrase “enjoyed some private time” rather than referring to bonding.
I was also not allowed to be held for a week after birth. I had jaundice and needed to be taken in for immediate treatment. I kind of think this fetishization about giving birth and how there's a "correct" way to do it is indicative of the social media age where people care more about the optics than the actual mothering. It seems as if many moms just want that perfect picture of them holding the baby immediately after birth. Mothering (or the vast majority of it) is the sort of thing that doesn't always lend itself to social media. Cleaning diapers, cleaning up poop, having the child cry through the night because of teething, toilet training.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 10, Guests: 5)

Top