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

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,628
@canbelto ITA. Mothering, like life, is a process full of highs and lows, successes and failures, joy and sorrow. All of it is an important part of the journey. I think that remembering that no one is perfect and that life is messy is so important. Trying to present a picture of a perfect family can take the joy out of life, cause stress and anxiety, and lead to all kinds of problems. Without failure there is no success. True in life, and true for mothering.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,851
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?
https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1127570925887660032 Scroll down for up close pic of flowers and a reference to the flowers being Diana's faves (or one of her faves, because I heard she liked white roses too, thus the white garden at KP). This is Omid Scobie's Twitter, and he has insider contacts who are close friends of Meghan.

Re someone's earlier reference to haters calling Meghan 'Nutmeg,' that actually was an affectionate nickname her school friends called her, as Meghan said in an interview with Craig Ferguson some years ago, that's still available on Youtube. Meghan's Mom's nickname for her is 'Flower.' The Nutmeg moniker goes well with Harry being a spicy Ginger. :p

It might be better to use the phrase “enjoyed some private time” rather than referring to bonding.
I get what you mean. Experiences are different for everyone. My mother had a great deal of problems with her third birth (one of my siblings). The baby was in a breech position, but fortunately both Mom and baby survived. Still, my Mom was very sick and so the baby had to be taken care of by my father's mother while my Mom remained hospitalized for awhile. That was difficult, but I was too young to know anything about it at the time.
___________________________________________

That's a new one on me re an earlier post questioning Meghan's reported age! We already know that Meghan is 3 years older than Harry. I doubt she has anything to hide in that regard. Since birth certificates are a matter of public record, Meghan's is probably easily obtainable. In any case, I've seen her birthday listed on Wiki and on a genealogical chart as August 4, 1981. Harry was born on September 15, 1984.

Just as with the birther claims directed toward Barack Obama during his presidency, any suggestion that Meghan has not been truthful about her age, is a 'going nowhere,' dead-end fabrication.

Interestingly enough, Meghan shares her August 4 birthday with Barack Obama, and with the Queen Mother (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; Harry's great-grandmother). Meghan is a Leo, a very strong sign, which is fortunate because she surely needs the tough heart of a lion to deal with all that's on her plate in her new life, while ignoring as much as possible the 'noise' and nonsense swirling around on the Internet and elsewhere. I think most people in the world bear nothing but goodwill toward the Sussexes, but it's always the smallest group of naysayers and/or 'conspiracy theorists' who make the most noise.

The below frightening report apparently wasn't widely disseminated last December. I only recently heard about this. It's very scary and beyond crazy, but apparently arrests have been made:
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-british-neo-nazi-group-sonnenkrieg-division-us-neo-1246931
 
Last edited:

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,001
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!!
Curiouser and curiouser! But it does keep it all in the headlines.....just saying......:slinkaway
 

LynnW

Politiking for Purple
Messages
5,249
@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.
But if Meghan lied about her age, don't you think that her father, sister and brother would have said something about that? They've not been shy talking about her. I think that is one of the first things they would have revealed.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,001
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.
Reply
It is a thing. It is optimal. Are all babies and mothers doomed if it doesn't happen? Of course not.

Do people get crazy and judgmental around all this stuff? Yep. It becomes like a religion.

As an aside, when my grandchildren were applying "THE" school in Los Angeles, one of the questions for the parents was "Was the baby born naturally or by C Section? Huh? They wanted to make sure they had a diverse student body. What whakadoodle came up with that one?
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,628
Reply
It is a thing. It is optimal. Are all babies and mothers doomed if it doesn't happen? Of course not.

Do people get crazy and judgmental around all this stuff? Yep. It becomes like a religion.

As an aside, when my grandchildren were applying "THE" school in Los Angeles, one of the questions for the parents was "Was the baby born naturally or by C Section? Huh? They wanted to make sure they had a diverse student body. What whakadoodle came up with that one?
No, it isn’t a thing because there is no difference. It is only a thing because people with too much time on their hands want to make themselves feel superior to others by making it a thing. It is right up there with C Section, using drugs or any other intervention being somehow inferior to “natural” childbirth. I remember one “friend” scolding me for feeding my kids regular chicken. “What about the hormones?” Well, all meat has hormones and added growth hormones have been banned for chicken for many many years so the only difference between the chicken I bought and the chicken she bought was $$$. It was food snobbery gone crazy. Again, all of that BS is done so people can feel superior by putting others down. It is like we are back in grade 4.

I simply do not understand why grown people can’t just get on with their own lives without making up crap that makes other people feel bad.
 

quartz

uncultured pearl clutcher
Messages
12,231
A C-section or vaginal birth is highly personal information that should only be divulged by the person who experienced it and only if they choose to do so.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,001
No, it isn’t a thing because there is no difference. It is only a thing because people with too much time on their hands want to make themselves feel superior to others by making it a thing. It is right up there with C Section, using drugs or any other intervention being somehow inferior to “natural” childbirth. I remember one “friend” scolding me for feeding my kids regular chicken. “What about the hormones?” Well, all meat has hormones and added growth hormones have been banned for chicken for many many years so the only difference between the chicken I bought and the chicken she bought was $$$. It was food snobbery gone crazy. Again, all of that BS is done so people can feel superior by putting others down. It is like we are back in grade 4.

I simply do not understand why grown people can’t just get on with their own lives without making up crap that makes other people feel bad.

No one is being attacked. Not method of birth is being slammed. Do not worry.
The facts, however, are that C-Sections (although often necessary for a variety of reasons) carry more risk than do vaginal births. Hence vaginal birth is optimal. One is not good, and one is not bad.
Optical means
most desirable or satisfactory
. Absent a health condition, or emergency, (and in some cases it is elective) vaginal birth is considered optimal. What is supposed to happen under the best set of circumstances.

From Live Science

Although C-sections are generally considered safe and, in some situations life saving, they carry additional risks compared with a vaginal birth. They are a major surgery and involve opening up a pregnant woman's abdomen and removing the baby from her uterus because a vaginal birth is considered too dangerous or too difficult.
So, yes vaginal birth is optimal. Who in the world would say at the beginning of their pregnancy "I hope I have a C-Section"? No one (with the exceptions noted above). If you have two kids at home, and a newborn, and recovering from major surgery.............it is hard. It is not optimal. It works out, but it is hard...on everyone, except probably the baby.

It is like, having your husband there (if you have one, and you want him there) is optimal. Giving birth while your husband is out of town.............probably not what you planned. Giving birth on the kitchen floor.............because the baby came so fast...............not optimal.

Jaundice - not optimal. low apgar - not optimal. These are all things that come up, are handled, and then left behind.

It is not a competition. It is not a condemnation.


If you are talking about "natural" childbirth..............that simply covers a plethora of things. I don't even know what a definition would be? In the hospital? No drugs? Midwife? DR? Best Friend?

What is most optimal is a healthy kid, healthy mom.
 
Last edited:

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,628
No one is being attacked. Not method of birth is being slammed. Do not worry.
The facts, however, are that C-Sections (although often necessary for a variety of reasons) carry more risk than do vaginal births. Hence vaginal birth is optimal. One is not good, and one is not bad.
Sorry, but it depends on your definition of optimal. What is optimal is having a live mom and and live babe at the end. Anything else is an added bonus. I spent weeks in the Special Care Nursery next to a mom who was so indoctrinated by the “vaginal birth is optimal” crowd that she put off a C Section until it was too late and her child was born with life long health complications and spent at least the first two weeks of his life in the SPN because of her decision. I sometimes wonder about that family. The dad was supportive and lovely but clearly annoyed about what had happened. They were from out of town and her “mom” friends were into natural everything and had convinced her that her birthing companion (whatever the hell that is) knew best. That was until they had to Air Medivac her down to the big city because complication set in.

All of this rhetoric sounds harmless, but it adds up. Soon to be new moms read stuff and hear stuff. They are not unreasonably nervous and want to do the best for their child. People who don’t know what they are talking about or who have only their own experience to draw on make unfounded statements that sound like fact. It is dangerous and cruel. There is nothing wrong with wanting a natural birth (for the record all of mine were) but the only advice new mom’s should get from lay people is to keep your eye on the end goal, choose real medical professionals your trust, and then trust the professional you chose.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,053
If you are talking about "natural" childbirth..............that simply covers a plethora of things. I don't even know what a definition would be? In the hospital? No drugs? Midwife? DR? Best Friend?
I would that 'natural birth' means no drugs and no interventions, and a preference for a home birth.

Sorry, but it depends on your definition of optimal. What is optimal is having a live mom and and live babe at the end. Anything else is an added bonus.
I wonder whether it is believed or argued that a natural birth has particular benefits to mom and/or baby?

Also, a natural birth is not always optimal. Infant and mother mortality were/are much higher in the absence of pregnancy interventions.

I'm reminded of a show I saw recently (the old 'Chicago Hope' hospital series) about a woman who had signed an agreement to only breastfeed her baby and not been advised to supplement. Here milk was no go and her baby died, and she concluded "all you really have to do is keep them alive". I saw some wisdom in that.
 

once_upon

New condo owner
Messages
11,516
Given that I would have bled out - hemorrhaged to death - a vaginal birth was NOT optimum for me or my son. As it was, I needed 2 units of blood and was quite ill post C-Section and he was 6 weeks premature. C-section saved both our lives.

I often wonder if I had done a c-section with my first, like the doctor wanted to do, if our daughter would have survived. Instead she was stillborn at 42 weeks gestation.

ETA - no more sad faces or comments about this. I was only stating that vaginal births are not always best as was suggested.

Vaginal is not always the best and we should not make judgments.
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,053
I'm so sorry for your loss, once_upon. You may have mentioned it before, but I don't recall it.

:wuzrobbed
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,640
@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.
The parents age is not recorded on a birth certificate so that wouldn't be the reason. If they don't release it ahead of when anybody can get hold of it they are in fact causing more publicity for themselves and their child. Sort of goes against all the wanting to protect the privacy of their child as it keeps them in the news. Makes you wonder :inavoid:;)
 

morqet

rising like a phoenix
Messages
2,403
Maybe they just don't want the precedent set from the beginning that they will release every little detail about their child. I'm sure they know it will be public record, but there's a difference between something that anyone can look up if they can be bothered and want to pay the fee, and sending out a press release with every detail to all of Fleet Street.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
22,508
I have to say the title of this thread amuses me. We don't know if he's red-headed or even has hair or not. The baby's little hat was pulled down past his eyebrows so I doubt any hair was showing.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,603
Maybe they just don't want the precedent set from the beginning that they will release every little detail about their child. I'm sure they know it will be public record, but there's a difference between something that anyone can look up if they can be bothered and want to pay the fee, and sending out a press release with every detail to all of Fleet Street.
The British tabloids are not going to be bothered by paying that fee. And neither Harry or Meghan is naive enough to not know that.

She wants privacy so badly, yet she put out a press release about a picture on Instagram yesterday. She doesn't want privacy. She wants the media talking.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,603
How do y'all have time to find and read all this shite?
I have middle or high school sub days at least once a week. That consists of taking attendance, passing out some busy work, informing the kids that if they are quiet and look like they are working, I'll be happy.Then I sit down for the rest of the period in a silent room and try to stay awake. So...I need something to do that doesn't require my full attention as one eye has to be on the students. Reading anything too deep or involved doesn't work. So net surfing on the phone is the usual option. And here we are.

When I sub in elementary, it is active teaching and on my feet all day, so none of that. I got so behind on the world last fall when I did third grade for seven weeks, LOL!
 
Last edited:

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,640
The British tabloids are not going to be bothered by paying that fee. And neither Harry or Meghan is naive enough to not know that.

She wants privacy so badly, yet she put out a press release about a picture on Instagram yesterday. She doesn't want privacy. She wants the media talking.
Yep £11 is nothing to a tabloid paper. And I agree the comments and actions of the Sussex's are totally in opposition to each other. But I feel that is partly to do with Meghan coming from an industry where you are always making sure you are in the public consciousness. To take time our and post nothing is not what Hollywood types do - that could be why the Sussex's set up their own Instagram account so the messages would not get lost along side Wills and Kate's and they could post more 'trite' stuff!!
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,603
But if Meghan lied about her age, don't you think that her father, sister and brother would have said something about that? They've not been shy talking about her. I think that is one of the first things they would have revealed.
I know this sounds so incredibly stupid. Because it is. But I swear to you it's true: my mother-in-law cannot remember what year her husband, children or she, herself, was born. She has no cognitive issues. My husband says she has never known. My father-in-law doesn't know either. As a result, my husband and his sister have no idea how old their parents actually are or what their birth years are or a whole host of other information that they will eventually need to know. Not knowing basic family information is a thing in my mother-in-law's family. She and her brother did not know the married names of their two aunts when their father died and decided to just use their maiden name in the obituary. They see these women on a regular basis and knew them very well. My mother-in-law's brother is basically the same age as my brother, which I suspected. I asked her what year her brother was born or graduated from high school once. She did not have the slightest clue.

There is no guarantee that the Markles know Meghan's birth date with year.

But...I have been informed that the parents's age is not on a UK birth certificate. So never mind that theory. For those who do not know, that info is included on most American ones.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,770
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.
Except this sort of thing has been going on since the beginning of time. I had my first kid in 1991 and there was no social media then and it was going on.

I would that 'natural birth' means no drugs and no interventions, and a preference for a home birth.
There is no actual definition of the term. Different people use it to mean different things. As a coincidence, I got an email from the NYT this weekend where they said their new parenting section was not going to use the word "natural birth" for just that reason.

The thing is, we do know some practices are better than others. But the difference isn't as big as people make out. Yes, a vaginal birth is slightly better for the kid because going through the birth canal helps clear the lungs. But I had both my kids via c-section and there is nothing wrong with their lungs today. If I hadn't had c-sections they or I would be dead and clearly being alive is better than being dead so in my case the c-section was the best thing.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,640
There is no guarantee that the Markles know Meghan's birth date with year.

But...I have been informed that the parents's age is not on a UK birth certificate. So never mind that theory. For those who do not know, that info is included on most American ones.
Of course that begs the question - will little Archie need both a UK birth certificate and a US one? I'm guessing as a child of an American citizen he would have to be registered at the US Embassy in London - but does that require another birth certificate?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,427
Maybe they just don't want the precedent set from the beginning that they will release every little detail about their child.
Kate and William released the birth certificates and they aren't releasing every little detail of their children and the media seems to be okay with what they get.
 

Lara

It's JJ style!
Messages
17,890
Of course that begs the question - will little Archie need both a UK birth certificate and a US one? I'm guessing as a child of an American citizen he would have to be registered at the US Embassy in London - but does that require another birth certificate?
If it works like Canada, they'll apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad for Archie as proof of US citizenship. I have one in addition to my Quebec birth certificate.
https://ca.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/child-family-matters/birth/
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,770
I was going to say before that the only reason to lie about the date of birth would be to make the conception date be after the wedding. And that clearly isn't an issue here as it's been almost a year since the wedding.

Personally I think these conspiracy people are either crazy or have no recent or real experience with pregnancy / childbirth or both. There is nothing that has happened that is at all remarkable to me. As the due date got close, the father stopped taking long distance trips. Then they reported she was in labor around (but slightly after) her due date. Then she came out of the hospital with the baby looking like someone who had given birth holding a baby of around the right size. There is absolutely nothing there to fan the flames of a conspiracy IMO.

And, yes, babies born after their due date often (but not always) look more "cooked" than babies born before it. (I had one of each and there was a big difference in redness for starters.)
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
20,770
I know this sounds so incredibly stupid.
Actually it doesn't. I know a guy who in his twenties found out his birthday was a month later than he thought. He's close to his family, no one is stupid, but they had four kids in four years, and somehow they ended up celebrating his birthday in the wrong month and every year after that. Even his school records had the wrong birthday, no doubt because that's the date his mother gave when he was originally registered for school. It wasn't until they dug out his birth certificate so he could get a passport did they find out that they'd all been wrong for nearly his entire life.

I can imagine that in families that move a lot, perhaps with divorces and remarriages and kids shuttling around, maybe in big families in particular, that this kind of thing might be more common than we think. At some point the truth is determined, but maybe at a point when it's too much trouble to change it all, and there's really no need to anyway.

Not saying it's true in Meghan's case, but it's not entirely unusual in the entertainment industry or even in the dating world to fudge a lot of things just a little, and once you start, you might not have any choice but to keep going.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,603
@Jenny MiL's family is very small. And no divorces. She's just not very bright. She asked my husband how old he was on his birthday last year. I wanted to say, "well, you, of all people, should know that". He is her biological child.

For those still interested in the crazies, apparently there are Tumblr accounts spreading the conspiracy theories. And one of them has apparently revealed that it's all going down on May 19, the anniversary of Anne Boleyn's execution. Meghan to the Tower for "high treason".

I don't do Tumblr. I saw that on IG. Anyone have predictions as to where they will go once the 19th passes and nothing happens?
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,851
I have to say the title of this thread amuses me. We don't know if he's red-headed or even has hair or not. The baby's little hat was pulled down past his eyebrows so I doubt any hair was showing.
I believe @SHARPIE was being tongue-in-cheek, eh! ;) Indeedy. It looks to me like Archie has some hair underneath the wool cap. But nope I don't have x-ray vision. :p
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,775
@Jenny MiL's family is very small. And no divorces. She's just not very bright. She asked my husband how old he was on his birthday last year. I wanted to say, "well, you, of all people, should know that". He is her biological child.

For those still interested in the crazies, apparently there are Tumblr accounts spreading the conspiracy theories. And one of them has apparently revealed that it's all going down on May 19, the anniversary of Anne Boleyn's execution. Meghan to the Tower for "high treason".

I don't do Tumblr. I saw that on IG. Anyone have predictions as to where they will go once the 19th passes and nothing happens?
Well considering they believe that Archie is a doll, I'm sure they will have no trouble believing that after May 19 Meghan will be replaced by a doll Meghan, or a female doppleganger of Meghan while "Man-gan" is in the Tower of London for high treason.
 
Top