Harry and Meghan #36 Wanna stop media hate; hey no problem when the target’s Kate

[Norbs]

This ‘source’ seem to know a Hell of a lot about the boy’s relationship with their father.

The authors write: "The boys can be hot and cold with their father' disclosed a source, who gave the example of planning the photo session for Charles' 70th birthday, which they called 'an absolute nightmare'.

“Neither William nor Harry made much of an effort to make themselves available', the source said."

The authors write: "The brothers sometimes had to vie for additional funds for projects from their father, who also helped to cover expenses related to Camilla and some of those for his sons (including Kate and Meghan's wardrobes).

“They actually genuinely have to debate who gets what amount from their father to fund their projects', an aide said.

“While Charles may be a father to Harry, he's also their boss, and that makes their relationship complex for a number of reasons."

H and Smeg really do take us great unwashed for utter fools, don’t they.

Vie for funds? Do they think daddy has a bottomless moneywell and should just fund whatever scheme either of his boys comes up with? Of course they’d have to put a case for funding and of course the resources are not limitless.

 

[Campagne]

So many stories today in the daily mail, these ones in particular got to me...
Any average family/person would say no to people DEMANDING things. I’d tell my own family to grow up if they kept being petulant and demanding things

the second one about her faith, I literally laughed out loud. Where has this come from all of a sudden? just more fuel for this “Saint Meghan of Windsor” image she wants

So which god would that be?
the Catholic one from her schooldays?
the Jewish one from her marriage to Trevor?
or her current one; CofE ?

 

[Pippa M]

I thought the term was “too posh to PUSH”?

I’ve never believed the surrogacy theory but after reading the above, I’m starting to wonder...

It states Meghan did not have a caesarean delivery but it does NOT state she had a “natural” delivery either - just that they refuse to comment on the birth.
It what they are NOT saying that is making me suspicious.

The doctors attended Frogmore cottage in the days leading up to the birth but it doesn’t say it was to check Meghan.
After Archie was born, Dr Penny gave the all clear - again it doesn’t say she gave Meghan the all clear.

Also I noticed that it states at 5.26am Archie was born in an uncomplicated birth.
It does NOT say at 5.26am Meghan gave birth to Archie in an uncomplicated birth.

It’s all worded very carefully so as not to say Meghan gave birth but instead that she did not have a caeserean (fact) and that Archie was born (also fact).

Huge alarm bells are now going off for me regarding the surrogacy.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

What do you all think?

yes,yes and yes....all cleverly worded. Personally I dont see much problem with admitting it was a surrogacy anyway, times have changed and it is no shame not to be able to carry your own baby.Archie is obviously Harry's child from his looks.

 

[Momof5intheStates]

Hey @Momof5intheStates @Despicableme Is this new? If you see this will ya let us know what the article says please and thank you

I've never seen this before. @Despicableme??

yes it is likely as our local hospital is doing 2hr discharge after baby is born if all is ok

2 Hrs?!?!?! I stayed 2 days with our 1st, 2 days with 2nd, 2 days with 3rd, 4 days with 4 (he was in NICU), and 5 with 5th (emergency C section - my first ever - and well she was a month early)

 

[Milliemoo99]

So which god would that be?
the Catholic one from her schooldays?
the Jewish one from her marriage to Trevor?
or her current one; CofE ?

Well strictly speaking they are all the same God! they just vary in interpretation!

 

[Silbee]

I thought the term was “too posh to PUSH”?

I’ve never believed the surrogacy theory but after reading the above, I’m starting to wonder...

It states Meghan did not have a caesarean delivery but it does NOT state she had a “natural” delivery either - just that they refuse to comment on the birth.
It what they are NOT saying that is making me suspicious.

The doctors attended Frogmore cottage in the days leading up to the birth but it doesn’t say it was to check Meghan.
After Archie was born, Dr Penny gave the all clear - again it doesn’t say she gave Meghan the all clear.

Also I noticed that it states at 5.26am Archie was born in an uncomplicated birth.
It does NOT say at 5.26am Meghan gave birth to Archie in an uncomplicated birth.

It’s all worded very carefully so as not to say Meghan gave birth but instead that she did not have a caeserean (fact) and that Archie was born (also fact).

Huge alarm bells are now going off for me regarding the surrogacy.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

What do you all think?

I think you're onto to something. Some nifty word play going on there.

 

[50sGirl]

I also wondered what she did that was so negligent she was sacked *cough* in the middle of the night and it was so awful they couldn’t trust a second nanny as a result?

Perhaps during the night the nanny was looking for nappies but opened the wrong cupboard and discovered the moon bumps!

 

[leoladyxo]

Meghan Markle and Harry sacked Archie's nanny after 2 days over 'night incident'

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex fired Archie's first nanny because she was “professional and irresponsible" - and the second nanny didn't last too long either

www.dailystar.co.uk

Apologies if this has already been posted..
(who am I kidding- of course it has!!)

Even the best behaved baby is going to cry in the night! I think that Meghan is a massive control freak.

 

[Milliemoo99]

I thought the term was “too posh to PUSH”?

I’ve never believed the surrogacy theory but after reading the above, I’m starting to wonder...

It states Meghan did not have a caesarean delivery but it does NOT state she had a “natural” delivery either - just that they refuse to comment on the birth.
It what they are NOT saying that is making me suspicious.

The doctors attended Frogmore cottage in the days leading up to the birth but it doesn’t say it was to check Meghan.
After Archie was born, Dr Penny gave the all clear - again it doesn’t say she gave Meghan the all clear.

Also I noticed that it states at 5.26am Archie was born in an uncomplicated birth.
It does NOT say at 5.26am Meghan gave birth to Archie in an uncomplicated birth.

It’s all worded very carefully so as not to say Meghan gave birth but instead that she did not have a caeserean (fact) and that Archie was born (also fact).

Huge alarm bells are now going off for me regarding the surrogacy.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

What do you all think?

Yes I agree ...In the sheer flood of irrelevant details, it is what is NOT being said that is so odd!

And it is too posh to push....nothing about pull!!

 

[Margot1977]

Good old Harry, he really sets high standards for himself. Considering they were in the woods what did he expect - a public lavatory with wash hand basin.

I'm confused it says M went into the woods every time she needed a bathroom break and wiped her face with a baby wipe. The same article mentiones they were staying in a luxury £1500-a-night glamping set-up with a "en-suite bathroom"??

 

[Norbs]

Yes I agree ...In the sheer flood of irrelevant details, it is what is NOT being said that is so odd!

And it is too posh to push....nothing about pull!!

I think that’s the joke. Normally upper-class women are ‘too posh to push’, but here’s an upper-class obstetrician who’s ‘too posh to pull’. It’s a play on words.

 

[Milliemoo99]

I think that’s the joke. Normally upper-class women are ‘too posh to push’, but here’s an upper-class obstetrician who’s ‘too posh to pull’. It’s a play on words.

yes we need a face palm emoji!!

 

[Norbs]

yes we need a face palm emoji!!

And that hug one that Facebook has introduced.

 

[Carey2020]

Random question Is anyone going to read the new book?..... I feel all the serialisation has spoiled any juice bits.... but like going to see a film and already knowing what happens at the end

I'm thinking the Mail is spilling to prevent people buying the book, if it's all there, why bother? Clever.

 

[Scotch Mist]

The thing that finally tipped me toward surrogate use was the fact that SHE paid her medical bills for that pregnancy.Apparently she insisted on that ... so Chas and Brenda had no excuse to request details.
This is a woman who would skin a flea and sell the pelt on ebay for a few quid. No way in hell did she pay a huge medical bill that included daily home visits (they said in the book) from her medical team unless she had something to hide around the whole scenario.
Case closed for me.


ETA. Of course the baby was silent. He couldn't get a word/whine/gurgle in edgeways with mommy word salad in the room.

Agreed good sleuthing Sherlock.
The secrecy continues around Archiedolls birth with carefully worded shenanigans so they can't be called out when it inevitably comes out.
I've seen comments about it on the Daily Mail and they haven't been challenged or removed. It's an open secret.

I just long for the day that the witch is finally exposed for the lying grifter she is.

 

[50sGirl]

yes,yes and yes....all cleverly worded. Personally I dont see much problem with admitting it was a surrogacy anyway, times have changed and it is no shame not to be able to carry your own baby.Archie is obviously Harry's child from his looks.

I agree but, if it was indeed a surrogate, then the deception is the problem and they’ve dragged The Royal Family into their lies too.

Yes. Slot of adoptive Moms are encouraged to start pre natal pills while awaiting the adoption process if they are going to be parents to a newborn. There's some other things they can do as well to help stimulate the production of milk (i.e. pumping). Our neighbor owns an adoption agency and we've had many discussions about this.

Do these pills cause weight gain? She definitely was larger after the “birth” and I really can’t see her chowing down on a battered sausage and chips every mealtime in order to fool the public - I’d say she was too vain for that.

 

[Margot1977]

View attachment 208465
I've never seen this before. @Despicableme??


2 Hrs?!?!?! I stayed 2 days with our 1st, 2 days with 2nd, 2 days with 3rd, 4 days with 4 (he was in NICU), and 5 with 5th (emergency C section - my first ever - and well she was a month early)

Gosh...I had to stay 24h after with my first, but with the 2nd I got to hospital at 8am, and was back at home with the baby by 8pm absolutely desperate NOT to stay in...

 

[Pom Bear]

Bless you Pom Bear you're doing a grand job keeping us visually entertained.....

Thank you xx It's great fun to do and even better to see people are enjoying them very much xx

Here's another

 

[Despicableme]

I was trying to work out why they have been so horrendous to Will and Kate in the book, as opposed to Charles and Brenda. I understand Brenda is top boss lady currently, and Charles holds the purse strings, and follows Brenda as top dog in the not too distant future. But this approach neglects to factor in William taking over the Crown in the next 20 years or so, and the Duchy of Cornwall in the not too distant future (and therefore, the dosh).

The more I thought about it, the more I assume that Meghan hated Harry and her being second to William and Kate so much, that she has decided that if H&M can't be King and Queen then neither will William and Kate. Therefore, her destruction of them to ensure that the public will lose favour with the monarchy before Wills ascends the throne. She is going to work to ensure they are seen as not worth the time of day. What a calculating, cold-hearted, miserable witch.

I’m playing catch up on the thread, so am currently several pages behind on the thread, so excuse me if this has moved on a bit. I’ve been trying & failing to read a lot of the DM stuff, it’s just making me cross & pissed off, but I was literally just thinking the same thing. This has gone beyond the money, she still working from the point that when William cuts off their money supply it won’t matter because they will be sitting on billions, they aren’t going to need family money, so in destroying W&K they/she has nothing to lose, but everything to gain.......because you never know W&K just might “abdicate” if they’re humiliated enough. It’s probably a good job they are in the US because if I was William I’d be baying for blood.

But the other side of that coin is would you ever trust them enough to develop a working/relationship with them & ever feel safe? Does she not realise that she is probably destroying any credibility they had.

I can’t believe the level of information I’m reading, really really embarrassed for them & Scoobydoo, he put his name on this rubbish Would you really want to “own” this piece of literature?!?!
Who do they think they’re kidding when they say they had nothing to do with the book? @antinoos Is this going to have any impact on the court case? Can it be entered as evidence that they are their own friends!

Madge & Charlie boy really need to reign them in HRH & Sussex needs to be gone.

 

[Scotch Mist]

Not reading the book, but one thing that really stood out to me in the DM articles.

it said Meghan looked up to Prince Charles, not as a father in law, but a second father. She was so grateful that he stepped in to give her away after her own father had let her down.

The poor man had just had heart surgery!

And do with think Samantha has been told to keep her mouth shut until after the court case? Her silence is deafening.

I think Samantha must be loving Meghan getting so much grief. She has exposed herself without Samantha having to say anything.

Besides Samantha hasn't seen Smeagol since she took up with Harry so there's nothing that she can comment on when it comes to the book. She only knows how badly her father has been treated.

Meghan set her dad up with that photographer who was sent to fo the staged photos. It was all part of a plan to discredit him. That will come out st some point.