I wonder if itās true that Hazno was going to spill the beans about the flatpacks at the end of last year but he chickened out/was stopped by Peg? Didnāt someone in the last thread say this was in Lady Cās additions to her book?
Iād be interested to know how he was going to announce it ....... via Lawyer Bouffant perhaps, a banner attached to a private plane, an X message from Scoobie or hidden within a podcast as he interviewed the Pope?
I've been thinking... perhaps whomever they used as the surrogate actually *has* the children? It's possible(?) there are no children, but I do think the released pictures where we see Archie and Lilibet's faces show them to look quite like members of their family, and there are some sort of birth certificates that seem close enough, so it seems more likely to me that they are real children, even if their origin stories are iffy. And I've been shot down for saying this on here before, but, both children have squints or slightly off-direction eyes. There's no way that if Meg was going to hire babies to play her children that she would hire any with perceived 'faults' - no shade to anyone with uneven eyes, particularly not children! But she's a narcissist and they're only happy if their children look like models.
So what if the surrogate - be it the neice, the pregnant lady at the church, or someone else - is actually raising the children as her own, on the understanding that she loans them to the Harkles when needed? What if they are legally H&M's kids, but there is a woman somewhere who is both the surrogate and a 'nanny' who pretty much has them full time?
They might have gone to someone who needed the money and was trying to be kind to a childless couple and said, "You can be a surrogate using our eggs and sperm* and then we can raise them between us. Your kids would have access to our millions and be in line for the throne, isn't that fun? You can have full access, we just would like to spend time with them when we need them for photo ops. But unlike other surrogates, you would get to keep your children, wouldn't that be nice!"
I think this fits so much of the evidence:
- Children do kind of look like the parents, even though it's clear Meg didn't have a real baby bump or birth
- Weirdness around their birth certificates and palace announcements
- Scuttlebutt that there are no children around their home
- Harry said Archie had "changed so much in 2 weeks" when supposedly he'd just been born.
- Dolls being used when it's too much hassle to get the real children from wherever they live (maybe because they couldn't hide them from the press if they were seen arriving in a car with another woman?)
It's also a fitting answer to the question 'How are they intending to keep this charade up'? If the kids didn't exist, it would come out very soon - H&M can't just spend the rest of their lives making up things like 'Lilibet is still at school in Switzerland and Archie is backpacking through Africa.' But if the kids do exist, then it's harder to expose anything, because every so often they can tell a little bit of the truth and wheel them out when needed.
That way, all the Harkles need to worry about is 20 years from now, one of their kids might write their own biography about how they were told their parents were a prince and princess, but they just lived full time with their nanny and only met the parents twice a year.
*ew, gross image, sorry.
Smeg shows a degree of mischief for causing speculation as a result of her conduct and has put the Palace in a no-win situation. Lady C says it's nuanced and discussed more fully in her book. TRF could still turn the tables on Smeg.
