Yes, you are correct
Everything We Know So Far About Royal Baby Archie's Christening
Archie was christened in Windsor Castle on July 6
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Nice post, that
Group hug?
Generally speaking I love the way Tattlers can have opinions then sort them out and move on (am remembering my newbie ‘heated debate’ with Her Majesty Freda Queen of All Tattle) .
Getting back on thread... how much MM face change could be down to a pregnancy (yeah yeah I know...)
I look at my pregnancy pics and hardly recognise myself!
Not that my nose changed though
I agree, I don't believe there was a Christening, I think the Christening photo is fake as certain people e.g. Kate, look out of proportion, I don't believe they would have a Christening without HMTQ being present (you'd change the date to one she could attend) and also I would have expected Charles Spencer to attendI'm tending to agree that there was no Christening. That's why there aren't any godparents - it's so obvious with hindsight. They kept TQ out of it by the convenient diary clash. The Archbishop wouldn't confirm or deny as others have said.
Maybe a few people came to a celebratory lunch or something? Then they cooked up a photoshopped 'Christening' photo.
Its quite amazing when you think about what's been going on. And they've kept going with all the fakery in California, so it's all about them (or her). 'Duty to the truth'
Well done Palpatine and congrats to nonny.
Oh me too. My 13 year old twins have a what’s app group with a couple of friends where they all do ‘Facebook mum banter’ - total pisstaking. It sounds suspiciously like me... I’m not convinced about being viewed as cool (late 40’s, no chance). Happy to hand that one over to next generation. Would fit with H&M though - they are developmentally frozen!
If it did actually happen they definitely wanted to keep it to the absolute bare minimum of guests didn't they. But why?
Tiny number of relatives, only one photographer, no assembled media or public outside. Didn't release the names of the godparents so the media wouldn't be lurking outside their houses on the day. It's just made me consider the possibility of photosensitive epilepsy for 'Archie', but that wouldn't explain him being brought out in front of the cameras for the South Africa trip.
Talking of Charles Spencer, I wonder what his views of it all are
Here's some tea regarding the christening that I found on Tumblr:
"I’ve met the Earl Spencer’s wife through my work in preservation/curation but also my husband’s work in non profits/charities, she’s a very warm friendly woman and takes great pride in her husband’s family and history, future and so on.
I met with her just after the christening of Archie, and we had just finished up our business for the day, when I asked politely about how the christening was as I had three godchildren myself so loved christenings, and asked why her husband wasn’t in the photo but his sisters were
basically the Earl Spencer is even worse when it comes to using Diana than William is and hates anyone trying to profit off her or use her name etc which is why he’s not pleased or happy with H&M at all and doesn’t want anything to do with them. He’s quite protective of his sister’s name and reputation and legacy & apparently he & the sisters didn’t agree with including their names on the birth announcement either and Harry threw a fit when Earl Spencer refused to do the christening photo. Earl Spencer’s daughters are also not happy that they are continually referred as Diana’s nieces though apparently but are more low key, strong connections to SA themselves.
Apparently Harry forced the sisters to appear as otherwise he’d slander them as racist in the press.
Earl Spencer is apparently very close with the Cambridges and they visit him every so often & they go to visit Diana together."
"I’ve met the Earl Spencer’s wife through my work in preservation/curation but also my husband’s work in non profits/charities, she’s a very warm friendly woman and takes great pride in her husband’s family and history, future and so on.
I met with her just after the christening of Archie, and we had just finished up our business for the day, when I asked politely about how the christening was as I had three godchildren myself so loved christenings, and asked why her husband wasn’t in the photo but his sisters were
basically the Earl Spencer is even worse when it comes to using Diana than William is and hates anyone trying to profit off her or use her name etc which is why he’s not pleased or happy with H&M at all and doesn’t want anything to do with them. He’s quite protective of his sister’s name and reputation and legacy & apparently he & the sisters didn’t agree with including their names on the birth announcement either and Harry threw a fit when Earl Spencer refused to do the christening photo. Earl Spencer’s daughters are also not happy that they are continually referred as Diana’s nieces though apparently but are more low key, strong connections to SA themselves.
Apparently Harry forced the sisters to appear as otherwise he’d slander them as racist in the press.
Earl Spencer is apparently very close with the Cambridges and they visit him every so often & they go to visit Diana together."
Alex Belfield 'poetic' video
If there was nothing to hide, why didn't the ABoC just confirm his whereabouts?
The Queen is the head of the Church for God's sake. She wouldn't countenance it being used for such shenanigans surely?
The Queen will have seen the paper's after the "christening" and nothing happened. Ditto when the little girl (I believe) posed as Archie in South Africa on an official tour, but what does HM say? Hey that child is a fake!?I'm tending to agree that there was no Christening. That's why there aren't any godparents - it's so obvious with hindsight. They kept TQ out of it by the convenient diary clash. The Archbishop wouldn't confirm or deny as others have said.
Maybe a few people came to a celebratory lunch or something? Then they cooked up a photoshopped 'Christening' photo.
Its quite amazing when you think about what's been going on. And they've kept going with all the fakery in California, so it's all about them (or her). 'Duty to the truth'
I believe that BP made a collective decision to go along with the deception from day one. The Monarchy needed to be protected above all, H&M removed, and this is what's happened.
I think the BP line is they believed in the pregnancy, birth, christening, photos etc. They kept their distance, and issued carefully-worded words of welcome to a child they knew had not been born. Hence the birth certificate confusion with no doctors etc. BP had to tread a very fine line and they have done it well in my view. The results speak for themselves as H&M's deception is unravelling with no input from BP.
If there was no Church involvement and no Archbishop then the only shenanigans were the usual harkle ones of photo trickery? It's all very confusing.
The Queen's Bench Division listings for Wednesday have been published. No Meg V ANL
Thursday or Friday then
Thursday or Friday then
I don't think there's anything wrong with Archie. The baby (girl) we've seen looks happy and contented and not one to need 7 therapists a year later. People have speculated that Archie has needs or is autistic and so has been hidden away, but I don't believe that a child was unfortunate enough to have been born to this blighted pair of psychos.If it did actually happen they definitely wanted to keep it to the absolute bare minimum of guests didn't they. But why?
The Machiavellian Minge may have stirred speculation deliberately with her comments about therapists - people wondering why does he need them? Is he ill? Is that why we never see him? An excuse to keep him hidden and further muddy the waters, when the reality is that he doesn't exist. I know most people believe he does in some form, and I hope we all find out the truth one day and that we'll discuss it here on this thread!
You are right. Minge would understandably have wanted to show off her baby to the world, the ultimate triumph for her. There was no need for secrecy unless they had something to hide. There can't have been a christening party or guests if there was no baby, and if the christening photo was photoshopped as widely believed then there was no baby to celebrate either.It is truly amazing that we are even having to consider this stuff isn't it?! It's not something that crossed my mind at the time, but as more pieces of the puzzle become apparent, it is obvious that anything is possible with these two.
When I think back to every other Royal christening in my lifetime, I remember seeing photos of the family arriving at the church where it was taking place. Archie's christening? A room in a private chapel in a 'top secret' ceremony at Windsor Castle.
It is so impossible for this couple to be straight with any sort of information, which only leads to the conclusion they they have numerous things they need to keep under wraps.
Last edited:
i know why smeggy did the tongue thing in her latest zoom picture. she is trying to look young and natural.... 
www.thesun.co.uk
There’s a secret way your TONGUE can make you look better in photos
USING your TONGUE could make you look more “photogenic”. Posing for a photo can sometimes prove awkward – you smile, say cheese and wait for whoever’s snapping the shot to say it’s OK to move again…
www.thesun.co.uk
If you are proved wrong and there is an actual 100% normal boy child with their DNA and maybe a good reason for a late birth announcement like maybe he had to have immediate surgery for something like his innards were hanging out are you all going to climb aboard ya spacecraft and look for more weirdness in other constellations (I'm sort of including myself here but I have a garden shed to hide in stocked with canned goods and an oil heater
)?This seems odd to me. I can't see Hazzno risking drawing the attention of the press to his ultra-private christening by threatening Diana's sisters with racism in the press if they didn't appear in the photo or have their names on the birth announcement. I can't see Earl Spencer's wife revealing this information either.Here's some tea regarding the christening that I found on Tumblr:
"I’ve met the Earl Spencer’s wife through my work in preservation/curation but also my husband’s work in non profits/charities, she’s a very warm friendly woman and takes great pride in her husband’s family and history, future and so on.
I met with her just after the christening of Archie, and we had just finished up our business for the day, when I asked politely about how the christening was as I had three godchildren myself so loved christenings, and asked why her husband wasn’t in the photo but his sisters were
basically the Earl Spencer is even worse when it comes to using Diana than William is and hates anyone trying to profit off her or use her name etc which is why he’s not pleased or happy with H&M at all and doesn’t want anything to do with them. He’s quite protective of his sister’s name and reputation and legacy & apparently he & the sisters didn’t agree with including their names on the birth announcement either and Harry threw a fit when Earl Spencer refused to do the christening photo. Earl Spencer’s daughters are also not happy that they are continually referred as Diana’s nieces though apparently but are more low key, strong connections to SA themselves.
Apparently Harry forced the sisters to appear as otherwise he’d slander them as racist in the press.
Earl Spencer is apparently very close with the Cambridges and they visit him every so often & they go to visit Diana together."
As this article appeared just after the "christening" I think that people took the photo in good faith at first and it was only later that photoshopping questions arose. As these two sisters seem to have been photoshopped as well maybe he did it without their consent, and when the press saw the photo they included their names. Just guessing here but if this is the case I bet they were livid!
Why stop there? Hazzno should have photoshopped Tony Blair in too, plus Nicola Sturgeon and Diane Abbot for biodiversity.
My recollection of Charles Spencer is a rather bitter man who missed the chance to support his sister right or wrong when she needed it and he will have to live with that.
I admit that with these two I am a conspiracy theorist, but only with these two.If you are proved wrong and there is an actual 100% normal boy child with their DNA and maybe a good reason for a late birth announcement like maybe he had to have immediate surgery for something like his innards were hanging out are you all going to climb aboard ya spacecraft and look for more weirdness in other constellations (I'm sort of including myself here but I have a garden shed to hide in stocked with canned goods and an oil heater
I may need to join you in your shed then ...
I'll bring some brandy.
Last edited:
I think that Archie exists...and that he is Meghan and Harry's genetic child.
But I dont think Meghan is a natural mother, I think she is the kind of woman who ignores her children, the out of sight out of mind mentality.
(Ive worked in schools and sadly there are parents who have virtually no interest in their children..... the ones who are away travelling 2 or 3 times a year on holiday, and leave the children with relatives or staff!)
No real idea about Harry, but he seems easily led, so if Archie is off in a distant nursery, kept out of Meghan's way in case he makes a mess, or gets underfoot... normal toddler behaviour! .........he too may have virtually nothing to do with his son!
There is nothing wrong with children having any kind of special or additional needs, but it seems a difficult issue to talk about, and to define! We have seen so little of Archie, we cant know one way or another, but.....if he has a team of therapists........looking after him.....The English natural viewpoint would to be assume he has therapists because he needs them in some way!
And it seems mean and odd, to not take Archie over to the UK to see his relatives in the summer. It is kind of the thing you do with the children.......take them to meet the relatives at regular and special family events. Like Great Granny's 95th birthday!
Even if Meghan doesn't want to come, shouldn't Harry insist that Archie comes too? I would imagine they are going to be flying first class or on a chartered plane? Diana took William to Australia when he was still a baby!
But I dont think Meghan is a natural mother, I think she is the kind of woman who ignores her children, the out of sight out of mind mentality.
(Ive worked in schools and sadly there are parents who have virtually no interest in their children..... the ones who are away travelling 2 or 3 times a year on holiday, and leave the children with relatives or staff!)
No real idea about Harry, but he seems easily led, so if Archie is off in a distant nursery, kept out of Meghan's way in case he makes a mess, or gets underfoot... normal toddler behaviour! .........he too may have virtually nothing to do with his son!
There is nothing wrong with children having any kind of special or additional needs, but it seems a difficult issue to talk about, and to define! We have seen so little of Archie, we cant know one way or another, but.....if he has a team of therapists........looking after him.....The English natural viewpoint would to be assume he has therapists because he needs them in some way!
And it seems mean and odd, to not take Archie over to the UK to see his relatives in the summer. It is kind of the thing you do with the children.......take them to meet the relatives at regular and special family events. Like Great Granny's 95th birthday!
Even if Meghan doesn't want to come, shouldn't Harry insist that Archie comes too? I would imagine they are going to be flying first class or on a chartered plane? Diana took William to Australia when he was still a baby!
They are now claiming Hazza having his picture taken with James Corden on the double-decker bus, whilst filming with a full crew on a public street, was a 'paparazzi incident'
www.newsweek.com
So their approach to this appears to be that any pictures taken in a completely public place are a 'paparazzi incident' unless of course they are set up with their own tame photographer and splashed out on the media by their own publicists. Maybe they shouldn't have moved to California? Just a thought? Perhaps North Korea would suit them better....
A paparazzi (very good one) speaks..
All Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Run-Ins With Paparazzi in California
Prince Harry was pictured in an open-top tour bus with James Corden and a film crew in Los Angeles over the weekend—the latest in a series of encounters with the paparazzi.
www.newsweek.com
So their approach to this appears to be that any pictures taken in a completely public place are a 'paparazzi incident' unless of course they are set up with their own tame photographer and splashed out on the media by their own publicists. Maybe they shouldn't have moved to California? Just a thought? Perhaps North Korea would suit them better....
A paparazzi (very good one) speaks..
- Status