Harry & Meghan 17: St Meghan's Hagiography

[treehugger]

I think just as we have our own conspiracy theorist about the Whales', the Sussexes also have people who are obsessed with creating fictional narratives of their lives.  I wouldn't take any of it too seriously. Way too many people have no lives offline.

[rosamundi]

1 hour ago, Baba O'Riley said:

I casually follow the goings-on of Harry and Meghan, but I'm not strongly pro or con about them.  I did enjoy Harry's book. I stumbled on a busy thread at Quora that promotes some conspiracy theories about them,  some really wacky.  I had no idea of any of these rumors.  I hope it's ok to share these. 

1.  Harry and Meghan are the bio parents of Archie and Lili, but had a surrogate for both births. 

2.  The photos of the kids are not the real kids. They wanted them to look whiter.

3.  Harry is the bio dad, but Meghan is not the bio mom.

4.  The kids don't live with them. In fact, neither of them are supposed kids' parents. Their house doesn't have pool roped off or have playground equipment or other toys. The kids are never seen.  Referred to as "invisikids."
 

A few people on that thread have gone through a lot of time and trouble to compile  photographic "evidence" and construct a very detailed timeline supporting these theories.  Are these theories actually gaining traction out there, or are they just the products of people who maybe hate M & H and have a lot of time on their hands? I haven't read these rumors anywhere else. 

1. Let's say they had a surrogate for both births. There would be the birth mother, the doctors who did the insemination, the midwife and other doctors at the labour, all involved. All having to keep silent for the next however long. Making a false declaration of a birth (for the birth certificate) is a criminal offence.
2. If they wanted whiter kids, wouldn't photoshop be easier than hiring fake children? Presumably they'd have to make sure they hired the same children all the time.
3. Again, there would be a significant number of people involved here who would all have to remain silent for a significant period of years.
4. The Sussexes guard the children's privacy quite carefully, and it's a big house with big grounds. Entirely possible for people to not see the children. I hardly see my neighbour's kids and I live next door, and our properties are nowhere near as big as Montecito mansions.

"Fake children" rumours are ridiculous and never stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[tabitha2]

Plus a surrogate child and of course illegitimate children are barred from the line of succession. For a good number of reasons I don’t see that as something H&M would do. 

[viii]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I at first thought the coffee ad was a joke, but apparently not.

Meghan is apparently an investor of the company. 

2 hours ago, Baba O'Riley said:

A few people on that thread have gone through a lot of time and trouble to compile  photographic "evidence" and construct a very detailed timeline supporting these theories.  Are these theories actually gaining traction out there, or are they just the products of people who maybe hate M & H and have a lot of time on their hands? I haven't read these rumors anywhere else. 

These theories are gross. They're not gaining traction anywhere besides the sites that spend more time obsessively hating H&M. I swear, their haters are just as annoying as the sugars. 

[marmalade]

Geez, even the haters I know don't believe that crap. 

And why wouldn't a surrogate kid be in the last be of succession? They could easily be DNA tested to prove lineage. 

[tabitha2]

30 minutes ago, marmalade said:

Geez, even the haters I know don't believe that crap. 

And why wouldn't a surrogate kid be in the last be of succession? They could easily be DNA tested to prove lineage. 

 
Not sure. None of the Monarchies allow it at this point. Just like they can have a surrogate child or adopt one even but said child is barred from inheritance. 

[TN-peach]

The only surrogacy conspiracy theory that I give a little bit of credence to is the one about Hilaria Baldwin (she already admitted to one but I can sometimes be persuaded that the some of the other pregnancies may not have been real).

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

 
Not sure. None of the Monarchies allow it at this point. Just like they can have a surrogate child or adopt one even but said child is barred from inheritance. 

Said child must be pretty miserable when her siblings get inheritances and titles.

[noseybutt]

18 hours ago, TN-peach said:

The only surrogacy conspiracy theory that I give a little bit of credence to is the one about Hilaria Baldwin (she already admitted to one but I can sometimes be persuaded that the some of the other pregnancies may not have been real).

Hilaria is next level odd with a known history of offensive cosplay and it’s not hard to make the leap that she might have cosplayed a pregnancy or three.

 

[TN-peach]

1 minute ago, noseybutt said:

Hilaria is next level odd with a known history of offensive cosplay and it’s not hard to make the leap that she might have cosplayed a pregnancy or three.

 

That's the only reason why I can give a little bit of credence to the claims.  I do think her over the top breastfeeding pictures are gross and are also problematic.  She is one of those non-celebrity celebrities that I don't mind reading snark about because of her atrocious Spanish cosplay that she still refuses to give up.  Hilary from Boston. 

[noseybutt]

23 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

That's the only reason why I can give a little bit of credence to the claims.  I do think her over the top breastfeeding pictures are gross and are also problematic.  She is one of those non-celebrity celebrities that I don't mind reading snark about because of her atrocious Spanish cosplay that she still refuses to give up.  Hilary from Boston. 

What’s interesting though is that some Hollywood types seem to really like her. Standards for authenticity in that crowd are exceedingly low.

[louisa05]

23 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I at first thought the coffee ad was a joke, but apparently not.

It looks like a joke. But apparently, the company is serious. They do not have a great reputation and that low budget weird ad can't be helping. 

[Jackie3]

It was unroyal for Meghan to do a podcast.

But it's perfectly OK for Camilla, Eugenie and Mike Tindall to do so.

 

There's even an article in the LA Times about this little commercial, posted a day after it dropped. And tons of other writers trying to decipher what it means! 

She gets a ton of press for someone who is "irrelevant".

[nelliebelle1197]

On 12/20/2023 at 7:52 AM, Manda said:

No.  That was the alleged total package they could get if all the contract options were used and they fulfilled all the contractual obligations.  They haven't done that yet on any of the contracts.

The $100 million from Netflix was a production deal and costs for producing their content were part of the $100 million. It was never going to be $100 million in their pockets. Any costs associated with their “documentary” and any other show they create come from that total.

Spotify dropped them - they didn’t fulfill the multi-podcast deal and Meghan’s solo show didn’t do as well as the PR said.

Book deal was three books for the full amount but they have thus far produced one.

Netflix was supposed to be multiple shows and thus far there are three with only one having traction. 
 

Better Up coaching is no longer platforming Harry and is in financial trouble.

They have failed at every opportunity HANDED to them. And make no mistake- this stuff was handed to them on a silver platter based on Harry’s family name.

On 12/21/2023 at 6:12 AM, Baba O'Riley said:

I casually follow the goings-on of Harry and Meghan, but I'm not strongly pro or con about them.  I did enjoy Harry's book. I stumbled on a busy thread at Quora that promotes some conspiracy theories about them,  some really wacky.  I had no idea of any of these rumors.  I hope it's ok to share these. 

1.  Harry and Meghan are the bio parents of Archie and Lili, but had a surrogate for both births. 

2.  The photos of the kids are not the real kids. They wanted them to look whiter.

3.  Harry is the bio dad, but Meghan is not the bio mom.

4.  The kids don't live with them. In fact, neither of them are supposed kids' parents. Their house doesn't have pool roped off or have playground equipment or other toys. The kids are never seen.  Referred to as "invisikids."
 

A few people on that thread have gone through a lot of time and trouble to compile  photographic "evidence" and construct a very detailed timeline supporting these theories.  Are these theories actually gaining traction out there, or are they just the products of people who maybe hate M & H and have a lot of time on their hands? I haven't read these rumors anywhere else. 

The Reddit sub on them is nearly as bad as the fundie snark Reddit subs. Quora folks are the ones that are too extreme even for Reddit.

21 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

 
Not sure. None of the Monarchies allow it at this point. Just like they can have a surrogate child or adopt one even but said child is barred from inheritance. 

Surrogacy outside the US is not as common and is often illegal. There are good moral and ethical reasons for this and some of the most progressive countries in the world take a dim view of surrogacy.

Plus,  one wants a vain queen who is so out of touch she has to rent a uterus- that would always haunt the child even if it was not true. There are a lot of reasons beyond those above that surrogacy is not the line.

Edited December 21, 2023 by nelliebelle1197

[TN-peach]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

It looks like a joke. But apparently, the company is serious. They do not have a great reputation and that low budget weird ad can't be helping. 

Apparently it was filmed in 2022. 

[marmalade]

Can this ad be found on YT? If not, any idea where it can be found? 

[Coconut Flan]

Try this one.

 

[Jackie3]

There are people who dont' want Archie and Lilli to be in the LOS. That's the reason they are saying they were born by surrogate. If surrogate-born kids could still be in the LOS, they wouldn't be pushing this theory. It's all about getting those kids off the LOS.

Because otherwise, who cares how they were born?

[Loveday]

26 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Try this one.

 

Cringey is definitely the word!😐

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Loveday said:

Cringey is definitely the word!😐

“Cringy”  is definitely the word once you find out MM is in it. Otherwise it might be “mildly amusing”, “kinda cute” or “a bit silly.”  

[Father Son Holy Goat]

10 hours ago, louisa05 said:

It looks like a joke. But apparently, the company is serious. They do not have a great reputation and that low budget weird ad can't be helping. 

That ad is weird but clevr has a bad reputation? Please dish, I haven’t heard.

[Jackie3]

On 12/21/2023 at 1:02 PM, nelliebelle1197 said:

The $100 million from Netflix was a production deal and costs for producing their content were part of the $100 million. It was never going to be $100 million in their pockets. Any costs associated with their “documentary” and any other show they create come from that total.

Spotify dropped them - they didn’t fulfill the multi-podcast deal and Meghan’s solo show didn’t do as well as the PR said.

Book deal was three books for the full amount but they have thus far produced one.

Netflix was supposed to be multiple shows and thus far there are three with only one having traction. 
 

Better Up coaching is no longer platforming Harry and is in financial trouble.

They have failed at every opportunity HANDED to them. And make no mistake- this stuff was handed to them on a silver platter based on Harry’s family name.

You can see failure when you want someone to fail, but you have work hard to ignore facts. Like these:

• Harry's book was the #1 best selling book on Amazon. His publisher is probably thrilled beyond measure.
• Harry's book came out less than a year ago. People don't usually write 3 books at once (or if they do, they are often crappy). Mostly likely another book is coming down the pike.
• Meghan's podcast won several awards (I can't recall the names at the moment).( Eugenie's podcast, and Mike Tindall's, haven't won any, to my knowledge.)
• BetterUp's failure could be for many reasons that have nothing to do with Harry. I like Harry, but I don't think he's powerful enough to uniformly cause a company to fail.
• The couple won other awards this year
• Meghan was signed by a powerful agency.
• Harry won an important lawsuit --this undoubtedly made him happier than all the financial deals in the world.
• Piers Morgan was found to be guilty of allowing phone hacking--a great xmas present for Harry
• Dan Wootton has all but disappeared--another wonderful xmas present

All in all,I bet they are pretty delighted with 2023.  They didn't have a 100% perfect record, but who expects that?

The real failures are the adulterous king who rejected his son. The king who took millions from deceased subjects who died intestate, and he paid no taxes on it. The king sold honors and made a tidy profit doing so. And his son, who most likely leaked things to the press to promote himself. And his brother Andrew, a sicko who hung around with a pedophile and who had sex with the girls he trafficked. In fact, 2024 is looking like a bad year for Andrew, since new documents are being released about Epstein in January.  These are the losers.

And absolutely these opportunites were handed to H&M. Who offers a random couple millions to write a book? Obviously it's because they were royal. OTOH, most of us don't have a lifetime need  for paid security. That also comes with being royal.

 

It's nice to see the lies getting misproven. The father of an Ulvade victim states Meghan arrived with no cameras, told the media to go away, and is till in touch with his wife.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-defended-uvlade-victim-father-1855040

 

On 12/19/2023 at 10:48 PM, Father Son Holy Goat said:

They still have a significant amount of money so my sympathy for their relative hardship is limited. 

If they have invested even a portion of their millions, they are set for life. Except for their need for lifetime security.

Meghan is smart enough to take those millions to a financial advisor to get help creating  a plan financial security. Harry, of course, likely knows nothing of such matters.

I don't think they have any need or desire for "popularity." They already get more attention than anyone could possibly want. Moving to CA, and shielding their kids from cameras, all indicate a desire for *less* attention.

[fundiewatch]

I went to a white elephant last night and collected a Friends charades game, a pair of Harry and Meghan socks, and a Christmas tree ornament of the titan submersible. Theme? 2023 tragedies we were all distracted by. 

[Jackie3]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:49 AM, fundiewatch said:

I went to a white elephant last night and collected a Friends charades game, a pair of Harry and Meghan socks, and a Christmas tree ornament of the titan submersible. Theme? 2023 tragedies we were all distracted by. 

Exactly. A man dying of an overdose is exactly the same as a formerly royal couple living in CA.

People dying underwater (including a teen) is exactly the same as a family living in Montecito.

Very sensitive!

 

Spare didn't just sell well. The reviews, as of today, are pretty darned good.  People like this book.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:02 AM, tabitha2 said:

Plus a surrogate child and of course illegitimate children are barred from the line of succession. For a good number of reasons I don’t see that as something H&M would do. 

Well, that's a good point. I've never thought of that. Why WOULD they use a surrogate, if Meghan could carry the children? There seems to be no upside and plenty of downside. 

Yeah, these rumors are all about keeping Archie and Lilli out of the LOS. Ugly as it sounds, it must be about "bloodline."

I have a feeling all royal children are DNA tested the moment they are born. Royal kids get so much (money, land, estates), so there's a lot at stake. You never know what those royal moms have been up to (eyeroll), and it's so easy to test. 

On top of that, there's a huge risk of embarrassment in the future if a "royal" child turns out to be a "commoner".  Imagine that the public adores cute little Princess X from age 0-5. Then it turns out the adorable kindergartener is a chauffeur's child.  A scandal like that makes the whole institution look untrustworthy. And if the public has invested emotion in Princess X, and it's discovered she's a commoner, it emphasizes how unimportant royal blood really is.

Edited December 25, 2023 by Jackie3