Blind Item #3
The alliterate former actress turned A list celebrity has taken to posting on social media in the third person. Apparently it has started to seep into her DM conversations to and she refers to herself in the third person and is becoming annoying because in private, she does it to make herself seem more important.
Megan’s markle
ReplyDeleteTheir new SM account is .....? Trying hard to keep up with Kate and Wills it seems
DeleteUsed to be candian writer something
Delete+1 Megan Markle
ReplyDeleteProbably does it since she posts on the Sussex accounts
I do t follow The RF much but this seems highly unorthodox. Not sure how long she can get away with it ...,but recent articles have been painfully complimentary after what seemed like some criticism.
DeleteIs she referring to herself verbally in 3rd person?
ReplyDeleteThey've got a New Fathers Day pic up of man hands obscuring a baby's face on Instagram...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete😆! What a great post
Delete@tricia13....DM lead for a couple of hours was a confirmation from a lip reader of Harry telling MM to turn around during the anthem. Then Archie trumps everything today.....
ReplyDeleteYes. That’s what I was 🤔 thinking....
Delete+1000000
DeleteDefinitely think she was probably wasted for Harry to seem so exasperated with her in those videos
DeleteWe are not amused.
ReplyDeleteBig fake announcement for all the big fake baby believers!
ReplyDeleteFake finger! holding a fake hand! and there's a VERY life like face of that fake baby Darren doll! over at the DM!
personally, I think it looks so real because of the satanic rituals of eating deadbabies fake foreskin!
You heard it here first.
Go ahead and sleep in, nutty and substanceD-
I got this.
The royal we was used by Princess Diana, so what.
ReplyDeleteAlso you can see the fake baby's fake face. It was probably bought from Africa via Angelina Jolie.
It’s a very sad Father’s Day photo. Half the baby’s face is obscured by Harry’s giant hand. The angle makes his hand look bigger than the baby’s head. The real center of the photo is his wedding ring.
ReplyDeleteThere’s no connection with the viewer.
Of course it's very very sad. Because Harry hates her now. He just absolutely loathes her and the laughingstock he and his wife are. Just so mierable and sad. Why, that probably isn't even Harry's hand.
ReplyDeleteGood to see everyone's finally on the same page on this, lol.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, it's all Evil Meghan's fault that Kate is mean to poor Rose Harbury. Because she's just evil like that. Kate is powerless to do anything about it! William, too! It's all Meghan controlling everyone, probably with voodoo.
ReplyDeleteThat baby has PH's eyes. I still can't believe all of the stories, but that bid of PH telling her to turn around seems first af.
ReplyDeleteLOL Large round brown eyes are not the same as the small, beady blue eyes Harry inherited from Charles. Some people have poor facial recognition ability.
DeleteYes. Eyes look very like Harry's to me.
DeleteFucking autocorrect. VID and FROSTY!
ReplyDelete@Krab. How in the world would you know Harry hates her?
ReplyDeleteI think that baby does look very plausibly a cross of harry and meg, imho. That doesn't mean all of the rest of the trouble isnt there.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting read of the photo.
Also, love the balcony video and interpretations. I wrote on another blind where nic was discussing it...do you think Post Partum is going to be used as an explanation for anything that transpires over the next year?
@not
ReplyDeletekrab is being sarcastic.
Hey Krab - who pays your shill salary? Do you work on halfchan too? Or just here?
Her face is super puffy, but again, she just gave birth 6 weeks ago. 1, it was a geriatric pregnancy, and 2, AA can sometimes have more difficult post partum recovery. The RF had no issue freezing Sarah F out, so I don't see why they'd have to be doing that to M on DL. They'd just do it, and def not out her in carriage with two future queen consorts.
ReplyDeleteThat video was very telling especially since NO ONE in the family interacted with her. She must’ve been late because of the boozing and that’s why she looked so awful.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take in the picture, I didn’t even think about the ring being the focal point...typical narcissist.
So who exactly paid off MM to get the full facial photos of the baby to publish? That's what this nonsense is all about.
ReplyDeleteThe hand is obscuring the face for a reason; some semblance of privacy. It wasn't to highlight the ring.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like "some semblance of privacy", you always have the option of not putting your baby's face on Instagram for your millions of followers.
ReplyDeleteIt's a creepy photo.
I totally agree - it's a very creepy looking photo! The perspective makes it appear as if the baby is trying to escape the claustrophobic prison of Harry's giant hands - and he looks sad and resigned. An "artsy" celeb-style picture like this invites weird interpretations in both the vibe the pic gives off and the motives behind hiding the baby's face.
DeleteWhen has MeAGAIN ever wanted privacy, she wants all the focus on her all the time.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the deal was it was her egg / his sperm, but via surrogate for vanity. It's pretty easy to do if you have the money
ReplyDeleteThe baby’s brow is furrowed in fear or getting ready to cry. Something about this pic is disturbing af. I took tons of pics of my kids as newborns and they never had that look. If she really had a baby (and god knows because this is such a royal shit show, pardon the pun) I hope she’s supervised. Something is wrong with her and I think she is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteGreat choice, Harry!
ReplyDeleteIs there a reason all of their photos are black and white? Maybe I’m just just looking too much at it,
ReplyDeleteLet's have a Father's Day shout-out to James "Backdoor" Hewitt!
ReplyDelete@tookiesmum, I agree that the photo is disturbing.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone would like to discuss the photo further without interruption from the Peanut Gallery, I've put up a quick entry on my blog, which can be reached by clicking on my profile or going to
https://nuttyflavor88.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-giant-hand-and-half-revealed-baby_16.html
the rumours are that Meghan was picked up by police in Windsor town high street last night because she was seen riding in a police vehicle, not the usual security Range Rovers.
ReplyDeleteHahahahaha, you people need serious, serious help. Or maybe an additional 40 IQ points. Or both, most likely.
ReplyDeleteYes, she's puffy because of the drinking Enty just made up and she was also picked up for being D&D in Windsor last night.
If Harry did indeed tell her to turn around, so what? She's not used to the stupid Buck House balcony appearances and for a minute forgot herself to talk to her husband naturally, instead of standing there like a statue smiling away.
You can all enjoy the lively debate on my blog, without all the jealous naysayers, which you can reach at https://famouspositivequotes.blogspot.com/
And poor fake Archie-bot looks like he's about to cry. Because that's so very rare in a 5 week old baby. I mean we all know they never cry unless they're AI replicants who are just beginning to realize that they will never be human, and that evil Meghan Markle, the drunk, is pretending to be their mother. Poor Archie bot.
ReplyDeleteLol Krab! Love it!
ReplyDeleteLook at something long enough (obsess is better word), and a mind that's driven to find a speck will find it.
Love, The Peanut Gallery
Yes, I saw that too, Mischi. A woman on Twitter said she'd seen Markle in the front of a Met van.
ReplyDeleteIt's Twitter, though. Hard to know if it's a reliable source.
That's a lady who lives in Windsor and provided footage of the entrance to FC with no police guard MM was seen on Windsor High St in the front seat of a Met Police 4x4 heading away from the Castle at 20.15 BST Friday 14/06
DeleteNutty, it wasn't just the one person who saw her.
ReplyDeleteTo further interrupt the discussion as a member of the peanut gallery (because, you know, this isn't a private blog), the only mentions coming up on twitter about this police car thing are from the dedicated hate Meagan accounts. The same ones that love to 'tick-tock and boom'. The same ones that swore she was under house arrest and that a trip to the Tower was imminent. Super reliable, in other words. I'd be happy to believe it if one, just one person provided actual proof.
ReplyDeleteAny links, Twitter hash tags to search etc for the van news? I tried to find it on both Youtube and Twitter.
ReplyDeleteIt's here. https://twitter.com/EmmiB18/status/1140070655049838595
ReplyDeleteThanks Nutty.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget, Nutty said she'd be gone by Thanksgiving. Tick tock, MEagain!
ReplyDelete90% of you are batshit.
ReplyDeleteGuano, even!
Deleteshe's bloody insufferable and the people drinking her Kool aid are the sort of utterly easily manipulated simpletons who send money to Nigerian princes in the hopes of getting $2 million.
ReplyDeleteI think it's got to be a small number of people "drinking her Kool-Aid."
ReplyDeleteShe has very few UK magazine covers these days because covers featuring her just don't sell.
Apparently she also "insisted" that she would not be on the cover of the issue of Vogue UK she will be editing (pssst, paid cash money to edit), no doubt because Vogue didn't want her there.
I see the christening has been announced for early July at Windsor. The Queen will not be attending.
Nutty- on that other blind I referred to, Nic had an interesting question...who do you think will be chosen as godparents?
ReplyDeleteOn Harry's side? One of his old male chums if he hasn't alienated them all. Alternately, a family member like Zara or Eugenie.
ReplyDeleteOn Meg's side? Someone who could use the publicity and would find it advantageous to be associated with her.
One of the limitations is that godparents must be baptized Christians, since their job is to help the child grow up in the church. That crosses off Lindsay Roth (observant Jew) and probably Jessica Mulroney, who was born Jewish, unless she has converted.
Serena Williams is a Jehovah's Witness, and they do not believe in baptizing babies, so probably not her.
Amal Clooney would do it, and I believe she is a Christian. George recently did an interview about how he and Amal enjoyed dinner parties with Harry and Meghan.
Maybe Christianity is no longer a qualification since Charles, a divorcee, will be King one day and head of the Church of England.
DeleteMeghan is a fat hypocrite, literally.
ReplyDeleteNutty, Amal Clooney is not a Christian. She is a Druze Muslim.
ReplyDeleteHmmm - you're right that she is not a Christian, but the Druze are not really Muslims either, although apparently the faiths have some similarities.
ReplyDeleteHer husband was quoted as saying she is "nondenominational....not religious at all" in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.
That's all well and good, but not really a great qualification to be godmother for a Christian baby, particularly one who is 7th in line to be "defender of the faith" of the Church of England.
Thanks Nutty! Heading over to your site now.
ReplyDeleteAnybody else really enjoy it when Krab gets all fired up defending a (clearly manipulative) woman she doesn't know? It can't be just me.
And yeah, Druse is definitely NOT Muslim.
Even though the faith originally developed out of Ismaili Islam, Druze are not considered Muslims, although Al Azhar of Egypt recognizes them as one of the Islamic sects, akin to Shia.
ReplyDeleteSo some people consider the Druze as Muslims.
Oh, and one last observation. Markle has been puffier for the last couple of weeks than she was at any point whatsoever during her pregnancy...or "pregnancy" depending on your POV. I do find that curious.
ReplyDeleteI'm not getting fired up, OKay, I'm laughing my ass off. Sorry you can't tell the difference.
ReplyDeleteBut you go enjoy your conspiracy theories about a woman you don't know.
I too, know about the police car thing and am inclined to doubt Meghan Markle was sneaking around the palace grounds, they were probably just giving her a ride.
ReplyDeleteI also looked into the bracelet and wedding ring of Prince Harry and yes those are his hands. I believe it is a real baby in today's photo.
I don't know where they got it though, lol!!! Meghan didn't give birth to shit.
Could be, Hunter. The Twitter people are theorizing that she was driven out to Windsor for a chat with Lord Geidt and possibly HM. Funny that she wouldn't be in a limo or just an ordinary town car, though. It's not like the Royals don't have plenty of vehicles.
ReplyDelete@Unknown, the baby not only looks resigned, he looks silenced. You don't get a voice, kid.
@ MeliticusBee. Oh oops, my bad. Thanks! Went right over my head. Zoom!
ReplyDeleteHarry looks as if he’s smothering the kid. Strange photo.
ReplyDeleteHey Megs - your sockpuppet accounts are really obvious.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't very good at SM swarming and are just drawing attention to these blinds. You should take lessons.
Alternatively, you could actually hire someone to do it for you.
Personally, I wouldn't have paid half the attention to this stuff if it weren't for all of the obvious fake pushbacks.
Nutty, Meghan wasn't just seen in a police vehicle, she was also seen wandering around the Windsor estate on her own and then leaving the estate in a police car through the Windsor town high street.
ReplyDeleteI think the hand blocking part of the face serves the purpose that people will still be hungry for more photos - they didn’t give up the money shot.
ReplyDeleteThe CDAN audience is tired and is in desperate need of a cuppa.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who speaks of themselves in the 3rd person needs an enema.
@KTVerclempt tell to MM herself because that third person schtick she does with her Strong Write Twitter account is hysterical.
ReplyDeleteOkay from my seat in the Peanut gallery because all of us who aren't on the Meghan is a Meth addicted Narcissistic psychopath who faked having a baby and is fat train are according to Nutty in the peanut gallery. I can see that Nutty's blog mates most of which use the same name to comment on her blog as here are doing the swarm attack on anybody who has a differing opinion. Metticulous Bee having a differing opinion doesn't make us one of Meghans alternate accounts. It just means we have a differing opinion. It isn't that serious. It is a gossip site. Not real life people lol
ReplyDeleteKrabs - I like your style.
I hope people here realize that picture on Nutty's blog is not the original photo. The photo is odd,but nothing to get worked up about. The time is coming soon when the surrogate can go away in peace,maybe then things can be normal. I am convinced now that this is what is causing her strange behavior, the possibility of losing the baby and also being found out. And why are people thinking th DR wouldn't give her a hard time? Diana was put through worse,and was only 19. Meghan is older th a Diana lived to be.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a guillotine? I mean, I know that was mostly France. And I know that was mostly a REALLY long time ago, but for this kind of heinous crime, I feel it's warranted. And Harry too. Just throw him in that pile for having the audacity to show his offensive hand.
ReplyDeleteAt least the fake baby won't be a fake orphan.
Sure, post a pic of a frightened looking baby whose face is obscured by a middle finger to the camera and all those pesky questions will go away. Because that's totally normal.
ReplyDeleteWe totally agree.
ReplyDeleteRe the police car and Windsor. I can't see any reason for Megs to be in a police car, no matter what went down, they would have called for an unmarked vehicle not paraded her through the high street. It seems more logical that this was a Meghan look alike, some nutter stalking Meghan that the police picked up. Whatever happened it is very strange.
ReplyDeleteHolly....when did divorce ever ban anyone from being Christian? Many people including a few Kings were excomunicated from the Catholic Church because of divorce, that never stopped them from being Christian.
I do get what you are saying about Charles though, in fact Charles wants to be called 'Defender of the Faiths' when he is Crowned (LOL)that one isn't going down very well with the establishment. It is well known in those circles that Charles would prefer to be Greek Orthodox and is also very inclined towards Buddhism , but he is stuck with The Church of England. William may as well just come out as atheist/agnostic as he has no time for the church or religion, he simply goes through the motions.
Rosie: hahaha! I was thinking about the guillotine today, and wondering if someone couldn't haul it out for a little headchopping.
ReplyDeleteThe baby photo. Totally Rosemary's Baby! Super creepy. Why in the He-- would Markle post something that awful?
Poor baby just a prop, it was so weird that picture and the foot one, too
ReplyDeleteI found it quite odd, when they presented the babe and Megs wasn’t holding him.
She oddly stroked his soft spot, and yeah as a new first time Mum I never let anyone else hold my bambino for pictures and she just seems disconnected and now the creepy body parts pix.
Boy. It's batshit crazy in here.
DeleteWasn't going to post but then I looked at the pic on nutty's blog. Is Archie growing a horn?
ReplyDeleteLMAO, just had to add something to the drama.
I see a short lived union between Prince candy corn teeth and the Smerkle.
ReplyDelete@HeatherBee-- I have noticed this as well. Maybe MM thinks B&W photos are more aesthetically pleasing? Perhaps a subliminal message to remind the viewer that MM is black and Harry is white?
ReplyDelete@MeliticusBee
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meg has the most obvious sockpuppets ever.
We're starting to get them on the blog now, too. Just got one today asking if I knew about William's many, many illegitimate children, and why didn't he get photographed with them for Father's Day?
Uh, no.
That pic of ‘Archie’ is photoshopped. No wonder it looks so strange.
ReplyDeleteI would absolutely love to hear the MM Kool aid crowd explain to me 4 things:
ReplyDelete1. why was her pregnancy belly swaying gently from side to side, like here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vcBe9IjmU4
2. how was it possible for her to squat down with such ease with her legs together, and get back up without any help at nearly 9 months pregnant
3. how come her face is more puffy and bloated now after 'giving birth', than at any given point during her 'pregnancy'
and finally
4. how come her belly looked bigger (not to mention pillowy soft and lopsided) when Harry and Sparkles present the baby
bonus question: why was Harry the one holding the bloody baby???????
Is there a way to deconstruct images/look at pixels to see if anything has been cut and pasted/masked, once published?
ReplyDeleteHere is an article that includes MM as a toddler. Same sort of eye shape/close-set eyes, and she has no brows yet, either. https://www.instyle.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-prince-harry-baby-photos
Maybe the image looks odd because male/female bone structure is different and we're seeing a female eye/brow structure on a baby boy's head. I don't know. IMO, it is odd that they chose to publish an "artsy" pic rather than a father/son pic. As PH says, a baby changes a lot in two weeks (telegraphing our expectations/acceptance of changing baby looks?) so showing baby Archie, completely at this point should be no big deal. Babies start smiling around six weeks and they can focus so this baby focusing on the camera is not surprising. Not showing a cooing/possibly grinning baby looking at his proud daddy is different.
Why isn't any credit being assigned to any of the pictures being published? Even PK is credited when the Cambridges release photos of their kiddies. This is why I think the last three Sussex photos are photoshopped/set-ups. No one is taking responsi...er, I mean, credit.
Re the link, Nutty. If true, (and not even under the cloak of darkness,) I think we can string the pearls together on this one.
ReplyDeleteThey found it. Here's the original photo that MM used to photoshop Baby Archie. Look at the baby's fingernails in both photos. Also look at the man's arm. He's even wearing the same bracelet.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/sweetpe14687243/status/1140525746722463744
Baby MM w/mum
ReplyDeletehttps://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/04/04/21/4ACA53EF00000578-5573395-Meghan_with_her_mother_Doria_pictured_who_was_around_a_decade_yo-a-47_1522872892857.jpg
Back of PH's, harry hand/forearm
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/britains-prince-harry-puts-his-hand-on-a-horse-following-the-royal-picture-id528348922
Father's Day photo
https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/archie-1560690756.png?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=1200:*
@ Ann,
ReplyDelete0.o
Just, wow.
OMG, that's hilarious. Someone posts an obviously photoshopped picture to Twitter and announces it as the original photo, and you idiots eat it up. Now,of course, it will be added to Evil Meghan's list of lies. She's drunk, she's a prostitute, she's a grifter, she faked her pregnancy and she photoshops pictures of her baby.
ReplyDeletePoor old Archie-bot. Don't get him too upset or springs and transistors will start leaking from his eyes and ears.
And yes, OBVIOUSLY, I'm a sockpuppet. That's why I've been commenting on CDaN for more than ten years. Evil Meg thinks that far ahead.
ReplyDeleteOK, fine, here goes: (wasting time before work)
ReplyDelete1. why was her pregnancy belly swaying gently from side to side, like here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vcBe9IjmU4
Probably doctored video. Can I see the same thing on an unbiased news outlet?
2. how was it possible for her to squat down with such ease with her legs together, and get back up without any help at nearly 9 months pregnant
Don't know. She's a yoga enthusiast, that's probably why.
3. how come her face is more puffy and bloated now after 'giving birth', than at any given point during her 'pregnancy'
It looks less bloated now than 2 days after the birth.
and finally
4. how come her belly looked bigger (not to mention pillowy soft and lopsided) when Harry and Sparkles present the baby
Uh, because after you deliver there's no baby in there any more and your belly is huge and jiggly rather than firm as in pregnancy? Anyone who's given birth knows the answer. As for bigger, she wasn't seen during the last month or so so that is just silly. You don't know what she looked like then.
bonus question: why was Harry the one holding the bloody baby???????
Because why the hell not? Maybe it was important to him.
Krab, you're clearly deeply severely delusional.
ReplyDelete1. Because according to you, the Instagram pictures, which could be very easily photoshopped, aren't, but a video, which very clearly isn't, is to you? Ok.
2. No. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your buttcrack clearly has teeth, because you are completely talking out of your arse.
As a women, who has been doing yoga since Sparkles was in her early teens, and has been pregnant a couple of times, I can tell you with absolute confidence that this is IMPOSSIBLE.
3. No it doesn't. Her face has never been this puffy.
4. I have given brith. The belly FALLS LOW. It doesn't float high up to the side underneath the breasts.
Bonus question: yeah, because that was;t strange at all.
Thank you very much for playing. You lose. Because you have demonstrated that logic, observation and common sense do not go hand in hand with the Sparkles' fan club.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet me add that the photo on the left in my link (that was used to photoshop Baby Archie's Father's Day photo) is actually a young Jessica Mulroney as a baby. Congrats to the sleuths who found it.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/sweetpe14687243
That is the limit. Can't you see the supposed pic of JM's baby is photo shopped? Not vice versa? 😂😂😂😂
ReplyDeleteMy two cents-- that JM baby pic looks to be the photoshopped one with different sepia tones and disproportionate head that looks glued in. The Archie pic is much more cohesive in composition, though I agree it's a bit odd for Father's Day photo (usually these type of "fingers and toes w/adult hand" shots are done for the newborn set).
ReplyDeleteThis baby looks very much a blend if Harry and Meg, with Meg's eyes, to me. I still have questions about the pregnancy mobility, though (she was in pumps, with NEVER an alteration in stride or squatting/bending ability while in public...that baffled me). The belly wiggle video makes me a bit skeptical...could the wiggle be an optical illusion of the printed fabric in motion? I dont know.
I just dont understand why the easiest of things to stifle the naysayers havent been done, unless there really is something fishy to be hidden. Why the incomplete birth certificate? Why the mystery dwellings?, etc
Here's something interesting/to consider.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any photoshop software so I google how to tell if a photo has been photoshopped and got this:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/how-do-you-tell-if-a-photo-is-photoshopped/
At the end is a link is an explanation about metadata and a link to metapicz. So I right-clicked the image and plugged in the url to the site. Per the "how to", the metadata has been stripped, but most interesting of all is the date stamp of the profile date time. It is, 2019:04:24 13:48:46
Baby Archie was born in May.
Boom.
Oh good lord. I don't like conspiracy theories about Meghan because it makes people who don't like her all seem like nutters. I don't like her because I think she's a fame whore who obviously married Harry for fame and money. Even I think she actually had a baby and lives with Harry. Instead of coming up with these conspiracy theories (and who really the fuck cares if she actually gave birth, btw), focus on the reality. She's a narcissist who isn't nice to people (her staff quit) and has come between her husband and his family. She is using the royal family for money (her spending on clothes proves that) and isn't a good person. Those are the facts. This surrogate stuff is stupid and makes you all look crazy.
ReplyDeleteOmg, Ann has lost the last of her marbles. Someone was fucking around with photoshop, posted it to twitter and then the idiots who read skippy took off running with it, which is hilarious because they continue to prove themselves as deluded cat ladies with no grasp of reality. It’s priceless, really.
ReplyDeleteThey also completely ignore that baby Archie is the spitting image of Harry as a baby.
hahahaha, you people are so stupid.
ReplyDeleteAny moron can edit metadata on a photo. It takes about three whole seconds.
The rest of you, get back to me when they've let you out of the institution they're holding you in or you magically gain enough IQ points to be taken seriously.
>1. Because according to you, the Instagram pictures, which could be very easily photoshopped, aren't, but a video, which very clearly isn't, is to you? Ok. '
ReplyDeleteUm, dumb-dumb? The original photo from Harry and Meghan's account is not Photoshopped. The video which is on some Youtube conspiracy thread channel is WHY DOES MEGHAN'S BELLY SWAY LIKE THAT?
All I'm asking for, brainbox, is the same video footage on an unbiased media source. Not some video uploaded to Youtube by some loon.
Is that so hard to understand? Maybe. But there we are.
Put up the same video from a news source and I'll evaluate. I don't have time for your nutcase friends.
@ tatty, I used the photo released by MM. Oh, pardon moi, Sussexroyal.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, by golly, Archie, the picture, does resemble a parent. I think it's MM's eyes/brow line that were photoshopped in and why they used sepia (to hide the edging). It's no conspiracy theory that PH is infertile. His testicle did not descend and he was around seven when he had the surgery to correct the problem. I actually remember reading about his hospitalization back in the day. Don't believe me, do your own research. Dr's now know better to do the surgery earlier rather than later for just that reason. MM was not pregnant. Everyone could see it for a lot of documented reasons.
If there was a baby, they wouldn't have to be using fabricated photos from April. April. Or, maybe, they're not allowed to publish photos until the 42 (?) day cooling off period has transpired and the adoption is signed, sealed and delivered. (Would answer the b.s. birth certificate and why they're using the imagery they are.) If they had been forthcoming about a surrogate, they wouldn't have to lie so much and we would all be holding our collective breath in anticipation with them. But MM had to have everything *now*, her way, all "just perfect" and everything.
No one is taking credit for the published photos. Not a photographer (whose career could benefit from the notoriety, per the engagement shoot,) or MM herself. That's really suspect because if it was MM, she would be lapping up the attention like white on rice. No, a liar distances themselves as far away as possible from their deceit. Every pic that has come from Sussexroyal since Archie's "birth" is faux.
And tough if y'all think I'm "nutter" because I don't accept their b.s. at face value. How does me participating on CDAN make me "nutter" and not [you]? You guys sure know a lot about every entertainer there is, regardless of sex, age, genre than you probably know about your own extended family/their business.
You might say "So what!" Well, if the marriage doesn't work out (most likely it will not,) then they have a faux birth certificate right now, and IF they get the baby from the surrogate, an adopted baby that does not belong to either of them. Probably why the baby has not been granted a title and most likely one will not be forthcoming for whatever reason they can drum up. Oh, and that means that MM will get zero support when the plug is pulled on her marriage, unless PH decides to recognize the baby. Nothing says he has too. Things probably went sour quite a while ago and the baby was all about a life-time stipend, anyways. I wonder if PH has figured that part out, yet. On the upside, maybe he's happy with this opportunity to have a baby this way. I just hope for his sake, she doesn't use it as a pawn to siphon what her heart desires.
Oh, did you hear? The Queen will be on break at Balmoral and unavailable to attend her great-grandson's christening. I wonder if anyone else will be on vacation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@unknown said,
ReplyDelete(and who really the fuck cares if she actually gave birth, btw), focus on the reality.
This is the reality: She did not give birth and if it wasn't a big deal, she would not be spending A LOT of $$ on a charade to prove otherwise.
There is a real consequence (for the both of them,) to not being the baby's donor. He could say, "not mine, f.o." and he could also say, "not yours, I will raise him, myself, try to fight me, buh-bye." Or, he could pay her a stipend and it will never be enough/the baby will be used as a pawn. Whichever way, it has the potential to be a real sh!t show for the simple fact that their marriage is built on quicksand. He does not look like a happy man. More so, he looks much happier when not in her company.
Photoshop is very complicated to use, and MM isn't smart enough to work the program. It's a photo of the baby, looking very unloved, and some cheap photo editing program that an idiot can use, MM being the idiot.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Krab, I too, skip over your posts. You aren't converting anyone to drink kool aid.
@Nic.....the Queen was not at Louis' christening either, she had a big 100th RAF anniversary event the next day and Trumps first visit to deal with a few days after that.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Queen is on summer holiday nothing, I mean nothing interferes with it (even Diana's death) the whole family knows this. If the Queen had wanted to attend they would have changed the date of the Christening, so it took place before the fist week of July. Which makes me think they purposely chose their date as a public cover for the Queen not being there.
The Christening will be at St Georges Chapel, right on the Windsor estate, if the date had been set for anytime before the beginning of July then Philip would probably have been there to attended as well, before they headed off to Scotland. As it is the Queen may have to make a dash back to London for the swearing in of a new PM.
@ Emerald City,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I realize this. My comment was made tongue in cheek. I was teasing that everyone in the BRF might be away that day at a shooting party or something. (MM's PR machine reports that the Queen would be throwing her a birthday party at Balmoral in August (the first time she would be there). Except that MM's PR machine had her at Balmoral a couple of years ago to celebrate PH's birthday in the month of November. (His birthday is in September.) It made me wonder if she and PH were invited at all this summer per TTC and why that story was planted in the first place (persuasion, of course they'd be there!) I linked the stories in another thread. It's actually quite sickening the rift between PW and PH and how that might play out.
Here's a conspiracy theory: I think the pivotal moment to this debacle was when MM saw PE wearing the emerald tiara that reportedly, MM wanted for her wedding day, but was told, "no". No reason why, just a response. (I suspect the Queen responds, she does not reason why.) In any event, being, imo, a narc, she was triggered (pea green with envy and enraged) into announcing her pregnancy weeks before she was supposed to and in turn hi-jacked their delivery timeline by at least 4 or 5 weeks. (Most first-time mom's go over at least a week.). Had she stuck to The Plan, the birth certificate registration time line would have worked out better and presenting their baby would have appeared more authentic, etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAddressing 1 out of 4 very well made points by the other unknown, because they don't fit his narrative, so better just ignore, in the hopes nobody will notice.
ReplyDeleteAnd Krab has the gall to others stupid.
Gonna skip his posts too from now on.
I skip Krab too, can't stand his sarcasm and screeching.
ReplyDelete