Reply
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,216
Registered: ‎04-23-2010

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

It is such a happy time for the Royal Family.  I just wish that all of the other babies born under such difficult circumstances would receive just a small percentage of the attention given to this child.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 24,587
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted


@carrie ann wrote:

I'm still trying to understand the logic that the baby might have been born 2 weeks prior to when they said he was.  What would be the reason for giving a false birthdate? And this insatiable need for details about the birth especially wanting the media to track down the doctors and hospitals. This is just weird. 


@carrie ann   Welll, clearly the reason would have been exactly what the couple had expressed prior to the birth: to have [two weeks of] family private time to enjoy before going public with the announcement.  

 

I'm not saying I believe it, just that that would have been the reason.

Super Contributor
Posts: 497
Registered: ‎05-21-2010

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

@Pearley   Did you read somewhere that Harry said they wanted 2 weeks of private family time before announcing the birth?   Lets just say for the sake of argument that the baby was born 2 weeks earlier than May 6. Why wouldn't he just come out and say the baby was born 2 weeks ago and we are announcing it today? What you are suggesting whether you believe this scheme or not is that the Queen, Prince Charles, Meghan's mother are all lying along with Harry and Meghan. This is just not logical. This crazy stuff is coming from the internet. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 24,587
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted


@carrie ann wrote:

@Pearley   Did you read somewhere that Harry said they wanted 2 weeks of private family time before announcing the birth?   Lets just say for the sake of argument that the baby was born 2 weeks earlier than May 6. Why wouldn't he just come out and say the baby was born 2 weeks ago and we are announcing it today? What you are suggesting whether you believe this scheme or not is that the Queen, Prince Charles, Meghan's mother are all lying along with Harry and Meghan. This is just not logical. This crazy stuff is coming from the internet. 


@carrie ann   Well I know that.  Elsewhere on one of these threads (could even be on this one somewhere) I posted that Queen E. would never allow such a deception.   So please don't blame me for the explanation I gave - it was a response to your question.  No it doesn't make a lot of sense, but people's actions don't always either.

Contributor
Posts: 20
Registered: ‎04-10-2013

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

I applaud these 2 parents. I would do exactly the same to protect the bundle of innocence and vulnerability that has been entrusted to me as a parent in these circumstances. 

I cringed with horror when I saw Kate step out with her last child, just 8 hours in this world, and expose him to the hoard of cameras and drunken revelers outside the hospital. To many of us sitting at home, we have a natural curiousity and appreciation and love for a child, any child, but for so many there, trying to get the best shot, the fastest transmission for publication, this is a job, a money-maker. That's it. Not to mention the clowns that come out dressed in the Union Jack, swinging and chugging from champagne bottles. Another opportunity to get drunk and have it be acceptable.

And it is ludicrious to say that this baby was born on a different day. Do you think Harry was faking his breathless, stunned, and incredulous uncontrollable grin when he came out to deliver the news of his first-born several hours later?

Do you believe the Queen's office/Buckingham Palace would be forever tied to this lie of a child's birth date? And forge all official documents of his birthdate forevermore?

What on earth would be the advantage to anyone in that?

It's apparent that the choice of name is to establish their own wishes for their child and the future. "Archie" is not a british upper class name. And "son of Harry" breaks away from the burden of many hundreds of years of british history and his own ancestry. They are giving him what every parent wishes for their child.

Coy? (as one poster stated). Not a chance.  This is determination to do what is right for the protection of their family.

Given Harry's lifetime of personal experience in the press, and knowing that photographers would spit at his mother and call her vile (c...) names to get a reaction shot... how would you react to watching your mother treated in such a way, in the name of "the taxpayers" and a "free press". And how would you feel as a mother to have your young son watch you dishonored and humiliated in such a way. And to know that her final moments were lived, not surrounded in love, but hounded by the same animals, paparazzi, out for the most lucrative shot. The fact that her driver was drunk doesn't take away what provoked the reckless get-away and the terrible loneliness of her surroundings at her death.

And the manner in which Harry's wife has been treated, by both press and trolls, is all the more reason to keep the personal life of his family private. They do plenty of photo ops and walk-abouts for all the world to see.

If you don't think there is evil in this world and that negative thoughts and emotions don't affect you, have a second thought. Negativity is very real and can have very heavy impact. Look around you, in both the subtle and the physical world.

Yes, I would hold 2 sheltering hands over my "baby bump" for 9 months, place my hand protectively against my baby's head to shield him from the prying eyes of cameras, pull him in to my chest and not display his precious delicate face to strangers at his debut to the world at large, and, yes, expose his tender feet only on his first Mother's Day in this world, “large ankles” and all.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,151
Registered: ‎03-14-2010

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

I would expect Meghan and Harry to post a photo that is not traditional....that’s how they are and want to put their own spin on things.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,810
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

All this secrecy, no doctor's signature, no birth location and the showcased after birth baby bump leads credence to the surrogate accusation. Even the failure to notify the palace at the time of labor insured the royal physicians would not be present.

It's out there and it would seem measures would be taken to dispel them if they are untrue.

I had thought it nonsense but as time goes by, it's appearing more and more likely.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,910
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted

[ Edited ]

What's next? We haven't seen every inch of the baby so it must be deformed?  We haven't heard the baby cry so it must have been stillborn?   The baby was switched at birth and an alien being substituted?

 

Apparently the only possibility that can't be legitimately considered is that on May 6, 2019 a healthy baby boy was born to Harry and Meghan and all they want is a little privacy for them and protection for the baby.  Smiley Sad

The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
If you don't take the bait you won't get caught.
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,955
Registered: ‎11-03-2018

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted


@Marp wrote:

What's next? We haven't seen every inch of the baby so it must be deformed?  We haven't heard the baby cry so it must have been stillborn?   The baby was switched and birth and an alien being substituted?

 

Apparently the only possibility that can't be legitimately considered is that on May 6, 2019 a healthy baby boy was born to Harry and Meghan and all they want is a little privacy for them and protection for the baby.  Smiley Sad


It's so much better to speculate and make up preposterous stories about this baby.

 

(I'm being sarcastic)

Highlighted
Super Contributor
Posts: 369
Registered: ‎03-22-2012

Re: New 'Archie' Photo Posted


@occasionalrain wrote:

All this secrecy, no doctor's signature, no birth location and the showcased after birth baby bump leads credence to the surrogate accusation. Even the failure to notify the palace at the time of labor insured the royal physicians would not be present.

It's out there and it would seem measures would be taken to dispel them if they are untrue.

I had thought it nonsense but as time goes by, it's appearing more and more likely.


I'm certainly glad two intelligent people would not jump through hoops to dispel stupid internet rumors.