New 'Archie' Photo Posted - Page 6

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@KingstonsMom wrote:
@Pearlee

They COULD, but they would never betray the Royal family's wishes, if they didn't want it disclosed, if they ever wanted to work with the Royal family again.

The British media has already tracked down one female OB/GYN Dr. that was 'rumored' to be a choice of Meghan's and she refused to say anything other than she, "couldn't say anything".

@KingstonsMom Finding out where particular doctors are employed would not mean the media dealt with the doctors themselves. So I don't think your point is valid - I didn't mean the doctors would themselves would have to reveal anything.

Don't you have a list of hospistal(s) with which your doctors are affiliated? I certainly do. Not only does my insurance company send it to me, but it's all online.

golding76 · ‎05-19-2012

As many know, I have been a supporter of the Harry and Meghan alliance, but human nature is what it is.

When matters are not direct and open with marriages, births, deaths, etc. -- if there is too much manipulation with the release of what are most likely innocent details -- human nature kicks in. For most of us, that means that we begin to suspect that something is not "business as usual" with whatever event occurred. For a birth, that can lead to all sorts of speculation on how, when and where the birth occurred and support reasons for the delay in giving innocent details or what could be straight-up obfuscation. Why do this?

My hope is that the couple does not continue to operate with this teasing attitude of high secrecy. As so many have written on several threads thus far, if the goal is for privacy and no press, their approach is having the opposite effect. "Be done with it," as so many have succinctly written. Show your precious baby and then bond privately at Frogmore.

If, in fact, the birth was accomplished with modern technology in one way or the other (sheer speculation), let them have that secret but I hope they move forward without all this coyness.

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@Lindsays Grandma wrote:
@cherry wrote:
It is a beautiful picture and there might not be any deception at all . It could be a photo taken at any time of any one.

I am not suggesting there is any trickery involved
You aren't the first one who questioned the feet in the picture, folks are saying those are pretty big feet for a newborn. I know people who know people who are saying the baby picture was a doll, not a real baby. They are also saying that Harry didn't make a mistake when he said the baby has changed in two weeks. Too much secrecy makes people begin to question the whole picture. Personally I am taking it all with a grain of salt, true or not, it will all come out in the wash. I'm staying neutral.

@Lindsays Grandma I agree with you re what I highlighted above.

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@bathina wrote:
Does it make any sense that Harry and Meghan would devise an elaborate scheme to try and pass off the baby's birthday as May 6, when in fact the birth was 2 weeks before? Why would they do something so ridiculous? For what purpose? And I guess they're going to lie to the child about his date of birth as well. Just so they can pull one over on the public.
I'll never understand some of logic here.

@bathina Well, I think they might, but I don't think Queen E. would ever allow that deception.

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@golding76 wrote:
As many know, I have been a supporter of the Harry and Meghan alliance, but human nature is what it is.

When matters are not direct and open with marriages, births, deaths, etc. -- if there is too much manipulation with the release of what are most likely innocent details -- human nature kicks in. For most of us, that means that we begin to suspect that something is not "business as usual" with whatever event occurred. For a birth, that can lead to all sorts of speculation on how, when and where the birth occurred and support reasons for the delay in giving innocent details or what could be straight-up obfuscation. Why do this?

My hope is that the couple does not continue to operate with this teasing attitude of high secrecy. As so many have written on several threads thus far, if the goal is for privacy and no press, their approach is having the opposite effect. "Be done with it," as so many have succinctly written. Show your precious baby and then bond privately at Frogmore.

If, in fact, the birth was accomplished with modern technology in one way or the other (sheer speculation), let them have that secret but I hope they move forward without all this coyness.

@golding76 Excellent post.

KingstonsMom · ‎03-09-2010

@Pearlee wrote:

@KingstonsMom wrote:
@Pearlee

They COULD, but they would never betray the Royal family's wishes, if they didn't want it disclosed, if they ever wanted to work with the Royal family again.

The British media has already tracked down one female OB/GYN Dr. that was 'rumored' to be a choice of Meghan's and she refused to say anything other than she, "couldn't say anything".

@KingstonsMom Finding out where particular doctors are employed would not mean the media dealt with the doctors themselves. So I don't think your point is valid - I didn't mean the doctors would themselves would have to reveal anything.

Don't you have a list of hospistal(s) with which your doctors are affiliated? I certainly do. Not only does my insurance company send it to me, but it's all online.

@Pearlee

Yes, in my area, there are 3 hospitals and all of my family's Drs.(of which there are many) practice at all 3 hospitals.

In Harry & Meghan's case, it's a moot point anyway, since after 45 of being filed with the Registrar's office, which Harry and Meghan have done, it will become public record and will then be available.

Harry & Meghan are just postponing the info being available to the public, which is their right, IMO.

You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have.

50Mickey · ‎05-21-2010

@golding76

How, when and where the birth cccured? Do you really need to know how the birth occured? Information was withheld about where the baby was born. Why does the public need to know this? We know that the baby was born on May 6 that is unless you think that the Queen and the palace was involved in some type of scheme to fool the public for some strange reason. They have showed the baby. Pictures of the baby's face have been posted on these forums. I don't understand this need to know all of the private details of the birth. And now speculating about modern technology used to accomplish the birth. This is really too much.

Bri369 · ‎11-03-2018

I don't get the "they're public and everything needs to be known about them."

They deserve to have some privacy. Nobody needs to know the details of their birth.

All this conspiracy stuff is just silly.

(I hope my post doesn't disappear again. I've had several removed. It boggles my mind that those who are critical of them remain, but my posts supporting them are removed.)

KingstonsMom · ‎03-09-2010

@JJsMom wrote:
@Mj12 wrote:
"I know people who know people who say this was a picture of a doll......" I can't.
Now I know how National Enquirer stays in business. lol

I suppose I will now be called a bully because everyone is entitled to an opinion and it should never be challenged, even if it involves a conspiracy theory about dolls and fake baby feet.

@JJsMom

LOL! I'm putting on my tin hat now......

You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have.

50Mickey · ‎05-21-2010

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.