Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry and Meghans children

228 replies

Willowgirls · 21/10/2024 22:22

I keep reading that Archie and lilibet are not real.
Photos are of other peoples children.
But surely the press would know the truth.
I'm sure they will have seen them being taken to school/nursery
even if they didn't take pictures or is it just the nanny taking them.
That was one of the arguments of leaving they would never be able to
take them to school yet William and Catherine can do school drop off
with no publicity unless they announce it. (First day of term)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
wordler · 22/10/2024 16:41

DramaLlamaBangBang · 22/10/2024 16:28

I suspect a lot ofcthe things they did were as a result of Harry's paranoia and hatred of the press. He didn't want them anywhere near the kids so did things like not announce when Meghan was in labour etc and because the press didn't like it they made it into a big deal. I mean frankly, the standing on the steps of the hospital thing and parading the baby around is a fairly modern ( and frankly unpleasant and inconvenient) thing to do and I doubt anyone knew when The Late Queen went into Labour, so why should we all know?

But they didn’t have to do any of that - Eugenie and Beatrice managed to give birth and then make a short statement that it had happened. I think Eugenie was even in the same hospital as Meghan.

Weirdly they did announce that Meghan was in labour. But after she’d already had the baby - to stall for time to hit the news cycle at the perfect time? Just to mess with the press? Who knows - just more odd behaviour.

hotpotlover · 22/10/2024 16:43

allthemiddlechildrenoftheworld · 21/10/2024 23:21

@Willowgirls admittedly though, meghan did fall pregnant very very quickly after getting married, so perhaps it was ivf and not natural conception! two to three months to fall pregnant at her age is very quick!

I feel pregnant 3 times in my 30s very quickly.

33 years: 1 month
34 years: 4 months
36 years: 3 months

All of my friends also conceived very easily in their 30s!

Thebellofstclements · 22/10/2024 17:07

FanofLeaves · 22/10/2024 08:56

No it isn’t! She was slightly younger than me when I got pregnant the first and then later the 3rd month of trying. Are you in your twenties and think that’s a geriatric pregnancy?!

For many women that’s not unusual at all.

Pregnant at 36 is a geriatric pregnancy...
But becoming pregnant in the first month of trying is just as likely as in the 18th month of trying. The attempts don't accumulate.

RitaIncognita · 22/10/2024 17:10

I doubt anyone knew when The Late Queen went into Labour, so why should we all know?

The late Queen disappeared from public view once her pregnancies were showing. If that happened today it would fuel all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Sayitagainmyl · 22/10/2024 17:31

What a wasted life some of you lead? Sad sad sad!!! It would be tragic if it wasn't self-inflicted.

VioletCrawleyForever · 22/10/2024 17:40

RitaIncognita · 22/10/2024 17:10

I doubt anyone knew when The Late Queen went into Labour, so why should we all know?

The late Queen disappeared from public view once her pregnancies were showing. If that happened today it would fuel all sorts of conspiracy theories.

5 seconds on Google shows lots of pics of QEII pregnant

Noseyoldcow · 22/10/2024 17:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Thedom · 22/10/2024 18:13

Don't overlook the fact introducing their son to the American market, and the world, from Windsor Castle has a lot more cachet than from the steps of the Portland hospital.

Spectre8 · 22/10/2024 18:33

CoffeeCantata · 22/10/2024 13:55

I won't lie to you, Spectre - it is a dull day when Meghan and Harry stay at home and mind their own business.

But that's hypocrisy on my part because that's what I say I want them to do!

Well it's pretty sad that the tone of your day is dependent on two people you haven't met or really know. So your day is dull because you don't have any new information to come bitch about. Well if that's how you choose to live your life... 🤨

CurlewKate · 22/10/2024 18:33

@Thebellofstclements "Pregnant at 36 is a geriatric pregnancy."

Not an expression used any more, thankfully.

MaturingCheeseball · 22/10/2024 18:38

So tiresome when the super-fertile turn up: “ I conceived all my six dcs in my 40s the first time we tried!” Yeah , ok, good for you. Meghan, of course, wasn’t that old but it was a pretty speedy conception nonetheless.

I think most people have her number:,it was all about the optics - aesthetic bump, dreamy photos of newborn in castle promised to CNN, the moneyshot with The Queen…

hotpotlover · 22/10/2024 18:48

MaturingCheeseball · 22/10/2024 18:38

So tiresome when the super-fertile turn up: “ I conceived all my six dcs in my 40s the first time we tried!” Yeah , ok, good for you. Meghan, of course, wasn’t that old but it was a pretty speedy conception nonetheless.

I think most people have her number:,it was all about the optics - aesthetic bump, dreamy photos of newborn in castle promised to CNN, the moneyshot with The Queen…

But has anyone said that they conceived all of their 6 children in their 40s?

I know you will probably say you only exaggerated to make a point, but there's a big difference between 30s and 40s when it comes to conception.

It is not uncommon at all to fall pregnant easily in your 30s. I think this is the point many posters are trying to make.

JSMill · 22/10/2024 18:50

Thedom · 22/10/2024 18:13

Don't overlook the fact introducing their son to the American market, and the world, from Windsor Castle has a lot more cachet than from the steps of the Portland hospital.

I never thought of that! I also just realised that H is the only grandchild of HMQ to release a photo of her meeting her new ggc. Thankfully HMQ had finally clocked on by the time Lillibet appeared and wouldn't allow a camera.

Blueroses99 · 22/10/2024 19:04

RitaIncognita · 22/10/2024 14:06

What notice are you talking about? If it's the notice that is posted at Buckingham Palace, that is not a legal document and has nothing to do with any requirements surrounding a royal birth. Royal births are legally noted the way all births are: with the birth certificate.

The purpose of the Home Secretary attending the birth was to independently verify the royal birth. This responsibility switched to the medical team from Prince Charles onward. While the notice itself is not a legal document, it identifies those who were present and they could be brought into a court of law to verify the birth if it was ever required. The medical team present at birth were never made public by Meghan and Harry.

To be fair, I’m not sure whether royals lower down the line of succession make this information public either (thinking Eugenie, Beatrice, Zara) but then, they don’t do notices outside the palace. Archie’s notice being posted at Buckingham Palace without names/ signatures just made it more noticeable that this information was not there. I wonder who decided this. It fuels speculation as PP said.

spookyscaryseagulls · 22/10/2024 19:14

Today DNA tests take away that need for verification. Real scientific proof would take precedence over anyone's word in Court.

BunnyLake · 22/10/2024 19:32

Cannot stand the pair but I do believe their children are real and I believe she was pregnant as her face definitely looked puffier (even though her ankles didn’t).

JSMill · 22/10/2024 19:33

Totally agree. Anyone who says the children aren't real or were born by a surrogate are batshit crazy.

Rhaidimiddim · 22/10/2024 19:38

wordler · 22/10/2024 16:02

So I don’t normally participate in threads like this for the same reason I don’t in the Andrew threads - there’s nothing interesting to debate in this one because it’s a crazy theory, and there’s nothing to defend in the Andrew ones so no point getting involved.

However… I am interested in the subject of conspiracy theories and how they take hold - we are also in a weird period of history right now where there’s a growing number of anti science, anti evidence and anti logic conspiracies which are taking hold and being easily spread by technology.

There were always going to be some crazy theories about the births - I remember similar things said about Kate and William’s kids when they were born and also Victoria Beckham - people saying there’s no way they could bounce back that quickly from giving birth so must have used surrogates etc.

But Meghan and Harry also did some odd things before and after the birth of Archie which has fueled the craziness. Some of which for privacy reasons was understandable - some which seemed to be for vanity and PR purposes in hindsight probably wasn’t the best move.

And the account of Archie's birth in Spare really feeds into the conspiracy theories. Many have already stated on other Mumsnet threads that his account is not credible, stating valid reasons why.

smilesy · 22/10/2024 19:38

Just catching up and I can’t believe people are still coming out with the absolute bollocks that their children are not real. Do they think the late Queen would participate in some sort of elaborate conspiracy to cover up “fake” children?🙄 Or the king or the rest of the Royal Family. Not to mention the Markle family whom would presumably not be the slightest bit bothered by exposing a story like that

eta I don’t usually bother with these threads I. The hope that they will die a death, but given that this one unfortunately doesn’t seem
to be 🤷‍♀️

DramaLlamaBangBang · 22/10/2024 20:43

MaturingCheeseball · 22/10/2024 18:38

So tiresome when the super-fertile turn up: “ I conceived all my six dcs in my 40s the first time we tried!” Yeah , ok, good for you. Meghan, of course, wasn’t that old but it was a pretty speedy conception nonetheless.

I think most people have her number:,it was all about the optics - aesthetic bump, dreamy photos of newborn in castle promised to CNN, the moneyshot with The Queen…

The point is that getting pregnant twice in your 30's isn't ' super fertile '. It's just ordinarily fertile and really quite common. Fertility drops after 35 but not off a cliff. As others have said, Edward and Sophie did have IVF. Shall we have have a hoo ha about removing their kids from the line of succession?

CurlewKate · 22/10/2024 20:48

@DramaLlamaBangBang "I think most people have her number:,it was all about the optics - aesthetic bump, dreamy photos of newborn in castle promised to CNN, the moneyshot with The Queen…"

Isn't that just par for the course for the royal family?

IsoldeWagner · 22/10/2024 20:48

Even if their children were the result of IVF (I don't know and it doesn't really matter), they are still their children. There's nothing wrong with fertility support and treatment. Who cares.
Oh, and A&L would still legally be in the Line of Succession. As are Edward and Sophie's children.

CurlewKate · 22/10/2024 20:51

And having a baby at 37 is not "super fertile" Don't be silly.

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 22/10/2024 20:54

Thankfully the sensible posts have outnumbered the batshit ones.

marcopront · 22/10/2024 20:56

allthemiddlechildrenoftheworld · 21/10/2024 23:21

@Willowgirls admittedly though, meghan did fall pregnant very very quickly after getting married, so perhaps it was ivf and not natural conception! two to three months to fall pregnant at her age is very quick!

As an obese 38 year old previously diagnosed with PCOS I conceived the first time we had unprotected sex.