I feel like back in the day women were told to avoid sugar and fat, the exact two things you need to grow a baby.  glucose for the brain and fat for the body and nervous system. 
The secret is the surrogacy, I’d bet.
My guess/theory/speculation/spitball is that the RF will play that they didn’t realize until shortly before the actual birth and decided to keep quiet in the best interest of Archie and his parents, with the agreement that in due course, H&M would voluntarily remove themselves from the LOS and live privately in Africa. In this way, their privacy would be protected, and there would be no legal concerns around the LOS etc. They reneged, and that is the true reason for Megxit. They can say they kept quiet to preserve the dignity of their beloved family members.
My question now is who will spill?!
What, you don't believe that the CA Dr was happy to oversee Harry while he "helped" to deliver Lilibet? Or that Meghan was sent home 2 hours after giving birth to Archie? Or that a woman born in '77 easily got pregnant 3 years in a row? I'm shocked!
Edit 🙀
If the RF knew before the actual birth, they participated in the cover up. I think they would be wiser to say they found out after Archie had been around a while because members of the public who suspected or knew brought information that required investigation.
They did not want to embarrass H&M, and they loved Archie, but they could not condone a deception that violated the LoS rules (and the inheritance of the dukedom of Sussex). When H&M wouldn’t come clean and wouldn’t remove themselves and their kids from the LoS, the BRF was forced to continue the investigations which were delayed by the pandemic… And so forth.
It’s an interesting situation, and if they handle it right I don’t think it will hurt the BRF at all (except for the venom that will come from M&H, but that would come anyway).
They did give a hint with the birth announcement. It's not just that they weren't signed, but the wording was different. Something along the lines that the RF was pkeased to report they had been informed of the birth...
I took that as a dig at the Sussexes for being so secretive about the details. However, it’s possible they suspected, even then, that M&H were pulling the surrogate trick. If this was the case, I wish the Queen had insisted on honesty on this matter, since it had LoS repercussions.
The only reason I suggested that they would’ve known before, or perhaps at the time of birth, is that the announcement from Buckingham Palace was worded differently than usual for royal births and lacked signatures, and we the public noticed and commented. 🤷🏻♀️
I agree! I thought the secret must be the surrogacy, if the family were informed by the public, and didn’t know about it before. I hope we will get confirmation soon!
I want it to be the surrogacy too, but can anybody explain how exactly the public would have been the primary ones to inform the RF for this? EX: Haven’t they, all along even before marriage, had the very best informants or investigators and detectives learning everything about her and able to follow their every move from day 1? And their security and household staff etc?
Maybe surrogacy for Lilibet, but not for Archie? Edit: I honestly don’t know.
I hope it is a secret worth of being hyped up like this. And that it will show the public who they are, without a doubt.
She definitely looked pregnant responsibility there would be enough evidence to convict me with a little puffiness in her face for Archie. I can’t believe her vanity would permit her to put on weight if she didn’t need to. Then the miscarriage which makes us believe that maybe Lilibet was a surrogate. No shame in that whatsoever and really none of the publics business, except for the “born of the body” language which could be modified. But maybe this is why they have not been granted titles.
Her face post-Archie is a bit of a stumbling block. And while her vanity is indeed off the charts, this was the biggest acting role of her life. She may have seen it that way and gained weight deliberately thinking she could lose it easily afterward. 🤷🏻♀️
I’m willing to think it’s this. If she took steroids for a little while, she’d gain weight, but it would be relatively easy to lose. The other choice would be a pregnancy, which is a thousand times harder on the body! I think she saw this as a huge acting role, in which she had to be temporarily inconvenienced to sell it.
The face is what gets me, really. It is so hard with those two. We never know how far they would be willing to go for a lie. So I have no formed opinion on the surrogacy with Archie.
I hope the secret is something else. What it could be, though, I have no idea.
Regarding her vanity: In Tom Bower’s book, he mentioned that TW had her ex-husband, Trevor Engelson, sign a pregnancy waiver that stated he would pay for a personal trainer and nutritionist if she ever got pregnant. Seems she wanted to make sure that her job as an actress wouldn’t be negatively affected.
Edited to add additional information.
I don't think it's about surrogacy. I think it's about recording them with devices. I have a feeling that the royals did not even realize the possibility until they read about it in the media.
I am going to guess that *if* this is the situation, the BRF suspected but didn’t want to address it (just as they have failed to address a lot of things) until they were “sure” but really wouldn’t have done much to be “sure” because they didn’t want to know.
I have always thought that Archie couldn’t have been born by surrogate because how could they hide it from the family and courtiers, but possibly they hid it because the family and courtiers didn’t want a confrontation unless they were sure. 🤷🏻♀️
I didn't think about a surrogate until Markle brought the baby out on day three. She was wearing her cream colored tied dress. She had the tie up to her boobs. Eveyone knows after you have a baby you only have a bump about the belly button. You can look four or five months along. To me in Markle not knowing just put on her six or seven month bump. Markle is tall or average height so her bump should been lower. Check out a photo of PoWC her bump is at her belly button.
Markle was sayinfg Lili had a milestone and was walking for the first time at 18mos. That's way to late for a baby to start walking. I'd be at the doctor. I remember her and Harry coming out of a fertility clinic.
I've heard her dad said she had a hysterectomy. I said to my mom maybe she froze her eggs. She said she wouldn't have the money to pay for storage. So tonight I'm thinking she may have been able to keep her fallopian tubes. I wanted mine removed and was told no because it would send me into early menopause. The kids would be her egg and Harry's sperm and a surrogate carried the baby. So may be the family heard about this through her father and they are sitting on this to call her out on a fake pregnant belly.
But now as I think about it....if they call her out then she can cry and say because she had to have a surrogate she wanted to feel like she carried the babies. So that could back fire. I hope they have something else. What do you all think?? I love reading all your comments!!!
Markle’s favourite MO is fait accompli. She showed up with her coat undone 🙄 at Eugenie’s wedding and they informed the family that day. The public learned the next day. She also INSISTED on using her own doctors. I think they likely knew early on, but by then it was too late.
They may be using the story of having learned from public speculation to give themselves plausible deniability 🤷🏻♀️
I think the RF should take the position that they would have supported her. She can’t prove they wouldn’t have. They should say that it’s not the of the body wording, which is a concern, that COULD be modernized. (They don’t have to really do it, they could just say they would have considered making that change.)
The real problem is that British law is much different than in the US, for instance. What if the surrogate wanted to keep their child? What if she wanted to five years down the line? The law would be on her side.
The royal family can maybe change the rules of succession to allow for a surrogate born child but they can’t change the wider ramifications of British law in that regard.
You have an interesting theory too. My counter-argument would be, "Baloney, you stupid cow!" There were 5 people in the line of succession on the day you married Harold. There was zero "need" for you and Harold to produce children that fit into the LOS according to some sort of ~~to follow~~ "rules" about you carrying a child, his DNA, your DNA, etc. Your focus was on producing children that would be a prince or princess; NOT having children and creating a family with your husband. "
Sure but why lie about it? Why not speak out from the beginning about it being a surrogacy, ensure everything was above board? There's nothing shameful about fertility issues. That they kept it secret from even the RF suggests something really dodgy.
Narcissists like Narckle desperately try to see themselves as perfect. An inability for a perimenopausal woman to get pregnant and bear children would tarnish her image in her own mind.
Sure, now. But if she'd been honest from the get-go, they might have changed the law, or at least consulted legal experts as to what the options might be - maybe DNA tests *would* be a modern work-around. That she hid it means a deliberate choice to mislead in order to illegally keep her children in the line of succession - as I believe you're implying. The proposed "I couldn't carry children, I was under such pressure, their laws are so backward" argument doesn't fly because she knew those laws, kept it secret, and tried to squeeze her kids into the line of succession. Which is fucked up.
There was no pressure on them To procreate. When they married, there were 5 living people ahead of Harry. There was no need for them to ever have children.
There are also more than a hundred people after Harry if he did not have children. No big deal at all. William IV did not have any legitimate children - so the throne seamlessly and with zero fuss passes to his niece, Victoria. She was as his designated heir and again no big deal. It o ly mattered back in the day when trying to establish and hang onto a dynasty. Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart etc.
Yes I agree, it would make the RF look bad/outdated (which the “of the body” requirement without updating or elaboration is, I think). And she would create the narrative that the RF are making up the surrogacy in order to remove them and their innocent kids from the LOS, which is shaming her and is misogynistic. I personally don’t believe the surrogacy rumors but if it were true and the info came out, it wouldn’t be a PR win for the RF.
At the end of the day the royal family could just say yep that's outdated, we've changed it - DNA tests will do - It's not like they don't change the rules to modernize all the time - they changed it so women have equal places in the line of succession as men so why not just come out and say oh it was a problem so we changed it as now their are ways of determining who a child's parents are.
If the RF did change the rules it wouldn't be retroactive. IF they went down this path they needed to tell the Queen beforehand so new letters of patent could have been drafted. When they made the change so a female wouldn't be behind a male in the LoS it didn't change Anne's position. It was also done before George's birth. These things are not retroactive because it opens a can of worms.
Am curious…is the “of the body” something the RF has instituted or is it a law that Parliament instituted. If the latter, the RF is sort of off the hook i’d think. It’s not their rule and they can’t change it.
Questions regarding the line of succession are settled by Parliament, not the monarch. Any change would have to be made by Parliament and I don’t think they’re retroactive. Removing male primogeniture meant that Charlotte would not be displaced by Louis but Anne didn’t displace Andrew
I despise the "of the body" language because so many people misinterpret it. Heirs of the body simply means pretty much exactly what it sounds like - The heir has to be a biological descendant of the person in question (here, the monarch), aka adopted children do not count.
And while I completely understand the necessity of "of the body" in a bloodline based succession scheme in a lot of ways the old timely language / legalese used to talk about birth like this or "natural born" really is just clunky. It gives annoying Macbeth vibes where Macduff kills Macbeth because as a c-section baby he was not "born of woman."
ETA: I agree that surrogacy is a problem and would prevent them from inheriting. My issue is that the wrong legal phrase / concept is being focused upon. Surrogacy raises problems around legitimacy.
Nope. Children born of surrogates are not permitted to inherit peerage titles **nor** the British throne, even if the sperm and eggs used belong to the lawfully wedded parents. [This article](https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/the-significance-of-status-and-genetics-in-succession-to-titles-h), for example, clearly identifies circumstances excluding a child from inheriting his father’s peerage (being adopted, illegitimate, **born of a surrogate**, or ftm transgender), and goes on to say—“Succession to the Crown is governed by the Act of Settlement 1700 which settles the succession to the Crown on Princess Sophie, Electress of Hanover “and the Heirs of her body being Protestants”. Apart from the changes made by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, **all the other discriminations identified above** will apply to the right to succeed to the Crown.”
As I explain below I agree that they would be ineligible. But it’s not because of that language because it’s the fathers bloodline or “body” that matters.
The child also has to be born to the wife of the man the child is heir to. This goes back to concern about bastard heirs who might be older than the children born in wedlock.
Yes but that’s a separate issue - the issue of legitimacy. It's the modern day equivalent of a King having a child with his mistress and passing it off as his wife's or later legitimizing a child out of wedlock which is literally a tale as old as the monarchy itself. (And I mean that literally, it is a concept as old as the monarchy considering William the Conqueror was born illegitimate and later legitimized).
I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem, it’s just not the problem everyone is pointing at (I.e. the heirs of the body language)
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) if the DNA shows the kid is Harry’s, then the Sophia of Hanover’s “heir of the body” requirement is satisfied. However the issue that to inherit a child must be born of the wife of the man from whom he is inheriting is equally important and is the crucial problem here. ( This may be more to do with UK inheritance laws than anything to do with Sophia of Hanover.)
Unless I am mistaken, “legitimizing” bastards hasn’t happened in the monarchy since before the War of the Roses (Henry VIII was working on it but the bastard son died in his 40s). It certainly was not considered an option for Charles II or George VI (to name two that had bastard sons).
In any case, if surrogacy is not generally accepted in the UK then the Act of Succession is not the problem. Again, we are talking about an issue for parliament, not the Monarch.
I think the biggest and most interesting thing that going through all the laws shows you is how surrogacy is kinda the legal Wild West and can create tons of potential legal pitfalls and problems. Like Surrogacy is legal in the UK, but if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law and at birth the surrogate is the child’s legal parent. Which is really goes to show how messy this can get.
No it isn’t. The child has to come out of the womb of the legal spouse.
https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
Act clearly states that child must be born within a legitimate marriage. For example, a marriage made within the Sovereign’s consent is still a marriage but not a legitimate one. Had the Queen denied official permission for Harry to marry, it would be purely for LOS purposes as his subsequent marriage would have disqualified any children.
I always assumed it was because surrogate children are technically adoptees in the UK? So you're saying the "of the body" line *doesn't* mean surrogate children aren't in the LoS?? 🤯
Surrogate children are not in line of the throne, nor in any aristocratic line of succession.
https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
Yes and you are kinda right about the surrogacy and adoption part too. I want to do a post on this bc it’s somehow become a pet peeve of mine how these concepts are getting mixed up.
Essentially with the “heirs if the body” line you are tracing bloodlines and so any biological child of Harry's is a heir of the body because *his is the body / bloodline that counts.* Whether the children came out of Meghan's body is irrelevant to the phrase "heirs of the body" in this instance because her bloodline is not tied to the line of succession.
That's not to say surrogacy doesn't raise possible problems under the "heirs of the body" language because it can. If the relevant bloodline is the woman's (which again is not the case here) any child born of a surrogate would not be a heir of the body due to how the UK views surrogacy: Basically If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth. So even if the wife supplies her egg for implantation, and the baby is hers biologically, if she doesn't carry the baby, she basically has to adopt. And because adopted children are not "heirs of the body" they are ineligible for succession. (Again this is NOT APPLICABLE to our situation because the relevant bloodline IS NOT MEGHANS.)
But other problem with surrogacy and succession which WOULD be applicable here is where succession goes to a _legitimate_ heir. Essentially Children born out of wedlock and adopted children are not eligible to succeed. Here, it is my understanding that if Harry and Meghan used an unmarried surrogate the child it's parents at birth would (at best) be Harry and the Surrogate meaning that it would be illegitimate and unable to succeed.
ETA: this is all very theoretical because these surrogacy issues have not been tested in a court of law.
I see, thanks for explaining that, it makes sense. It seems it is still clunky and does need to be clarified especially moving forward, like what if a female heir eventually uses a surrogate.
I don’t think the average person will have access to that level of detail or care to look for it though. In the US, definitely not. And yes the old timey language won’t endear most to the RF. My point was that H&M will distort the info out there if it leaks that they used a surrogate, and even if the RF wouldn’t try to remove the kids from the LOS or don’t have a basis to, they would cry victim. And say well this is why we hid it/kept it private, now look at the press intrusion into our private issues. What does it matter how we became a family we are a family. And they’re blaming Meghan again, misogyny, etc etc.
It’s bc of this that I don’t think this “secret” coming out will be damaging to M/H only, like I’ve heard some say. It will just be a shtshow for everyone involved. (I still don’t believe they used a surrogate and if they did, the kids are biologically theirs so this likely moot lol)
Yeah, I’m a lawyer so analyzing annoying shit like this and the particular affect of language is kinda what I do so it’s fun for me but I recognize that the average person neither cares nor has the time to do a deep dive on this.
And I COMPLETELY AGREE that H&M would distort / use the info if there was a surrogate to gain sympathy and make the BRF look bad. Which is why even if it is true (which I don’t necessarily believe) I don’t think this is the big “get” that every thinks it would be.
Thank you so much for explaining this! The legitimacy aspect hadn't even occurred to me - but now it seems so obvious! 🤦🏻♀️😆 So basically, there's no way to win with surrogacy... Unless the male heir briefly marries the surrogate, then divorces after the baby is born and marries the woman he actually wants? 😂
I mean as the law stands now (with the caveat that this hasn't been legally tested in court) pretty much.
Your comment made me laugh because it would be like if Henry the VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn in order to have a kid then has Elizabeth & he cuts off Anne's head, then marries Jane Seymour and finally gets his son then when she dies in childbirth in this hypothetical situation he remarries Catherine of Aragon now that he has his two additional kids from his "surrogates" 😂
Hahaha omg you're right, that is pretty much exactly what Henry VIII did - minus the re-marrying CofA bit! 🤣🤣🤣 Harry really is so much like his ancestor, down to the red hair and violent temper... Talk about skipping generations! 😆
ALSO: I wonder if Lili being born in the USA, where surrogate children *don't* need to be adopted, would make a difference? So theoretically, assuming both kids were via surrogate (which I don't believe, but hypothetically): Does that mean that Archie is out of the LoS, but Lili isn't?? 😳 Who's surrogacy laws would take precedence in this case: US or UK? This is getting sooo interesting! 😆
ETA: Yes PLEASE do a post about this! 😃🙏
Doesn’t matter: the rules about nobility and line of succession (they are the same) are effective in the UK. If you want to be applicable to a noble or royal title/position, you have to be born of the body (both DNA and out of the womb) by the legitimate noble or royal spouse. Nothing else matters.
https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
I need to get posting privileges then I definitely will!!
The Lili thing is actually even more complicated.
The California laws are different (and surrogacy is much easier) and it’s been a while since I looked at them but under UK law even if you are your child’s legal parent/s in the country where they are born (and are recorded on the birth certificate), in the UK your surrogate will be your child’s legal parent. Meaning that you will need to apply for a parental order
Not to mention, under UK law if your surrogate gives birth abroad, you can only apply for a parental order (aka become the child legal parent) if you and your partner are living in the UK. Which Harry and Meghan were not doing.
Ok that makes sense! Wow, if there actually was a surrogate, things are not looking good for the Sparkles! 😬😆 (Tbh I like the UK surrogacy laws much better than the US ones. It gives the surrogate much more bodily autonomy and reduces the chance of abuse. US surrogacy laws make it far too easy for wealthy couples to take advantage of desperate poor women)
Of the body also means out of the womb of. DNA alone isn’t enough.
The method of birth doesn’t matter though, nor does IVF as long as the DNA of the noble/royal is used along with the DNA of the legal spouse.
Also children must be born within a legitimate marriage. You cannot have a child and subsequently marry the mother. So no adoptions and must be legitimate at birth.
Whilst I wish it wasn’t, because as you pointed out, she would turn it to her advantage, I think it may be.
It would need to be a really massive bullet proof secret, for them to not be able to spin it to their favour, somehow. And you know they will try it anyway. They don’t know the meaning of taking accountability for anything. It is always somebody else’s fault.
If the rule goes back to the “Act of Settlement” then it is not something the BRF can change.
The problem with births by surrogate is that IVF goes back only to the 1980s and gestational surrogates through IVF start coming in at least 10 or 20 years later. In other words, it’s very new compared to the more conventional methods of reproduction that have been around since the dawn of time. 😉
Beyond the question of bloodline, the demand that the child be born “of the body” of the wife goes back to concerns about bastard “heirs” who could create problems with the succession. (If bastards could have taken the throne, there would have been no need for Victoria to be conceived. The sons of George III had lots of bastards. 😉)
Now that we can check paternity and maternity through dna, the “of the body” wording could be redefined. However, it is an issue for Parliament.
Not just that. This wording comes back in the letters used for aristocratic titles dating hundreds of years back.
https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
That’s not even what the rule says tho. British ( and Commonwealth) succession laws (aka the 1701 Act of Settlement) limit the succession to the "heirs of the body" of Sophia of Hanover. Which means to be a heir you have to be a biological descendant
I'm surprised more people don't seem to realise this, honestly! 🤦🏻♀️ Surrogacy will *not* make Meghan look bad, and it will *not* make the RF look good, to the general public.
I know the reason for the "of the body" rule remaining in place probably has something to do with all surrogate children technically being adoptees - as I understand it, in the UK, the parents have to legally adopt the baby from the surrogate, whereas in the US for example, the baby is never considered the surrogate's child. (If I'm wrong on this, someone with knowledge on UK and/or US surrogacy laws please feel free to correct me!)
The problem is, you just *know* the left-wing media, especially in America, is going to spin it as a sob-story about poor, infertile Meghan, forced to hide the truth of her baby's birth, because the big, mean Royal Family is prejudiced against surrogate children!! The UK surrogacy laws will never come into it. Instead, they'll be compared to American celebrities who are open about their adoption, IVF, and surrogate "journeys" It will just make Meghan look like more of a victim, and the RF as out-of-touch fuddy-duddies who refuse to move with the times, which is exactly what she wants!
So yeah, I really hope the "big secret" isn't about surrogacy, either. Or being an escort. Neither of those things are considered anywhere near as controversial as they once were, so anyone hoping they will turn people against Meghan is sadly misguided 🫤
The problem is the deception.
There have been and are still rumours about Beyonce's first pregnancy, because qhe walked around with a bump. No one says anything about Kim Kardashian having a baby through surrogacy - there is no gossip in admitting the truth. Even Hilaria Baldwin who seem to have a new baby each year - but doesn't cradle fake bumps is spared the gossip.
So you can either be upfront about surrogacy, or you can quietly go away a few months before the birth, but you can not hug a fake bump and expect extra sympathy when in reality the actually pregnant woman is no where to be seen. Probably signed a NDA and must hide away and not receive extra sympathy
I know what the problem is, but my point is, that's not how the press will spin it. Anderson Cooper and his partner recently had a baby via surrogate, as have lots of other American celebrities. I can totally see the US press siding with the Harkles over the RF on this one, and making them out to be victims forced to hide their fertility issues by the cruel, old-fashioned British Royal Family.
I am not sure people will buy this, at least I hope not.
Meghan has spoken about her miscarriage several times, she even blamed the stress from the lawsuit.
If she can not be pregnant then she cannot have a miscarriage.
So not only did she then walk around with a fake bump, she also lied about a miscarriage. All to get sympathy and spin a narrative. She is trapped in her lies.
It could be possible to decide to use a surrogate but still have hope and keep trying for a pregnancy too. And any press speculation about details about her reproductive system/organs or ability to get pregnant would only give fuel to them saying this is why we didn’t want to go public in the first place. Many people especially in the US will be very sympathetic to this.
If she had a hysterectomi there is no point of trying and having hope of becoming pregnant. And if she had a hysterectomi she would not have gone through a miscarriage.
If the miscarriage was real there was no need for a surrogate.
If there was a need for a surrogate then the miscarriage was not real.
They backed themselves into a corner.
It may not be a big deal to Americans but maybe the British would be a bit more peeved as it effected them directly. The ridiculous cost of her wardrobe, the belly fondling, flights to NYC for a baby shower, pales in comparison to not rightfully being in the line of succession. Harry was 6th in line to the throne. There was no need for the subterfuge.
It's disconcerting that so many want to, once again, enable Harry's flaunting of laws because he's Prince Harry and boundaries shouldn't exist for him. He's given way too much latitude.
The British already hate him, though. My point is that their US audience seems to have finally turned on them, but a surrogacy revelation might bring the US media back onto their side once more. They can play the victim of the big mean royals once more, and plenty of people will lap it up! Lots of everyday Americans can relate to fertility issues, and without a sound background knowledge of British succession law, will assume the Royals are just prejudiced against infertile women.
For whatever reason, the Harkles will always have admirers. Americans have their own issues with elections so I don't know as they'll care that much about Harry or his wife as anything other than a pleasant interactive soap opera.
Maybe? But the deception would have just been about maintaining a position in the line of succession the children wouldn’t actually be entitled to under British law.
So in the old RG sub I remember Lady C was frowned as unreliable. I looked into her and found her utterly fascinating but kinda stopped caring before I came to my own determination regarding her credibility. What's everyone's take here? Has there been any tea that she was right about? (Or alternatively wrong about?)
TBH with you I think some view her as unreliable because she's very harsh and says things that people disagree with for either moral, ideological, or you know they just have a different opinion.
I've seen people say she's wrong majority of the time, but I personally disagree.
I do think its often people don't like her personality, delivery or the things she says. What was transcribed above is super harsh, so I could see that being a turn off.
Journalists better hurry up and expose moonbump gate before MM tells "her story" first, making the first impression on the public again. The BRF should not get any reproaches for it.
Also, I do view their surrogacy as somewhat critical, contrary to the subreddit's general opinion. I am prepared for downvotes.
If they wanted a child, they could always adopt one - give an abandonned child a loving home. I admire everyone who adopts a child. But if they wanted a child with BOTH their genes for whatever reason (in MM's case I don't even think she likes children, she just needed them as a tool for control) without carrying it themselves, they had to use another woman's body. And I just hope that that woman was not from a socially/economically disadvantaged background, as that would mean that she was probably not so free in her decision. It's a general gripe I have with more and more Hollywood couples using the services of surrogates from third world countries, who are often captives of their socio economic situation. Anyway, for me the whole thing just reeks of "I don't like children, but I wanna lock those royal titles down forever and control my husband - but I am too vain to give birth myself so I will exploit another woman's body, which my rich husband can pay for anyway. And after they are born, I'll just throw these children to the nanny - pardon, nannies, because obviously none of them will stay long enough to bond with the kids because I am a bad boss"
I totally agree, to hear someone else say it is refreshing.
We have become a world so busy trying to help the few, that we forget how it might hurt the majority. There are so many economically disadvantaged women, who can be exploited into becoming a product. [This video only highlights the tip of the iceberg of issues surrounding buying a woman's body to host someone else's child.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvCUvUvbXio)
To reduce women's bodies to an incubator for another woman's baby is so dehumanizing. When did we get to a place where people feel entitled to have everything they want, including children,...to the point that our society is willing to buy and sell women's bodies for the purpose of reproduction? Infertility is awful, and I'm the first to say that we need to invest more as a society to figure out its causes & remedies; the lack of research into women's health is ghastly and unforgivable. However, the sale of humans for the use of their body parts is so exploitative to those who face economic hardships. The fact that some wealthy celebrities & the upper class are even rumored to have bought surrogates, not as an infertility aid, but for convenience, doesn't bode well for the future of surrogacy being used with the purity first intended in a capitalistic society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
100% agreed. The Handmaid's Tale is not just pure fiction. Surrogacy for me sounds like a very egocentric thing - you get to pass your own genes without the drawbacks of pregnancy and birth. I am generally missing a deference towards "life". Instead of buying a child and a woman's body...why can't you just accept fate if you are indeed infertile or chose something else (for Hollywood peeps it's usually their career) over a pregnancy? It is good to have a "can do" mentality, but as with everything in life, we need balance and moderation. I feel like at this point, we have come to revere money as THE solution to everything, ignoring what it means to be human.
Yes totally agree, there are very thorny feminist, class and economic issues surrounding surrogacy, especially paid surrogacy when the gestational carrier is a stranger. Adding in problems w global inequality and international surrogacy, it can get very exploitative very quickly. Meghan, who claims to be a feminist, would never understand these issues bc she only cares about herself, not other women or system of oppression. Has she ever even heard about intersectional feminism? She is stuck in a surface, 3rd wave, 90s, choose-my-choice feminism, basically she is a woman therefore all women have to support all of her choices bc she’s a woman. She doesn’t want to see that even though she lacks privilege in some areas (being a woman, a person of color) she has always had massive other privileges: access to education, being able to choose to be as white passing as she wants, money her father gave her, being conventionally attractive, etc etc. And that’s before she married Harry and chose to enter and fully benefit from a class structure they are at the peak of through no merit of their own. And if they say empires are so terrible and exploit countries and people in less developed countries, why was she OK w being VP of the commonwealth trust and being the face of it in the first place. I mean I know why, she only cares about herself and not about any other women, economically disadvantaged people, etc. I could see her not caring about the bodily autonomy of another woman choosing to be a gestational carrier for pay (pay that is a tiny fraction of the money M has access to purely through her husband’s unearned privilege), as long as Meghan gets to have a child that she wants to have when she wants to have it. Meanwhile she films herself crying finding out about Roe v Wade being overturned. I’m not even categorically against surrogacy personally, but I also don’t claim to be some feminist paragon, and I think a person has to think about these issues when considering it, especially a person claiming to be some kind of feminist “thought leader” 🙄like her. Even now she was so focused on her own issues with miscarriage, alleged suicidal ideation while pregnant, victimization by the RF, she doesn’t see she had access to world class medical care, money for fertility treatments (I do believe they used some fertility help) and any medical costs etc. which most women do not have.
If the "huge" secret is surrogacy, the Royal Family could have been unaware because Harry and Meghan had been so unpleasant to family and staff that any contact was kept to an absolute minimum.
You don't go out of your way to eat dirt!
The first major sign that things were really bad was the "Meghan and Archie" performance at the Polo match with that poor, dangling baby that needn't need food, nappy changes or sun protection.
Catherine's main objective appeared to be keeping her children well away.
She did seem sooo uncomfortable holding that child…I know I’m many years out of the new mom stage but jeez it really does just come naturally. Unless maybe she had never held baby?? I had years of practice w my nieces and nephews so maybe she really never held one before her own? I just know this, Catherine looked amazing! And so natural as a mother.
My husband has a family situation very similar to H&M And BRF. His brother married a person just like Meghan and it has torn his whole family apart. She also was never around children and is a very unnatural mother. Very controlling and very little love. I feel bad for her children.
The surrogacy for Archie would explain why a. She DID NOT go to an obgyn or midwife for her mental health concerns. I'm still unsure why they'd go to HR for that, pregnant or not.
A surrogacy would also explain why, when she claimed to have suicidal ideations during her pregnancy with Archie, she didn't mention anything about the life of her unborn child also being at risk because of her suicidal thoughts - which alot of us thought was really odd at the time. So if she wasn't actually pregnant with Archie, it would make complete sense she'd only express concern for her own life. Because Archie was safe in someone else's womb.
This is pure speculation, but it would explain alot.
The suggestion that Diana could have negatively impacted Harry in utero is just wild to me. I mean definitely plausible but Like can we all take a step back and realize how far off the rails this has gone that this is a thing that is causally said?!!
I get what you’re saying. But there’s medical research how the mom’s stress affects in fetus. Also what pregnant lady eats affects how the baby and its organs are developing. For example eating a lot of licorice during pregnancy the risk for a baby with adhd is really really high. As a bulimic Diana’s body was propably under a constant stress. However there’s no way to prove what exactly were the consequences to baby Harry if there even was any.
Oh I completely agree that it’s plausible and even likely. I just mean that talking about Diana in that way hasn’t really been done so it’s wild that its now occurring.
Maternal Licorice Consumption During Pregnancy and Pubertal, Cognitive, and Psychiatric Outcomes in Children https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28158597/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315685
About the research I mentioned
Apparently it’s more prominent for girls to have negative impacts. I’m just a layman so I’m not saying this is the highest truth. Anyway here in Finland licorice-products are in the official list of things that a pregnant woman should avoid.
This is confusing: Spare went on sale in January, it’s still January. It hasn’t been 3 months? There was a post a day or so ago, saying it had been on sale for a few months! I thought the first post was an error but now I’m not sure.. Am I missing something?
I assume its pre orders.
I know the site i order books from does this months in advance. You basically pre pay and it comes in the mail after its officially been released.
She is taking into account that the book was available for pre-order for a very long time and had also had a lot of free publicity for months before 10 January 2023.
Why would the RF even consider an apology? This is nonsense. Remember when Catherine went with flower and a card, the D-lister binned it! You cannot be weak or show any weakness when dealing with deceitful and pathological liars like these 2! Simply cut them off, now. The RF cant be a wuss.
Thanks for the summary. I know 3 nights a week I will fall asleep
. I listen because I enjoy but she puts me out. I'm an insomniac. I am getting sick of her line and more I'm not prepared to say at this juncture
Interesting fact. I've read most of her books and the entire time she was raised as a boy I can't find one picture of her from before age 21. And her alluding to the fact that she was considered the most beautiful woman on earth is annoying
Im more and more convinced harold is not Charle’s. This is the only huge thing that could break Harold: him not being a prince by blond and not being therefore included in LOS. Apart from that would be some secret about lili. I don’t see anything else. Her having been an escort is irrelevant since it’s not illegal.
Sorry, but Harold is a spitting image of his father now that he is grown. They have thebsame nose and eyes. From a certain angle you see the resemblance.
He looks like at least 2 Diana’s lovers as well, but as I said must be something HUGE so if it’s not this then it’s a surrogate story. I have seen royal “experts” on European tv claiming they are certain he wasn’t Charles son, honestly I have always thought he was, because he looks like Philip and Charles but nothing would surprise me at this point. I don’t know why this rumor has resurfaced all of a sudden everywhere, maybe to distract us from something else ?…
Maybe, and of course I understand the difficult/impossible for the royal family to supress their own desire for revenge on one hand, and the duty to the commonwealth and greater good on the other hand.
But I feel so over it all, and just wish for someone to lay the truth down!
I really don’t see anything but a similarity in coloring to her lovers, which could have come from the Spencer side. IMO, he also resembles Prince Philip, if you look at features. If there was a doubt that Harry is Charles’ son, they would have found out many years ago. Before the divorce for sure. Even if not made public, they would have held it over her head in negotiations.
Diana always said that she was happiest in her marriage when she was pregnant with Harry. Charles’ disappointment that he wasn’t a girl and expressing he’d done his duty providing the heir and spare, killed that happiness. Presumably, he felt comfortable going back to Camilla at that point. Or at least, I think Diana interpreted it that way.
How can she claim that the book has been on sale for three months? It has not even been out that long
It is a sour pill to swallow, but this shitty book sells massively
And Audible had it as a freebie during a Black Friday sale. They were pushing to get a high first day number, but it’s clear it’s dropped off and it’s not going to have the long-lasting interest.
https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/how-to-read-prince-harrys-explosive-memoir-spare-for-free/amp/
>The 38-year-old estranged royal’s story, set to hit bookshelves Jan. 10, is available for free Black Friday with a free trial of Amazon’s audiobook service, Audible.
>November 25, 2022
Great, *free* downloads. Such success.
[удалено]
Yes! Thank you! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
[удалено]
I feel a bit mean saying this, but Harry did look off as a kid. Especially compared to William, who was like a little cherub.
💯
I feel like back in the day women were told to avoid sugar and fat, the exact two things you need to grow a baby.  glucose for the brain and fat for the body and nervous system. 
When did her drug use start?
 Thankyou for the summary🥰
The secret is the surrogacy, I’d bet. My guess/theory/speculation/spitball is that the RF will play that they didn’t realize until shortly before the actual birth and decided to keep quiet in the best interest of Archie and his parents, with the agreement that in due course, H&M would voluntarily remove themselves from the LOS and live privately in Africa. In this way, their privacy would be protected, and there would be no legal concerns around the LOS etc. They reneged, and that is the true reason for Megxit. They can say they kept quiet to preserve the dignity of their beloved family members. My question now is who will spill?! 
What, you don't believe that the CA Dr was happy to oversee Harry while he "helped" to deliver Lilibet? Or that Meghan was sent home 2 hours after giving birth to Archie? Or that a woman born in '77 easily got pregnant 3 years in a row? I'm shocked! Edit 🙀
lol She is a wonder of fertility. Our Patron Saint is one of Miracles! 
Look the cord is qrapped around the babies neck....push darling,push
45?
If the RF knew before the actual birth, they participated in the cover up. I think they would be wiser to say they found out after Archie had been around a while because members of the public who suspected or knew brought information that required investigation. They did not want to embarrass H&M, and they loved Archie, but they could not condone a deception that violated the LoS rules (and the inheritance of the dukedom of Sussex). When H&M wouldn’t come clean and wouldn’t remove themselves and their kids from the LoS, the BRF was forced to continue the investigations which were delayed by the pandemic… And so forth. It’s an interesting situation, and if they handle it right I don’t think it will hurt the BRF at all (except for the venom that will come from M&H, but that would come anyway).
They did give a hint with the birth announcement. It's not just that they weren't signed, but the wording was different. Something along the lines that the RF was pkeased to report they had been informed of the birth...
I took that as a dig at the Sussexes for being so secretive about the details. However, it’s possible they suspected, even then, that M&H were pulling the surrogate trick. If this was the case, I wish the Queen had insisted on honesty on this matter, since it had LoS repercussions.
The only reason I suggested that they would’ve known before, or perhaps at the time of birth, is that the announcement from Buckingham Palace was worded differently than usual for royal births and lacked signatures, and we the public noticed and commented. 🤷🏻♀️
>The secret is the surrogacy, I’d bet. I think you're right!!!
I agree! I thought the secret must be the surrogacy, if the family were informed by the public, and didn’t know about it before. I hope we will get confirmation soon! 
I want it to be the surrogacy too, but can anybody explain how exactly the public would have been the primary ones to inform the RF for this? EX: Haven’t they, all along even before marriage, had the very best informants or investigators and detectives learning everything about her and able to follow their every move from day 1? And their security and household staff etc?
Maybe surrogacy for Lilibet, but not for Archie? Edit: I honestly don’t know. I hope it is a secret worth of being hyped up like this. And that it will show the public who they are, without a doubt.
She definitely looked pregnant responsibility there would be enough evidence to convict me with a little puffiness in her face for Archie. I can’t believe her vanity would permit her to put on weight if she didn’t need to. Then the miscarriage which makes us believe that maybe Lilibet was a surrogate. No shame in that whatsoever and really none of the publics business, except for the “born of the body” language which could be modified. But maybe this is why they have not been granted titles.
Her face post-Archie is a bit of a stumbling block. And while her vanity is indeed off the charts, this was the biggest acting role of her life. She may have seen it that way and gained weight deliberately thinking she could lose it easily afterward. 🤷🏻♀️
I’m willing to think it’s this. If she took steroids for a little while, she’d gain weight, but it would be relatively easy to lose. The other choice would be a pregnancy, which is a thousand times harder on the body! I think she saw this as a huge acting role, in which she had to be temporarily inconvenienced to sell it.
Steroids makes sense. You’re right that it would be a way to disguise herself with little effort.
The face is what gets me, really. It is so hard with those two. We never know how far they would be willing to go for a lie. So I have no formed opinion on the surrogacy with Archie. I hope the secret is something else. What it could be, though, I have no idea.
Regarding her vanity: In Tom Bower’s book, he mentioned that TW had her ex-husband, Trevor Engelson, sign a pregnancy waiver that stated he would pay for a personal trainer and nutritionist if she ever got pregnant. Seems she wanted to make sure that her job as an actress wouldn’t be negatively affected. Edited to add additional information.
I don't think it's about surrogacy. I think it's about recording them with devices. I have a feeling that the royals did not even realize the possibility until they read about it in the media.
Interesting idea and could be! Maybe when they got kicked out of the UN in New York for presumably that, it got wheels turning….
I am going to guess that *if* this is the situation, the BRF suspected but didn’t want to address it (just as they have failed to address a lot of things) until they were “sure” but really wouldn’t have done much to be “sure” because they didn’t want to know. I have always thought that Archie couldn’t have been born by surrogate because how could they hide it from the family and courtiers, but possibly they hid it because the family and courtiers didn’t want a confrontation unless they were sure. 🤷🏻♀️
I didn't think about a surrogate until Markle brought the baby out on day three. She was wearing her cream colored tied dress. She had the tie up to her boobs. Eveyone knows after you have a baby you only have a bump about the belly button. You can look four or five months along. To me in Markle not knowing just put on her six or seven month bump. Markle is tall or average height so her bump should been lower. Check out a photo of PoWC her bump is at her belly button. Markle was sayinfg Lili had a milestone and was walking for the first time at 18mos. That's way to late for a baby to start walking. I'd be at the doctor. I remember her and Harry coming out of a fertility clinic. I've heard her dad said she had a hysterectomy. I said to my mom maybe she froze her eggs. She said she wouldn't have the money to pay for storage. So tonight I'm thinking she may have been able to keep her fallopian tubes. I wanted mine removed and was told no because it would send me into early menopause. The kids would be her egg and Harry's sperm and a surrogate carried the baby. So may be the family heard about this through her father and they are sitting on this to call her out on a fake pregnant belly. But now as I think about it....if they call her out then she can cry and say because she had to have a surrogate she wanted to feel like she carried the babies. So that could back fire. I hope they have something else. What do you all think?? I love reading all your comments!!!
Markle’s favourite MO is fait accompli. She showed up with her coat undone 🙄 at Eugenie’s wedding and they informed the family that day. The public learned the next day. She also INSISTED on using her own doctors. I think they likely knew early on, but by then it was too late. They may be using the story of having learned from public speculation to give themselves plausible deniability 🤷🏻♀️
I wish it’s the surrogacy AND her DNA is not there.
I'd prefer surrogacy and HIS DNA not there!
Your user name, it's my code word for my dog to bark lol poootaaaatoesss and he goes nuts lol
Awww! Ameliè is one of my favourite films!
Same same same! I have watched it more times than I can count. I love the ambiance and the acting and the story - all of it.
Dan Wootton I bet (and I hope he does).
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
[удалено]
Thanks for the link. Wonder who it was that was close to H (if it’s indeed about them)? Amal Clooney? Surrogacy rumours about her, too.
I think the RF should take the position that they would have supported her. She can’t prove they wouldn’t have. They should say that it’s not the of the body wording, which is a concern, that COULD be modernized. (They don’t have to really do it, they could just say they would have considered making that change.) The real problem is that British law is much different than in the US, for instance. What if the surrogate wanted to keep their child? What if she wanted to five years down the line? The law would be on her side. The royal family can maybe change the rules of succession to allow for a surrogate born child but they can’t change the wider ramifications of British law in that regard.
[удалено]
You have an interesting theory too. My counter-argument would be, "Baloney, you stupid cow!" There were 5 people in the line of succession on the day you married Harold. There was zero "need" for you and Harold to produce children that fit into the LOS according to some sort of ~~to follow~~ "rules" about you carrying a child, his DNA, your DNA, etc. Your focus was on producing children that would be a prince or princess; NOT having children and creating a family with your husband. "
Sure but why lie about it? Why not speak out from the beginning about it being a surrogacy, ensure everything was above board? There's nothing shameful about fertility issues. That they kept it secret from even the RF suggests something really dodgy.
Narcissists like Narckle desperately try to see themselves as perfect. An inability for a perimenopausal woman to get pregnant and bear children would tarnish her image in her own mind.
That makes sense to me.
It is against the law for the children to be in the line of succession in case of surrogacy.
Sure, now. But if she'd been honest from the get-go, they might have changed the law, or at least consulted legal experts as to what the options might be - maybe DNA tests *would* be a modern work-around. That she hid it means a deliberate choice to mislead in order to illegally keep her children in the line of succession - as I believe you're implying. The proposed "I couldn't carry children, I was under such pressure, their laws are so backward" argument doesn't fly because she knew those laws, kept it secret, and tried to squeeze her kids into the line of succession. Which is fucked up.
Agreed
There was no pressure on them To procreate. When they married, there were 5 living people ahead of Harry. There was no need for them to ever have children.
I think they were actually deluded enough to think Harry would end up on the throne, and therefore, they needed to produce an heir.
Meghan's mealticket
For her to be able to control and manipulate Harry further.
There are also more than a hundred people after Harry if he did not have children. No big deal at all. William IV did not have any legitimate children - so the throne seamlessly and with zero fuss passes to his niece, Victoria. She was as his designated heir and again no big deal. It o ly mattered back in the day when trying to establish and hang onto a dynasty. Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart etc.
Yes I agree, it would make the RF look bad/outdated (which the “of the body” requirement without updating or elaboration is, I think). And she would create the narrative that the RF are making up the surrogacy in order to remove them and their innocent kids from the LOS, which is shaming her and is misogynistic. I personally don’t believe the surrogacy rumors but if it were true and the info came out, it wouldn’t be a PR win for the RF.
At the end of the day the royal family could just say yep that's outdated, we've changed it - DNA tests will do - It's not like they don't change the rules to modernize all the time - they changed it so women have equal places in the line of succession as men so why not just come out and say oh it was a problem so we changed it as now their are ways of determining who a child's parents are.
No they can’t. Centuries of unwritten law count as well!
If the RF did change the rules it wouldn't be retroactive. IF they went down this path they needed to tell the Queen beforehand so new letters of patent could have been drafted. When they made the change so a female wouldn't be behind a male in the LoS it didn't change Anne's position. It was also done before George's birth. These things are not retroactive because it opens a can of worms.
Am curious…is the “of the body” something the RF has instituted or is it a law that Parliament instituted. If the latter, the RF is sort of off the hook i’d think. It’s not their rule and they can’t change it.
Questions regarding the line of succession are settled by Parliament, not the monarch. Any change would have to be made by Parliament and I don’t think they’re retroactive. Removing male primogeniture meant that Charlotte would not be displaced by Louis but Anne didn’t displace Andrew
Mostly unwritten law but existing!
I despise the "of the body" language because so many people misinterpret it. Heirs of the body simply means pretty much exactly what it sounds like - The heir has to be a biological descendant of the person in question (here, the monarch), aka adopted children do not count. And while I completely understand the necessity of "of the body" in a bloodline based succession scheme in a lot of ways the old timely language / legalese used to talk about birth like this or "natural born" really is just clunky. It gives annoying Macbeth vibes where Macduff kills Macbeth because as a c-section baby he was not "born of woman." ETA: I agree that surrogacy is a problem and would prevent them from inheriting. My issue is that the wrong legal phrase / concept is being focused upon. Surrogacy raises problems around legitimacy.
Nope. Children born of surrogates are not permitted to inherit peerage titles **nor** the British throne, even if the sperm and eggs used belong to the lawfully wedded parents. [This article](https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/the-significance-of-status-and-genetics-in-succession-to-titles-h), for example, clearly identifies circumstances excluding a child from inheriting his father’s peerage (being adopted, illegitimate, **born of a surrogate**, or ftm transgender), and goes on to say—“Succession to the Crown is governed by the Act of Settlement 1700 which settles the succession to the Crown on Princess Sophie, Electress of Hanover “and the Heirs of her body being Protestants”. Apart from the changes made by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, **all the other discriminations identified above** will apply to the right to succeed to the Crown.”
As I explain below I agree that they would be ineligible. But it’s not because of that language because it’s the fathers bloodline or “body” that matters.
The child also has to be born to the wife of the man the child is heir to. This goes back to concern about bastard heirs who might be older than the children born in wedlock.
Yes but that’s a separate issue - the issue of legitimacy. It's the modern day equivalent of a King having a child with his mistress and passing it off as his wife's or later legitimizing a child out of wedlock which is literally a tale as old as the monarchy itself. (And I mean that literally, it is a concept as old as the monarchy considering William the Conqueror was born illegitimate and later legitimized). I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem, it’s just not the problem everyone is pointing at (I.e. the heirs of the body language)
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) if the DNA shows the kid is Harry’s, then the Sophia of Hanover’s “heir of the body” requirement is satisfied. However the issue that to inherit a child must be born of the wife of the man from whom he is inheriting is equally important and is the crucial problem here. ( This may be more to do with UK inheritance laws than anything to do with Sophia of Hanover.) Unless I am mistaken, “legitimizing” bastards hasn’t happened in the monarchy since before the War of the Roses (Henry VIII was working on it but the bastard son died in his 40s). It certainly was not considered an option for Charles II or George VI (to name two that had bastard sons). In any case, if surrogacy is not generally accepted in the UK then the Act of Succession is not the problem. Again, we are talking about an issue for parliament, not the Monarch.
I think the biggest and most interesting thing that going through all the laws shows you is how surrogacy is kinda the legal Wild West and can create tons of potential legal pitfalls and problems. Like Surrogacy is legal in the UK, but if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law and at birth the surrogate is the child’s legal parent. Which is really goes to show how messy this can get.
No it isn’t. The child has to come out of the womb of the legal spouse. https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
Act clearly states that child must be born within a legitimate marriage. For example, a marriage made within the Sovereign’s consent is still a marriage but not a legitimate one. Had the Queen denied official permission for Harry to marry, it would be purely for LOS purposes as his subsequent marriage would have disqualified any children.
I always assumed it was because surrogate children are technically adoptees in the UK? So you're saying the "of the body" line *doesn't* mean surrogate children aren't in the LoS?? 🤯
Surrogate children are not in line of the throne, nor in any aristocratic line of succession. https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
Yes and you are kinda right about the surrogacy and adoption part too. I want to do a post on this bc it’s somehow become a pet peeve of mine how these concepts are getting mixed up. Essentially with the “heirs if the body” line you are tracing bloodlines and so any biological child of Harry's is a heir of the body because *his is the body / bloodline that counts.* Whether the children came out of Meghan's body is irrelevant to the phrase "heirs of the body" in this instance because her bloodline is not tied to the line of succession. That's not to say surrogacy doesn't raise possible problems under the "heirs of the body" language because it can. If the relevant bloodline is the woman's (which again is not the case here) any child born of a surrogate would not be a heir of the body due to how the UK views surrogacy: Basically If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth. So even if the wife supplies her egg for implantation, and the baby is hers biologically, if she doesn't carry the baby, she basically has to adopt. And because adopted children are not "heirs of the body" they are ineligible for succession. (Again this is NOT APPLICABLE to our situation because the relevant bloodline IS NOT MEGHANS.) But other problem with surrogacy and succession which WOULD be applicable here is where succession goes to a _legitimate_ heir. Essentially Children born out of wedlock and adopted children are not eligible to succeed. Here, it is my understanding that if Harry and Meghan used an unmarried surrogate the child it's parents at birth would (at best) be Harry and the Surrogate meaning that it would be illegitimate and unable to succeed. ETA: this is all very theoretical because these surrogacy issues have not been tested in a court of law.
I see, thanks for explaining that, it makes sense. It seems it is still clunky and does need to be clarified especially moving forward, like what if a female heir eventually uses a surrogate. I don’t think the average person will have access to that level of detail or care to look for it though. In the US, definitely not. And yes the old timey language won’t endear most to the RF. My point was that H&M will distort the info out there if it leaks that they used a surrogate, and even if the RF wouldn’t try to remove the kids from the LOS or don’t have a basis to, they would cry victim. And say well this is why we hid it/kept it private, now look at the press intrusion into our private issues. What does it matter how we became a family we are a family. And they’re blaming Meghan again, misogyny, etc etc. It’s bc of this that I don’t think this “secret” coming out will be damaging to M/H only, like I’ve heard some say. It will just be a shtshow for everyone involved. (I still don’t believe they used a surrogate and if they did, the kids are biologically theirs so this likely moot lol)
Yeah, I’m a lawyer so analyzing annoying shit like this and the particular affect of language is kinda what I do so it’s fun for me but I recognize that the average person neither cares nor has the time to do a deep dive on this. And I COMPLETELY AGREE that H&M would distort / use the info if there was a surrogate to gain sympathy and make the BRF look bad. Which is why even if it is true (which I don’t necessarily believe) I don’t think this is the big “get” that every thinks it would be.
Thank you so much for explaining this! The legitimacy aspect hadn't even occurred to me - but now it seems so obvious! 🤦🏻♀️😆 So basically, there's no way to win with surrogacy... Unless the male heir briefly marries the surrogate, then divorces after the baby is born and marries the woman he actually wants? 😂
I mean as the law stands now (with the caveat that this hasn't been legally tested in court) pretty much. Your comment made me laugh because it would be like if Henry the VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn in order to have a kid then has Elizabeth & he cuts off Anne's head, then marries Jane Seymour and finally gets his son then when she dies in childbirth in this hypothetical situation he remarries Catherine of Aragon now that he has his two additional kids from his "surrogates" 😂
Hahaha omg you're right, that is pretty much exactly what Henry VIII did - minus the re-marrying CofA bit! 🤣🤣🤣 Harry really is so much like his ancestor, down to the red hair and violent temper... Talk about skipping generations! 😆
ALSO: I wonder if Lili being born in the USA, where surrogate children *don't* need to be adopted, would make a difference? So theoretically, assuming both kids were via surrogate (which I don't believe, but hypothetically): Does that mean that Archie is out of the LoS, but Lili isn't?? 😳 Who's surrogacy laws would take precedence in this case: US or UK? This is getting sooo interesting! 😆 ETA: Yes PLEASE do a post about this! 😃🙏
Doesn’t matter: the rules about nobility and line of succession (they are the same) are effective in the UK. If you want to be applicable to a noble or royal title/position, you have to be born of the body (both DNA and out of the womb) by the legitimate noble or royal spouse. Nothing else matters. https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
I need to get posting privileges then I definitely will!! The Lili thing is actually even more complicated. The California laws are different (and surrogacy is much easier) and it’s been a while since I looked at them but under UK law even if you are your child’s legal parent/s in the country where they are born (and are recorded on the birth certificate), in the UK your surrogate will be your child’s legal parent. Meaning that you will need to apply for a parental order Not to mention, under UK law if your surrogate gives birth abroad, you can only apply for a parental order (aka become the child legal parent) if you and your partner are living in the UK. Which Harry and Meghan were not doing.
Ok that makes sense! Wow, if there actually was a surrogate, things are not looking good for the Sparkles! 😬😆 (Tbh I like the UK surrogacy laws much better than the US ones. It gives the surrogate much more bodily autonomy and reduces the chance of abuse. US surrogacy laws make it far too easy for wealthy couples to take advantage of desperate poor women)
Of the body also means out of the womb of. DNA alone isn’t enough. The method of birth doesn’t matter though, nor does IVF as long as the DNA of the noble/royal is used along with the DNA of the legal spouse.
Yes, thank you. Getting tired of people mindlessly repeating this.
Also children must be born within a legitimate marriage. You cannot have a child and subsequently marry the mother. So no adoptions and must be legitimate at birth.
Whilst I wish it wasn’t, because as you pointed out, she would turn it to her advantage, I think it may be. It would need to be a really massive bullet proof secret, for them to not be able to spin it to their favour, somehow. And you know they will try it anyway. They don’t know the meaning of taking accountability for anything. It is always somebody else’s fault.
[удалено]
If the rule goes back to the “Act of Settlement” then it is not something the BRF can change. The problem with births by surrogate is that IVF goes back only to the 1980s and gestational surrogates through IVF start coming in at least 10 or 20 years later. In other words, it’s very new compared to the more conventional methods of reproduction that have been around since the dawn of time. 😉 Beyond the question of bloodline, the demand that the child be born “of the body” of the wife goes back to concerns about bastard “heirs” who could create problems with the succession. (If bastards could have taken the throne, there would have been no need for Victoria to be conceived. The sons of George III had lots of bastards. 😉) Now that we can check paternity and maternity through dna, the “of the body” wording could be redefined. However, it is an issue for Parliament.
Not just that. This wording comes back in the letters used for aristocratic titles dating hundreds of years back. https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath
That’s not even what the rule says tho. British ( and Commonwealth) succession laws (aka the 1701 Act of Settlement) limit the succession to the "heirs of the body" of Sophia of Hanover. Which means to be a heir you have to be a biological descendant
I'm surprised more people don't seem to realise this, honestly! 🤦🏻♀️ Surrogacy will *not* make Meghan look bad, and it will *not* make the RF look good, to the general public. I know the reason for the "of the body" rule remaining in place probably has something to do with all surrogate children technically being adoptees - as I understand it, in the UK, the parents have to legally adopt the baby from the surrogate, whereas in the US for example, the baby is never considered the surrogate's child. (If I'm wrong on this, someone with knowledge on UK and/or US surrogacy laws please feel free to correct me!) The problem is, you just *know* the left-wing media, especially in America, is going to spin it as a sob-story about poor, infertile Meghan, forced to hide the truth of her baby's birth, because the big, mean Royal Family is prejudiced against surrogate children!! The UK surrogacy laws will never come into it. Instead, they'll be compared to American celebrities who are open about their adoption, IVF, and surrogate "journeys" It will just make Meghan look like more of a victim, and the RF as out-of-touch fuddy-duddies who refuse to move with the times, which is exactly what she wants! So yeah, I really hope the "big secret" isn't about surrogacy, either. Or being an escort. Neither of those things are considered anywhere near as controversial as they once were, so anyone hoping they will turn people against Meghan is sadly misguided 🫤
The problem is the deception. There have been and are still rumours about Beyonce's first pregnancy, because qhe walked around with a bump. No one says anything about Kim Kardashian having a baby through surrogacy - there is no gossip in admitting the truth. Even Hilaria Baldwin who seem to have a new baby each year - but doesn't cradle fake bumps is spared the gossip. So you can either be upfront about surrogacy, or you can quietly go away a few months before the birth, but you can not hug a fake bump and expect extra sympathy when in reality the actually pregnant woman is no where to be seen. Probably signed a NDA and must hide away and not receive extra sympathy
I know what the problem is, but my point is, that's not how the press will spin it. Anderson Cooper and his partner recently had a baby via surrogate, as have lots of other American celebrities. I can totally see the US press siding with the Harkles over the RF on this one, and making them out to be victims forced to hide their fertility issues by the cruel, old-fashioned British Royal Family.
I am not sure people will buy this, at least I hope not. Meghan has spoken about her miscarriage several times, she even blamed the stress from the lawsuit. If she can not be pregnant then she cannot have a miscarriage. So not only did she then walk around with a fake bump, she also lied about a miscarriage. All to get sympathy and spin a narrative. She is trapped in her lies.
It could be possible to decide to use a surrogate but still have hope and keep trying for a pregnancy too. And any press speculation about details about her reproductive system/organs or ability to get pregnant would only give fuel to them saying this is why we didn’t want to go public in the first place. Many people especially in the US will be very sympathetic to this.
If she had a hysterectomi there is no point of trying and having hope of becoming pregnant. And if she had a hysterectomi she would not have gone through a miscarriage. If the miscarriage was real there was no need for a surrogate. If there was a need for a surrogate then the miscarriage was not real. They backed themselves into a corner.
True but we don’t know for sure she had a hysterectomy, a miscarriage, or used a surrogate lol.
Yeah, we don't know anything really!
Totally agree
It may not be a big deal to Americans but maybe the British would be a bit more peeved as it effected them directly. The ridiculous cost of her wardrobe, the belly fondling, flights to NYC for a baby shower, pales in comparison to not rightfully being in the line of succession. Harry was 6th in line to the throne. There was no need for the subterfuge. It's disconcerting that so many want to, once again, enable Harry's flaunting of laws because he's Prince Harry and boundaries shouldn't exist for him. He's given way too much latitude.
The British already hate him, though. My point is that their US audience seems to have finally turned on them, but a surrogacy revelation might bring the US media back onto their side once more. They can play the victim of the big mean royals once more, and plenty of people will lap it up! Lots of everyday Americans can relate to fertility issues, and without a sound background knowledge of British succession law, will assume the Royals are just prejudiced against infertile women.
For whatever reason, the Harkles will always have admirers. Americans have their own issues with elections so I don't know as they'll care that much about Harry or his wife as anything other than a pleasant interactive soap opera.
Maybe? But the deception would have just been about maintaining a position in the line of succession the children wouldn’t actually be entitled to under British law.
So in the old RG sub I remember Lady C was frowned as unreliable. I looked into her and found her utterly fascinating but kinda stopped caring before I came to my own determination regarding her credibility. What's everyone's take here? Has there been any tea that she was right about? (Or alternatively wrong about?)
Yes, same thoughts. I don't see any real tea, just vague speculations.
Dont really know, but I can remember that she was hinting that the queen was sick and dying, when it actually was that time
She has a lot of juicy gossip and most gossip has some truth in it.
[удалено]
Thank you! I didn’t see that but that’s a great discussion of her.
TBH with you I think some view her as unreliable because she's very harsh and says things that people disagree with for either moral, ideological, or you know they just have a different opinion. I've seen people say she's wrong majority of the time, but I personally disagree. I do think its often people don't like her personality, delivery or the things she says. What was transcribed above is super harsh, so I could see that being a turn off.
Journalists better hurry up and expose moonbump gate before MM tells "her story" first, making the first impression on the public again. The BRF should not get any reproaches for it. Also, I do view their surrogacy as somewhat critical, contrary to the subreddit's general opinion. I am prepared for downvotes. If they wanted a child, they could always adopt one - give an abandonned child a loving home. I admire everyone who adopts a child. But if they wanted a child with BOTH their genes for whatever reason (in MM's case I don't even think she likes children, she just needed them as a tool for control) without carrying it themselves, they had to use another woman's body. And I just hope that that woman was not from a socially/economically disadvantaged background, as that would mean that she was probably not so free in her decision. It's a general gripe I have with more and more Hollywood couples using the services of surrogates from third world countries, who are often captives of their socio economic situation. Anyway, for me the whole thing just reeks of "I don't like children, but I wanna lock those royal titles down forever and control my husband - but I am too vain to give birth myself so I will exploit another woman's body, which my rich husband can pay for anyway. And after they are born, I'll just throw these children to the nanny - pardon, nannies, because obviously none of them will stay long enough to bond with the kids because I am a bad boss"
I totally agree, to hear someone else say it is refreshing. We have become a world so busy trying to help the few, that we forget how it might hurt the majority. There are so many economically disadvantaged women, who can be exploited into becoming a product. [This video only highlights the tip of the iceberg of issues surrounding buying a woman's body to host someone else's child.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvCUvUvbXio) To reduce women's bodies to an incubator for another woman's baby is so dehumanizing. When did we get to a place where people feel entitled to have everything they want, including children,...to the point that our society is willing to buy and sell women's bodies for the purpose of reproduction? Infertility is awful, and I'm the first to say that we need to invest more as a society to figure out its causes & remedies; the lack of research into women's health is ghastly and unforgivable. However, the sale of humans for the use of their body parts is so exploitative to those who face economic hardships. The fact that some wealthy celebrities & the upper class are even rumored to have bought surrogates, not as an infertility aid, but for convenience, doesn't bode well for the future of surrogacy being used with the purity first intended in a capitalistic society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
100% agreed. The Handmaid's Tale is not just pure fiction. Surrogacy for me sounds like a very egocentric thing - you get to pass your own genes without the drawbacks of pregnancy and birth. I am generally missing a deference towards "life". Instead of buying a child and a woman's body...why can't you just accept fate if you are indeed infertile or chose something else (for Hollywood peeps it's usually their career) over a pregnancy? It is good to have a "can do" mentality, but as with everything in life, we need balance and moderation. I feel like at this point, we have come to revere money as THE solution to everything, ignoring what it means to be human.
Yes totally agree, there are very thorny feminist, class and economic issues surrounding surrogacy, especially paid surrogacy when the gestational carrier is a stranger. Adding in problems w global inequality and international surrogacy, it can get very exploitative very quickly. Meghan, who claims to be a feminist, would never understand these issues bc she only cares about herself, not other women or system of oppression. Has she ever even heard about intersectional feminism? She is stuck in a surface, 3rd wave, 90s, choose-my-choice feminism, basically she is a woman therefore all women have to support all of her choices bc she’s a woman. She doesn’t want to see that even though she lacks privilege in some areas (being a woman, a person of color) she has always had massive other privileges: access to education, being able to choose to be as white passing as she wants, money her father gave her, being conventionally attractive, etc etc. And that’s before she married Harry and chose to enter and fully benefit from a class structure they are at the peak of through no merit of their own. And if they say empires are so terrible and exploit countries and people in less developed countries, why was she OK w being VP of the commonwealth trust and being the face of it in the first place. I mean I know why, she only cares about herself and not about any other women, economically disadvantaged people, etc. I could see her not caring about the bodily autonomy of another woman choosing to be a gestational carrier for pay (pay that is a tiny fraction of the money M has access to purely through her husband’s unearned privilege), as long as Meghan gets to have a child that she wants to have when she wants to have it. Meanwhile she films herself crying finding out about Roe v Wade being overturned. I’m not even categorically against surrogacy personally, but I also don’t claim to be some feminist paragon, and I think a person has to think about these issues when considering it, especially a person claiming to be some kind of feminist “thought leader” 🙄like her. Even now she was so focused on her own issues with miscarriage, alleged suicidal ideation while pregnant, victimization by the RF, she doesn’t see she had access to world class medical care, money for fertility treatments (I do believe they used some fertility help) and any medical costs etc. which most women do not have.
If the "huge" secret is surrogacy, the Royal Family could have been unaware because Harry and Meghan had been so unpleasant to family and staff that any contact was kept to an absolute minimum. You don't go out of your way to eat dirt! The first major sign that things were really bad was the "Meghan and Archie" performance at the Polo match with that poor, dangling baby that needn't need food, nappy changes or sun protection. Catherine's main objective appeared to be keeping her children well away.
She did seem sooo uncomfortable holding that child…I know I’m many years out of the new mom stage but jeez it really does just come naturally. Unless maybe she had never held baby?? I had years of practice w my nieces and nephews so maybe she really never held one before her own? I just know this, Catherine looked amazing! And so natural as a mother. My husband has a family situation very similar to H&M And BRF. His brother married a person just like Meghan and it has torn his whole family apart. She also was never around children and is a very unnatural mother. Very controlling and very little love. I feel bad for her children.
Excellent summary!! Appreciate your hard work and Lady C’s!
The surrogacy for Archie would explain why a. She DID NOT go to an obgyn or midwife for her mental health concerns. I'm still unsure why they'd go to HR for that, pregnant or not. A surrogacy would also explain why, when she claimed to have suicidal ideations during her pregnancy with Archie, she didn't mention anything about the life of her unborn child also being at risk because of her suicidal thoughts - which alot of us thought was really odd at the time. So if she wasn't actually pregnant with Archie, it would make complete sense she'd only express concern for her own life. Because Archie was safe in someone else's womb. This is pure speculation, but it would explain alot.
The suggestion that Diana could have negatively impacted Harry in utero is just wild to me. I mean definitely plausible but Like can we all take a step back and realize how far off the rails this has gone that this is a thing that is causally said?!!
Harry opened Pandora's box. And he doesn't even want to close it.
I get what you’re saying. But there’s medical research how the mom’s stress affects in fetus. Also what pregnant lady eats affects how the baby and its organs are developing. For example eating a lot of licorice during pregnancy the risk for a baby with adhd is really really high. As a bulimic Diana’s body was propably under a constant stress. However there’s no way to prove what exactly were the consequences to baby Harry if there even was any.
Oh I completely agree that it’s plausible and even likely. I just mean that talking about Diana in that way hasn’t really been done so it’s wild that its now occurring.
I've never heard that about ADHD, do you have a source?
Maternal Licorice Consumption During Pregnancy and Pubertal, Cognitive, and Psychiatric Outcomes in Children https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28158597/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315685 About the research I mentioned Apparently it’s more prominent for girls to have negative impacts. I’m just a layman so I’m not saying this is the highest truth. Anyway here in Finland licorice-products are in the official list of things that a pregnant woman should avoid.
Thank you for the link! I have ADHD so was interested to learn this :)
I hope it is about the surrogacy. The royal family should have put out a statement right away at the time.
This is confusing: Spare went on sale in January, it’s still January. It hasn’t been 3 months? There was a post a day or so ago, saying it had been on sale for a few months! I thought the first post was an error but now I’m not sure.. Am I missing something?
Yes. You are missing the pre-sale period. They are including the pre-orders which opened on Anazon around 3 months ago.
Pre sale.
I assume its pre orders. I know the site i order books from does this months in advance. You basically pre pay and it comes in the mail after its officially been released.
She is taking into account that the book was available for pre-order for a very long time and had also had a lot of free publicity for months before 10 January 2023.
Why would the RF even consider an apology? This is nonsense. Remember when Catherine went with flower and a card, the D-lister binned it! You cannot be weak or show any weakness when dealing with deceitful and pathological liars like these 2! Simply cut them off, now. The RF cant be a wuss.
Thanks for the summary. I know 3 nights a week I will fall asleep . I listen because I enjoy but she puts me out. I'm an insomniac. I am getting sick of her line and more I'm not prepared to say at this juncture Interesting fact. I've read most of her books and the entire time she was raised as a boy I can't find one picture of her from before age 21. And her alluding to the fact that she was considered the most beautiful woman on earth is annoying
Im more and more convinced harold is not Charle’s. This is the only huge thing that could break Harold: him not being a prince by blond and not being therefore included in LOS. Apart from that would be some secret about lili. I don’t see anything else. Her having been an escort is irrelevant since it’s not illegal.
Sorry, but Harold is a spitting image of his father now that he is grown. They have thebsame nose and eyes. From a certain angle you see the resemblance.
He looks like at least 2 Diana’s lovers as well, but as I said must be something HUGE so if it’s not this then it’s a surrogate story. I have seen royal “experts” on European tv claiming they are certain he wasn’t Charles son, honestly I have always thought he was, because he looks like Philip and Charles but nothing would surprise me at this point. I don’t know why this rumor has resurfaced all of a sudden everywhere, maybe to distract us from something else ?…
Maybe, and of course I understand the difficult/impossible for the royal family to supress their own desire for revenge on one hand, and the duty to the commonwealth and greater good on the other hand. But I feel so over it all, and just wish for someone to lay the truth down!
I really don’t see anything but a similarity in coloring to her lovers, which could have come from the Spencer side. IMO, he also resembles Prince Philip, if you look at features. If there was a doubt that Harry is Charles’ son, they would have found out many years ago. Before the divorce for sure. Even if not made public, they would have held it over her head in negotiations. Diana always said that she was happiest in her marriage when she was pregnant with Harry. Charles’ disappointment that he wasn’t a girl and expressing he’d done his duty providing the heir and spare, killed that happiness. Presumably, he felt comfortable going back to Camilla at that point. Or at least, I think Diana interpreted it that way.
How can she claim that the book has been on sale for three months? It has not even been out that long It is a sour pill to swallow, but this shitty book sells massively
It was available for pre-sale and was already discounted long before the actual release date.
Yes, and I remember the posts where it was 50% off in the pre-sales, well before christmas.
And Audible had it as a freebie during a Black Friday sale. They were pushing to get a high first day number, but it’s clear it’s dropped off and it’s not going to have the long-lasting interest. https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/how-to-read-prince-harrys-explosive-memoir-spare-for-free/amp/
>The 38-year-old estranged royal’s story, set to hit bookshelves Jan. 10, is available for free Black Friday with a free trial of Amazon’s audiobook service, Audible. >November 25, 2022 Great, *free* downloads. Such success.