• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Meghan Didn’t Give Birth To Archie & Lilibet

MorningAngel

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
3,212
This is one I could believe as some things don’t seem to add up.

She got pregnant pretty quickly for and older woman. Who turns down the best doctors in the land offered by the Queen?

There was an awful lot of bump holding. There’s a video that claims to show her bump pop back after she’s squatted down and various other in inconsistencies with the bump and one picture where it’s claimed it slipped. The news around the birth seemed odd and confused.

Even her half sister has accused her of using a surrogate and that she’s had a hysterectomy. But there is bad blood there.

Some people have gone as far to say that the kids don’t exist at all and that they are borrowed for pictures. Even stating who they are.

Like I say I wouldn’t be surprised but it would mess up the line of succession as she would have had to give birth to them herself.

Some interesting things here.

Edit: spelling correction.

 
Last edited:
Ok as for borrowing other people’s kids. This is who Lilibet is supposed to be and I’m pretty sure she does look like a picture we’ve been shown.
0F03AB26-B33A-4812-9C16-80D624FF137E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
About two years ago I stumbled upon a Twitter account which outs people as Beards.
At least, it claims they are.

A beard is a woman hired to act as a girlfriend/wife for a gay man, who wishes to be seen as straight.
(Or a lesbian who hires a man for same reason.)

That Twitter account claims Harry is gay and really married one of his school chums, and Megan was hired to act the part of wife because she is an actress.

It also claims Archie was an adopted baby from a Turkish family.


The Twitter account claims pretty much everyone and anyone who is famous is gay, so after an initial thought I might have discovered a conspiracy, I disregarded it as the work of a crackpot.

If this turns out to be true it'll be one of the craziest things ever!
 
Last edited:
Victory said:
About two years ago I stumbled upon a Twitter account which outs people as Beards.
At least, it claims they are.

A beard is a woman hired to act as a girlfriend/wife for a gay ,and who wishes to be seen as straight.
(Or a lesbian who hies a man for same reason.)

That Twitter account claims Harry is gay and really married one of his school chums, and Megan was hired to act the part of wife because she is an actress.

It also claims Archie was an adopted baby from a Turkish family.


The Twitter account claims pretty much everyone and anyone who is famous is gay, so after an initial thought I might have discovered a conspiracy, I disregarded it as the work of a crackpot.

If this turns out to be true it'll be one of the craziest things ever!
Click to expand...
She’s very controlling if she’s a beard.
 
MorningAngel said:
This is one I could believe as some things don’t seem to add up.

She got pregnant pretty quickly for and older woman. Who turns down the best doctors in the land offered by the Queen?

There was an awful lot of bump holding. There’s a video that claims to show her dump pop back after she’s squatted down and various other in inconsistencies with the dump and one picture where it’s claimed it slipped. The news around the birth seemed odd and confused.

Even her half sister has accused her of using a surrogate and that she’s had a hysterectomy. But there is bad blood there.

Some people have gone as far to say that the kids don’t exist at all and that they are borrowed for pictures. Even stating who they are.

Like I say I wouldn’t be surprised but it would mess up the line of succession as she would have had to give birth to them herself.

Some interesting things here.

Click to expand...
I started watching the video but there were just strings of claims about Meghan's bump changing size and shape but not a single photograph to accompany the claims. It is so made up it isn't even funny. Are conspiracy theorists so convinced that people will believe them no matter what that they are not even trying? Worrying.
 
Not sure I’d be surprised if the kids were surrogates as you see so-and-so having a baby by surrogate around quite often. But I think Harry’s so paranoid and obsessed about keeping them out of sight of the press that it’s easy for conspiracy theories to go wild. (On the other hand, aren’t they using the Princess title for Lilibet? That’s hardly going to keep her out of the limelight as she gets older).
 
Min Bannister said:
I started watching the video but there were just strings of claims about Meghan's bump changing size and shape but not a single photograph to accompany the claims. It is so made up it isn't even funny. Are conspiracy theorists so convinced that people will believe them no matter what that they are not even trying? Worrying.
Click to expand...
I have seen pictures and the one with the alleged slip. I don’t know why the video didn’t find the pictures that are out there.
 
The woman in the image is Stassi Schroeder. There are images of her with the same child all over the internet. There are similarities - but, as with such comparisons, some have points of similitude, while others seem much less close matches.

But the fact that one human being is similar to another doesn't mean much anyway, not when you have a database of millions to cherrypick from (3,659,289 births in the US in 2021 - according to the internet. Another several million in Europe. And I would bet a big bag of toffees that, these days, images of the majority of those babies will be somewhere on social media).

I dare say that anyone with enough time on their hands could draw a timeline between Stassi Schroeder's uploads and the appearance of the supposed changeling.

Min Bannister said:
I started watching the video but there were just strings of claims about Meghan's bump changing size and shape but not a single photograph to accompany the claims. It is so made up it isn't even funny. Are conspiracy theorists so convinced that people will believe them no matter what that they are not even trying? Worrying.
Click to expand...

Yup. I too find it all a bit bizarre.

I don't really even have a dog in the fight when it comes to the royal family, generally having little interest in the subject. That said, I do find it fascinating that an individual has engendered so much ire, mostly based - it seems to me - on: the opinions of other individuals who have prior and longstanding beefs with he subject; the utterly ubiquitous 'unnamed sources' (of which there appear to be enough to populate a modest nation state); and an excrescence at the bottom of the journalistic barrel known as 'Royal Experts' (quite often also 'unnamed'.)

I know that someone is going to mention their 'behaviour' - but given that their public persona has been inextricably intertwined with the media's voracious appetite for bitchery since day one, it's impossible to see where one begins and the other ends.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused not about the conspiracy stuff but about Megan Markle. I understood she was a coloured person but in the video she isn't?

Or have I got it wrong?
 
There's nothing confusing about it.

Her mother's African American.

She's bi-racial.

There's no standard way an individual with such a heritage has to look.

And I swear to god - that's all that needs to be said about the subject.
 
Spookdaddy said:
There's nothing confusing about it.

Her mother's African American.

She's bi-racial.

There's no standard way an individual with such a heritage has to look.

And I swear to god - that's all that needs to be said about the subject.
Click to expand...
My comment wasn't about how she is supposed to look, or not, rather about what I understood. In fact, I know virtually nothing about them as I never watch or read anything from the MSM.
 
Me-Again was 37 when Archie was born.
This is termed as a 'geriatric mother'.

Advanced maternal age (geriatric pregnancy) is a medical term to describe people who are over age 35 during pregnancy.
Pregnancies have an increased risk for certain complications when the birth parent is 35 or older.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age
 
Trevp666 said:
...Advanced maternal age (geriatric pregnancy) is a medical term to describe people who are over age 35 during pregnancy.
Pregnancies have an increased risk for certain complications when the birth parent is 35 or older.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age
Click to expand...

Geriatric pregnancy is an outdated technical term that doesn't come anywhere near describing the modern reality.

In the UK, 2014 was the first year that more babies were born to mothers over 35 than those under 25. It's no longer unusual - certainly not unusual enough to indicate, in itself, something odd with a pregnancy. (25 to 35 years of age was the normal range for a mother's age - but there's a clear shift towards later pregnancies.)

Babies born in England and Wales in 2014 were most likely to have a mother aged 25 to 34, with over a half (59%) of mothers in this age group. A further 20% of babies were born to mothers aged under 25, while 21% had mothers aged 35 and over at the time of birth.
Click to expand...

Source - Office of National Statistics.
 
Last edited:
My babies were incredibly mobile before birth. None of them ever engaged (where the head 'locks in' to the pelvis just prior to birth) and they just sort of floated about. This meant that my bump changed shape regularly, to the point where the midwives got rather annoyed trying to judge which way up and which way round the baby was likely to arrive.
 
Well they it moved out all together or her internal organs did when she did a heels together squat at 8 months.
 

Attachments

  • 4758AB4D-E033-4DDC-A1BF-1EB74FF0A7F6.png
    4758AB4D-E033-4DDC-A1BF-1EB74FF0A7F6.png
    701.4 KB · Views: 629
blessmycottonsocks said:
My daughter was told she was a "geriatric mother" when pregnant at age 36 with our grandson - who has just turned 4.
So the term was still in use by NHS staff until fairly recently.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is apparently still being used by some practitioners, but it's no longer official NHS usage and hasn't been for a while. From what I can make out, Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) is the current usage.

I'm not sure if it's nationwide, but some NHS trusts have actually pushed the definition of 'older' maternal age to 40+.
 
Trevp666 said:
Me-Again was 37 when Archie was born.
This is termed as a 'geriatric mother'.

Advanced maternal age (geriatric pregnancy) is a medical term to describe people who are over age 35 during pregnancy.
Pregnancies have an increased risk for certain complications when the birth parent is 35 or older.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age
Click to expand...
Geriatric?? I was in my 40s and still getting pregnant, miscarried many times even when I was young. The only reason I didn't carry till full term was because, as my doctor told me, I would have to remain in bed for nine months with my legs up. Which was an impossibility for me, working day and night at the time, my husband working as well.
It's genetic in my family, otherwise I would have had a few well into my 40s, and would not have cared about my age at all.
The doctor did tell me that I was much younger than my chronological age - when giving me a needle, he said I had 'young skin', my skin was resisting the needle like a younger person. And I always looked years younger than I was, so that may have had something to do with it also. Just genetics. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top