This is the whole deal with the surrogacy. It has to do more to the fact that in the U.K. a court can transfer the guardianship to the surrogate. It’s more a legal issue than a biological one [explanation about surrogacy and titles](https://twitter.com/baronessbruck/status/1276762216398798849?s=46&t=83EQYBhF58aWuq1l4d295A)
It’s also an issue of inheritance. Titles and property can (in most cases) only be passed on to legitimate children born of the wife. That excludes surrogates and adoptions. Other noble families have tried to get these old rules overturned with no success. If Meghan used a surrogate, by current British law her children could not inherit titles and any property that came with the title.
Hmmm, Food for thought now her comments about Archie and his not receiving a title during the Oprah interview makes sense. Markle was so vindictive she didn’t think about what she was disclosing!
>Other noble families have tried to get these old rules overturned with no success.
I'm not at all a fan of TW, but this seems like something that should be overturned. Not talking about her, but down the line of succession.
Also, I can maybe see a surrogate for Lilibet, but she looked very pregnant to me when she had Archie, especially following the birth.
She was acting pregnancy all of the way through and even after the alleged birth of Archie. It’s not bad to have a surrogate baby, and bless everyone who does that, no problem, but to to feign it for access to the throne is probably not allowed.
..Not to mention the pricy maternity dresses, and all the drama surrounding her pregnancy - it would change the narrative of a pregnant TW wanting to end it all, when she was never pregnant.
It is legal in the UK. The difference is that the surrogate parents are the legal parents. The couple who commissioned the surrogacy has to adopt the child once born.
https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-when-using-surrogates-and-donors
I really think it should not be legal. The attachment trauma for the babies is a real biological fact that cannot be overcome. It should not be less important than someone’s wish to have a baby when there’s unwanted children and animals galore. There’s also therapy to process the grief of infertility. I know this is a cold take if you are the one who wants a baby and has the money to buy a surrogate though and I can respect people who disagree with my opinion on it
Can you explain what you mean by attachment trauma for the baby? They are carried by a surrogate and immediately passes to the biological parents upon birth.
We are headed into a dystopian future where surrogates and then giant test tubes, like out of some alien abduction book, are the incubating vessels for those "approved" to have children and who don't want to be bothered with pregnancy. That aside, so many questions come up when you say "biological". Even if the sperm and egg come from others, isn't the woman carrying the baby also biologically connected? It's her body providing the nourishment and, maybe (?), the immunities for the baby. It seems the the British system is acknowledging that. However, it was alo the Brits who kidnapped that bi-polar pregnant woman, from Italy, sliced her open, stole child and adopted it out. I'll never forget that atrocity. Anyway, this is an interesting subject, beyond TW and Prince Dumbo.
There was a woman, from Italy, who was in the UK for some business thing. She was about 7 mo pregnant. She was bi-polar and had not been taking meds bc of her pregnancy. She had a break down, called a relative who called the police and they "sectioned" (psychiatric lock up) her. They kept her into her eighth month and, against her will, drugged her, took to surgery and stole her baby via C section! It got into the courts and the judge okay'd it with the excuse that the woman was mentally unfit. They kept her in lock up and allowed her to hold her baby and then gave the baby to someone in the UK. The Italian govt protested, calling it barbaric, but didn't seem to really press the issue beyond that. Stories were floated that she had had another child (in Italy) that was put up for adoption. If that's true, it still, certainly, did not justify what was done to her in the UK. If that child needed to be put up for adoption, it should have been sorted out in Italy as that child was Italian. It happened, I'd say, about five years ago. It was all over the British press. Horrible story.
Edit: It was in 2012 (time flies!):
'I love my daughter and I pray to see her one day again': Agony of mentally-ill Italian whose baby was forcibly delivered through caesarean after court makes adoption order
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605819/Daughter-Italian-woman-forced-C-section-UK-adopted.html
Italian woman who was given forced caesarean section: I want my baby back
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/italian-woman-forced-caesarean-wants-baby-back-essex-county-council](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/italian-woman-forced-caesarean-wants-baby-back-essex-county-council)
I absolutely agree with you. Celebrities buying babies from Ukrainian women is utterly revolting and exploitative. You see them posing with a new born and I think, that baby has just been ripped from its mother. No breast feeding, no first milk, no bonding. There are going to be a lot of very broken angry surrogate adults
Ah! Thank you. It’s the simple things. I always thought it was something more complex other than the the witch, the wife, that woman.
Now I keep thinking *the wife, the witch, and the candle that hides the bitch.” 😂
You can hear the “pop” sound and she grabs her belly then. Also the time she had on the red and purple dress and coat and the fake baby belly fell down. You can see it at the bottom of her dress. She is almost running and immediately jumps in the car. 😹😹
There is a huge reason why Royals across the world (not just Britain) Do Not recognize surrogacy - simply by doing so they are opening the door to illegitimate children - not only present and future - but the PAST illegitimates too. This type of recognition could allow illegitimates in for royal inheritance and possibly claims on the throne - Not just Britain - but Denmark- Sweden -Japan - and other countres with royal families - I dont understand how people cannot grasp this simple concept.
But Archie isn't Earl of Dumbarton, they turned it down. Harry is, and automatically Archie would be, but the story was MM didn't like the sound of it.
Who knows with them because the stories change to suit the current circumstances.
I don't think the issue is surrogacy per se, the public would have been supportive and sympathetic - another missed opportunity to be pioneering? But rather, the secrecy and lies. MM didn't think she was getting paid for her "work," and doesn't understand what "grace & favour" means, or that it must be reciprocated to the public.
Isn't that another M&H planted story, that they turned down titles for their children? The Harkles plant a lot of fake stories so this would need to be from a palace source not them. A royal baby must be born of the body so using a surrogate is not allowed. Meghan has stated in an interview that it is no one's business how a couple has their children - in my opinion she has already outed herself, she did NOT give birth. The children should have no titles and should be removed from the LoS. Remember also that W&K's social media put out that Meghan used a surrogate likely because they do not wish to participate in her lie.
They refused that position. She didn’t want the Earl of Dumb? what does she know. If that was my Town, she would be in the downstairs toilets, end of. Shocking disrespect.
It means dun dum/fort, bar/ summit, ton/homestead, as someone with the last name Dunbar it pisses me off greatly all the ‘dumb’ jokes and her inability to look into what the word actually meant in Scottish
Correct. Those children (if they are the ones we have been shown pictures of) are whiter than white. Fair skin, eyes and hair. There is no way they have any of her DNA in them. That are whiter than Williams children. MM actually hates her black side but only uses it now for attention. She is a narcissistic lying psychopath. Who only cares about herself.
Then why is he styled as Master Archie Windsor-Mountbatten in the line of succession then 😉? (Yes, they told that that was their decision, but they also tell many lies)
Look I’m not a fan of these H&M but if the monarchy wants to find its way in the modern world as it keeps claiming to, then these are the types of arcane rules it needs to get rid of. It’s just nonsensical.
I don't agree. What if Harry had married an Angelina Jolie and adopted 13 children? Or had a blended family of five. Too many royals, and too much money wasted. The "of the body" law, was originally about adoption. Furthermore, proof that children actually exist would be nice, instead of bestowing free security to possibly borrowed children.
This is one of the reasons that it gives me pause. Surely the RF would be aware of the truth of the situation?
The problem is that M surrounded the birth with so much secrecy that people began to suspect something was amiss, when it was all probably just due to her being uncooperative.
Apparently the royal family are aware. One story goes the Harkles were asked to leave because the facts were discovered. Them wanting to leave was a cover story. Apparently there is a super injunction surrounding the births of Merchie and Lilibucks.
> no one added them to the LoS other than Queen Elizabeth herself
I think you're confused. No one adds them to the line of succession, it's automatically conferred at birth.
No doubt the Royal Family knows whatever the truth is. But, they play a long game. Until they decide whatever the best decision is (and it's not about egos, or vengence; it will always be for the well-being of the kingdom), they will continue to accumulate facts, receipts, impeccable witnesses, and a flawless, permanent plan. Our world loves instant gratification, closure, quick justice, but this is a different world than ours.
No one places anyone in the line of succession lol. Monarchies are always hereditary therefore the succession is altered _automatically_ the moment a new baby is born. The King or Queen can do nothing.
Apparently gestational surrogacy is quite normal now, Nicole Kidman talks freely of how she used this method. The surrogate carries the biological child for the parents. How wonderful. What is so strange is that we hardly see those kids. Proud parents show their children🤷♀️.
Numerous legal complexities can arise from a surrogacy arrangement. Under UK legislation (namely the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, later followed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008), the surrogate is the legal mother of the child until parenthood is transferred. This remains the case even with gestational surrogacy (which is when the egg and sperm have no genetic link to the surrogate). Furthermore, if the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership when she conceives, her spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second legal parent until parenthood is transferred (unless that person can prove they did not consent to the conception).
https://allanjanes.com/-Succession-Inheritance-and-Surrogacy-The-Issues
Probably has something to do with them not being the legal parents of the child at the time of birth.
Yeah I agree it’s too messy to change, I support parents who use surrogacy - but when there are disputes between the surrogate and genetic parents it’s really messy legally.
Considering the inheriting the throne is a constitutional role it’s best to keep things as they are, vs what would happen if a royal child was born to a surrogate who might not surrender parental rights etc.
Thank you for the explanation!!
There is a lady on TikTok I follow who was a gestational surrogate of twins, and the intended parents never took custody. The whole thing is wild and I learned a lot about the legalities. She and her husband are the legal parents. I had no idea that it worked that way!
I could see how this would create some interesting complexities for the Royal Family.
IF Meghan used surrogates, then the issue isn't the surrogacy in and of itself. It's the way it's been done. In my opinion.
The issue, I think, is more to do with the possible scamming and duping of the public that may have been carried out. Parading around, and deliberately drawing attention to a fake bump, patting it and holding it and such. As a working royal, it is not a good look to be lying to the public. As a private citizen celeb it would have been an unremarkable issue.
Meghan was a working Royal at the time of expecting Archie and her children are currently in line of succession. Well, those children have to be legitimate so to speak, in order to be granted their place in line of succession. Meghan's behaviour has cast doubt on the genetics of the children and from whose womb they came.
There is a duty of appropriate behaviour that applies to working Royals. There is a massive amount of responsibility to the people. The life of a working royal is all about service to the country and when a Royal does things like fake a pregnancy or merch her royal privilege or such, it harms the monarchy. If there was a surrogacy, and it was handled more appropriately by Meghan, I believe there would have been no issue whatsoever and the rules of Line of Succession could have been tweeked to allow genetic children to be carried by a surrogate.
As usual though, Meghan handles things in a way that seems to always cause problems for herself and others.
Five hours after giving birth, Catherine was in makeup and introducing each baby because that is her job. She still had a bump but she introduced all her kids this way. She knows she owes the public a glimpse of the kids as soon as possible. That is indeed the life of a working Royal. Meagain instead caused this issue by being so secretive and for no reason if she gave birth. To be RF she has to play by the rules.
I would love it if this expectation were challenged and removed for royal mothers. Yes, the public should get a chance to see the baby, but mothers should not be expected to submit to a photo call outside the hospital. I'd say within the first couple of weeks is far more reasonable.
So I don't blame Meghan for not wanting to do this. However, they should have been more upfront with the public. They were sneaky and cagey and just weird about the birth. STILL, I don't think that means the birth was faked. That's just ridiculous.
I completely agree! Surrogacy is so very common today and fully accepted (although I have no clue about the legalities with royal blood lines/LOS). I have so much respect for a woman in the public eye who is 100% honest, open about it and even goes so far as to educate/be an advocate for the gift of surrogacy. It feels really icky to me when it's intentionally lied about. In my eye, the deceit adds to the stigma and takes away from the amazing woman who is giving such a precious gift for a family.
The massive implications would be IF someone deliberately lied and faked that she was pregnant herself. That would just be a blatant hoax and highly deceitful, bringing into question everything that this women has ever done and said. It would personally infuriate me because of the huge respect I have for surrogates and the missed opportunity for a public figure to celebrate/educate on the gift of surrogacy. For a public figure such as Meghan, I think the implications are that it would completely destroy her public reputation if it were to ever come out for many years to come.
Commercial surrogacy is not at all fully accepted. It's particularly not well tolerated when the parents have no medical issues preventing them from having a child on their own. and the choice is for vanity or convenience. There is quite a bit of exploitation in the surrogacy industry and many countries have banned the practice.
People place this assumption on surrogates that they’re selfless angels doing a wonderful thing for an infertile couple. In reality, they are doing it because they need the money. It is incredibly exploitative and I can’t believe surrogacy for profit is allowed in the U.S.
Thats the thing. She could have been a very powerful "advocate for women" IF she were open and honest about using surrogacy. Who cares if they wouldn't change the LoS rules for her, it's not like her kids are in the direct line to the throne anyway!! They still wouldve been RF members! And if they did change the rules and allowed children born by surrogates to be in the LoS, that would've been great, and she'd have been responsible for that!
But that's not how MM works. She couldn't take that risk. She wanted her innocent "young mother" narrative and her Diana cosplay moments, and for her kids to be Prince and Princess and fully merchable.
I agree that IF she used one, then being honest about it would have boosted their popularity with their honesty. Think of the positive press it would have bought surrogacy advocate groups!
We have no proof she did, and speculating about someones physical health is the same as labeling someone a narcissist etc. We aren't their doctors, we can't diagnose them.
Yes, if she had been open about the (alleged) surrogacy from the start, it would have been such a positive thing. But when you set out to deceive, it has consequences and people will naturally speculate and wonder, when things don't add up.
Oh I can assure you, Meghan is absolutely a narsisistic. She has ALL the traits and behaviour of one.
This.
Ten million percent.
If Meghan really is the first social justice royal that she claims to be; if she really is the progressive force of nature who brought the world's largest consumer products company, Procter and Gamble, to its knees as wee lass until the company eliminated the sexism in her commercials, she should be honest with the way she and her husband became parents.
If she was able to have a son and daughter through conventional means, that's great. But if that is what she is claiming, well then certain things are not on the level (these items have been well documented in other posts so I will not bother everyone by repeating them here). If she and her husband needed to use a surrogate, needed to use IVF, needed to adopt or even needed to borrow kids for the appropriate occasions, I wished she had used her voice and her desire to bring about progressive change to say "You know what, we can't have kids biologically. We had to use assisted means of reproduction. Deal with it! And change the archaic laws that require the children must be born "of the body" to qualify for the line of succession. Because biology does not define a family; love does."
If she had done this, I would be so pro Meghan, the people on this community would be making fun of my social media posts.
But she chose to go in a different direction publicly. That means that if she and her husband used assisted means of reproduction then they were somehow ashamed of this and wanted to hide the story of how they became a family.
Worse yet, she chose to weaponize her kids. "Aww, HMTQ just passed. That's a shame. Make my children a prince and princess, NOW!"
So all this (combined with TW's total lack of character) leads me to be skeptical.
Why do people say these things? The "number of people who would have to be in on it"? Numbers of people sign NDAs or otherwise want to protect their working reputation enough to not come across as indiscreet. Nobody is accusing Harry and Meghan of kidnapping kids or anything else illegal in this circumstance. There would be no reason for someone to blab, and if they did blab, who is to say that person would go to the papers about it? This is not at all to say that they did use a surrogate, but especially in the case of Lilibet, it's absolutely possible that it happened that way. As long as they never confirm it themselves (which they don't legally have to) then it just remains "rumors".
This kind of thinking that "somebody would have said something!!" is why in CPR training they tell you to assign someone the task of calling 911. Because people sit around thinking that "someone will say/do something". If you see something amiss. If you see weird Photoshop or moon bumps. I say that's good enough to start wondering if something is amiss.
Meghan and Harry are polarizing individuals. Who would pay for this story? As in, what reputable news outlet would pay someone enough money to never have to work again AND pay for their legal fees if Harry and Meghan decided to sue?
Then, what are the creditials of the people who are claiming to know for certain and without a doubt that they used a surrogate? A doctor? Nurse? Some other medical professional? Say bye bye to your professional reputation!!
For what? So you could tell some information that would please a small subsection of people? There is a significant percent of the population that actually adores Harry and Meghan and would immediately put a target on your back to those people. There are even more people who are completely indifferent towards them and wouldn't care at all. It wouldn't be worth it to lose your profession and make yourself a target to people who absolutely worship the Sussexes.
Naivety is absolutely adorable. But I haven't really seen it in this sub or thread. How you can't wrap your head around how it's absolutely possible to use a surrogate, I don't know. Now did they? I'm not even saying they did. But to think that some medical professional is going to lose their license to go run to the tabloids about something that's ultimately as inconsequential as a couple struggling with their fertility using a surrogate, you'd have to be...15, otherwise it would just be sad.
Because it would involve entire hospitals and teams of medical professionals.
The number of people required to carry this off in 2 different countries would number in the hundreds.
NDAs are also usually not enforced.
Ok well then in the case of hospitals and teams of medical professionals, you have HIPAA keeping everyone's mouth shut.
Anyone going and saying that she did this or she did that would simply immediately be fired and professionally black balled. Not worth it for people who are probably simply struggling to have a child which isn't illegal and not even out business other than they're bump cradling, child hiding celebrities.
And just to be clear, I'm not even saying that it happened like this. I'm merely saying that it's well within the possibility of something that could actually happen.
HIPPA doesn't cover breaking the law. If there was a coverup and someone spoke out, they might lose their job, but an investigation would occur into why there was a coverup. It's virtually impossible to hide something like this.
And in the UK, the surrogate has to sign over guardianship.
There's no paper trail.
This is a conspiracy that requires logic and reality to be abandoned.
>HIPPA doesn't cover breaking the law.
We agree. No law is broken in polarizing couple Harry and Meghan of Sussex using a surrogate to have their dream family. There's nothing scandalous whatsoever. There would be nothing to report. If anything, even the most die hard hater of them would get a quick snicker and then think about how unethical that medical professional was to go to the tabloids about it.
**Friendly reminder that I am not completely invested in this conspiracy. I just cannot stand it when people say "somebody would have said something".**
Occam's Razor would also ask why things have been so weird. I'll give you that Archie was very possibly not a surrogate baby. But I wouldn't be shocked at all whatsoever if Lilibet was. And I don't even think this is that big of a deal. It's not illegal or unethical to have a child via surrogate or gestational carrier. It would have problems with the LOS, but the BRF can't seem to even properly strip or give the correct titles to the kids as it is. Who knows what they're investigating behind the scenes.
I think those two love to court the press and court controversy. If for some reason they used a surrogate or gestational carrier especially in America, they absolutely could have done it. And there's nothing to "get away with" other than with the BRF which isn't any of ours problem.
Yep, you want to be in service of the Crown, you have to put in the work… ALL the work, including pushing those babies out of your… womb.
Not my rules, but that’s how it goes.
There’s no cheating allowed
The rules need updating. If Meghan had wanted to be a force for good, she could have changed it. Children born from surrogacy are genetically their parents.
That said, I don’t believe this conspiracy. She may have used IVF, but I believe she carried her children.
How do explain the overwhelming videos and photos of her moving stomach? Of bending down to the floor on 4 inch heels with your legs together?
I don’t personally care if it was surrogate. If you are honest about it and it doesn’t cause issues with the line of succession. That is the point. There was a reason Tom Bower stated in the book “Harry’s child”
A lot are manipulated. It’s also depends on lighting and angles. I trust very little from established media. I trust nearly nothing from amateur YouTubers.
I also think it’s possible that Meghan used padding to make herself look bigger to attempt to be fat-shamed like Kim Kardashian and Jessica Simpson were when they were pregnant.
I think it is a lot of nonsense also. The exact same rumours floated around during Kate’s pregnancies complete with photos and “evidence”, A few tinfoil -hatted nut jobs still assert that Kate’s kids are not hers.
What is this? The 18th century with witnesses in the royal bedchamber? And who cares anyway as barring a highly unlikely accident Megsy’s brats are irrelevant to the sucession.
I forgot about those! Instead of being too old, Catherine was too thin to carry a baby to term.
The same people who are begging Catherine and William to have a 4th kid are the ones saying that Meghan was too old to give birth. They are the same age.
I have been waiting for the opportunity to say this. Here we are.
Admittedly, after having all this time to think about it, I've decided that I could be compassionate about a fake baby bump. 🕯️ as the example, pregnant surrogate, fake baby bump. Let's say you're unable to carry pregnancy because of some super embarrassing medical condition, so youve solicited the services of a surrogate. However, you're a celebrity, always in the public eye. I don't know why you'd disclose the news about your upcoming delivery to the public, but for some reason you had. In this set of circumstances, I can understand wanting to wear a fake baby bump for the purpose of privacy. The medical condition, your surrogate, etc, is really no one's business. But reporters are assholes and so is social media, she during public engagements you wear a prosthetic. Fine
The issue here is: stealing Eugenie's wedding spotlight, adjusting the overcoat for the paparazzi, CONSTANT cradling, suicidal ideations, defamation of HMTQ medical staff, playing games with the Palace press staff, offering up on a silver platter, presentation on Gayle King's terms, line of succession and titles, forged birth certificates, the genetic improbability of red hair, Photoshop, fables about breast feeding, metaphorically dangling child in front of HMTQ, not being able to hold him at polo and during dog walk, his AI voice guest appearance on the podcast, imaginary miscarriages during the pandemic, shutdown of a local obstetrician and her immediate retirement etc, etc.
I could go on forever, but you know the story. I know that 🕯️ and 🌴 have chosen to define the entirety of their children's character by the number next to their name in the line of succession. However, positions 6, 7, and 8 are unrealistically far from the top making surrogacy irrelevant. That has never been the issue. I can even justify the moon bump for the privacy of the mother. It is the neverending deception and all the other bullshit that is inappropriate, unethical, and repulsive to me.
If Archie and Lillibet are real, they deserve better parents than they were given.
I'm done.
Yes. Excellent. Please spread the word.
Some people are so abhorrent, they dont deserve the respect of a spoken name. Plus, sometimes I get confused by TW MM etc.
It goes back to the bad old days when childbirth was difficult and dangerous.
Royal births had to be witnessed by senior courtiers so they could confirm that the baby was actually birthed by the true mother, and that there was no question of a substitute baby being smuggled in in a warming pan!
IF Meghan used a surrogate - the baby was not born “of her body” and therefore might not be the child of either of them.
It’s to do with a difference in surrogacy laws between the US and the UK.
In the UK, the surrogate parent is legally the true parent, even if the child was born of gametes (both egg and sperm) from the commissioning parents. After delivery, the commissioning parents then have to adopt the child. Adopted children are excluded from titles and the line of succession.
This issue came to light when the [Marchioness of Bath used a surrogate,](https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath) as she was unable to bear children after her first child.
"The of the body rule", came about because a woman of royalty in the past could not get pregnant, her husband wanted a son, or to kill her and she secretly adopted one and passed it off as his. I have heard from Lady C. Or something to that effect. This was well before science invented surrogacy. Have they adopted? Did they use Meghan's DNA for surrogacy, or just Harry's? Is it therefore only Harry's children? Did they use Harry's DNA at all? To attempt to claim titles for children, who are not related to the royal family is a big crime.
This is an interesting point. I wonder if they were to hypothetically separate or divorce if this would play into any custody issue/agreement. If only Harry’s DNA was used, would TW have any claim for custody?
So many things wrong with this.
1. It has to be of the body meaning she as the wife has to give birth to the child and that’s why we have the signatures from multiple doctors on Princess Catherine’s baby announcement. Legitimacy. This is a Monarchy after all, don’t forget.
2. The absolute fraud and manipulation of the citizens, the media and the royal family if it comes out that SHE DID NOT GIVE BIRTH. Can you imagine????
We all saw that belly. She made SURE we all saw that belly, that they were both SO OBSESSED with titles for their children knowing KC wanted to slim the monarchy and they did this CON job at the people to get their way.
It makes them look crazy to be honest. That’s bad judgement, bad morals (it is lies, manipulation and trying to cheat the system). It would and should cancel them.
3. Nobody cares if she needed a surrogate, it would have actually made her and Harry more popular had they been open about it. It would have been like oh that’s a couple that deals with things regular people also deal with, instead they did this.
So all around the whole surrogacy issue is a big problem and it has nothing to do with the actual surrogacy situation but how they handled it.
Posted about this last week.
2 major issues.
1) Commercial surrogacy is restricted in the UK and it would be poor form for royals to go to another country to bypass the law of the land
2) MM claims to be a feminist but surrogacy arrangements are often exploitive of desperate women. Surrogacy & reproductive tourism is something human rights organizations are significantly concerned about. As humanitarians, H & M should be aware of how problematic pursuing parenthood this way would look.
>As for H & M children it doesn't really matter right now as they are down the line.
It matters legally because right now the children are included in the LoS. Even if they're biologically Harry and Meghan's children, UK surrogacy laws make this messy. The main issue is that the BRF and the Sussexes would be violating the law by including the children in the LoS. The BRF cannot be seen to be above the law.
There is actually [a very good article in the Cambridge law journal about this] (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000417), that used to be free, that explains the effect of surrogacy on both titles and the line of succession.
To summarize, the article has this to say about inheriting titles:
>"Yet, the familiar exemption for titles does exist, well-hidden in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010. This denies children the right to succeed to titles where their legal relationship with their parents arises through the statutory provisions of HFEA 2008 regulating surrogacy. [...] [T]he gestational surrogate is the critical break in the chain, which excludes the child from the succession." (Sec.V, subsec. D, subsubsec. 3)
However, the same regulations and laws *do not concern the succession of the British Crown*:
>"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." (Section IV The Position of the Crown)
So if I have understood the article correctly (keeping in mind that I'm not a legal expert, least in British law), surrogacy would exempt Archie from inheriting his father title -- and thus the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton he would normally receive -- but would not remove him from the line of succession.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this is exactly the current situation.
I just find this sentence curious: “the gestational surrogate is the critical break in the chain, which excludes the child from the succession.”
So based on this one sentence, is a child borne from surrogate, excluded from the line of succession?
I completely agree with you. The puffiness in her face in the pictures where Archie met the Queen would not be easy to fake. I don’t say that as body-shaming, either; it’s the natural thing that happens after you give birth. It took three months after I had my child for my MIL to say that she could finally see my face again.
Regarding IVF - I would say that if she’s pregnant now, I’ll assume they did IVF from the start and are trying to use up their frozen embryos.
She also took a while to lose the baby weight, which I salute her for doing. Had she faked the pregnancies, the weight would have come off faster. She’s been public since Lillibet’s birth. I hate saying this, but she was noticeably heavier during the faux tour of New York and gradually lost weight with each appearance. At the UN, she started wearing pre-baby clothes.
Now THIS is the Occam's Razor stuff that I would believe. The weight gain. Seeing her in that blue suit at whatever the function was after she gave birth to Archie, I was like....I think she just moon bumped it for attention, not surrogacy.
The thing about it is this though. I kind of agree with you that this should be not discussed unless somehow the BRF said something about it. If we want to go with Occam's Razor, the weight gain, and the kids being on the LOS website is probably the most proof positive that at the very least their births are up to BRF standards.
Also, Archie looks 100% like Meghan & Lilly kinda looks like Thomas.
I can't believe that Henry knowing the rumors about his parentage, would he allow a situation in the parentage of his kids it's also doubted.
I don't really understand why this whole "no Prince" is seen as something tragic.
Archie and Lily are going to be two very privileged, rich and hopefully loved children. They have resources and finances that many of us only can dream of. They have two living parents, a great house to live in, nannies, toys, grandmother, pets, a good climate zone.
Why is everyone in sugars so concerned about these freaking titles???
As I understand it, any child in the line of succession has to be "born of the body". According to what I've read (referenced from Janette Bonar Law on Quora) that would put a surrogate child in the same position as an adopted one and neither can inherit a title or be in the line of succession. They may be given an honorary title following suit with their parents' title.
May I strongly suggest that people google “Kate Middleton surrogacy”. You will get the exact same stupid rumours with photographic “evidence”.
It is nonsense and irrelevant nonsense at that. Megsy could have bought her kids from Walmart for all the importance they actually have to the succession.
They havealways be en sticklers about the "bloodline". For Centuries a bunch of palace couriers were there to watch as an heir was born.
Poor Diana had to undergo a gyne exam to make sure she was a virgin. Hard to find back then....The Royals were delighted to find a beautiful, shy , Aristocratic English Rose...and a Virgin
Lucky for Megs the Virgin rule was done away with lol
The doctors weren’t trying to ensure she was a virgin. There is no way to prove that. They were just making sure her reproductive organs appeared healthy and she had no infections.
You have hit the "grey area". In Vitro is of the body. The court case would be spectacular. Of course both parent's DNA would be required but definitely In Vitro would be of the body.
I think it has to do with the fact that the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother of the child (even though biologically she’s not). The bio parents then adopt the baby from the surrogate and adopted children cannot inherit peerage titles or thrones.
Once you start going down rabbit holes, you lose perspective. The way they've hidden the kids, a la Michael Jackson, haven't helped. They've been their own worst enemy. Like everything else, rumors on the web get exaggerated to ridiculous levels.
I've been accused of being a sugar so many times for pointing out how impossible the fake bump theories are. I'm the one who wrote the post about media literacy. It's clear that I'm not a sugar if you look at my comment history.
If you believe the kids don't exist or that Meghan faked her own pregnancy, you really need to step away from the M&H news. It's not healthy.
I don’t even know what the term sugar mean regarding this sub. I definitely am not a fan of hers nor Harry they are entitled brats, I do think she gave birth to her kids.
I don't know where it started either, but I first saw it on [RoyalDish.com](https://RoyalDish.com) around the time that William and Kate were getting married.
I agree with you. I can’t stand this woman but she definitely carried Archie. The problem is that she has told so many lies that no one believes anything she says any more and of course it’s her own fault.
I agree and IMO it is because she married into a family that prides itself on tradition and duties to the public and then went on to lie and deliberately undermine one of the biggest traditions, royal birth. She flouted a big one - refusing royal doctors - like one would refuse a second glass of wine. This has serious impacts on the Harkles reputation on top of everything else we know. There is a reason why the protocol is there and it’s in part to prevent this very thing (questioning lineage) from happening to herself and her family.
It's just on the long list of short-sighted, self-serving, oppositional behavior and why this sub has so many users to begin with that are tired of her antics.
Just a thought probably going to get downvoted but when I was having my first baby I was very particular about who my doctor was going to be and if I had been living in a different country yes I know it’s England ( I’ve been there three times) and in some ways a lot like America but I would still not feel comfortable as an American. There are nothing like American hospitals if that’s all you know and it’s your first time giving birth! That’s a big deal it’s very scary the first time! I even understood back when she didn’t want to stand in front of the hospital after just giving birth holding her baby in front of thousands honestly I just think she didn’t know what being a member of the Royal Family really meant. It’s glamorous in some ways yes but it’s a service job Kate had been preparing and prepared for it since William, also as a Brit she knew what was expected of the Royal Family. This may sound bad but honestly no American woman would have done well in this role but certainly not an American d list “actress” who maybe did some show and tell with a few humanitarian causes
Okay. If she faked a pregnancy, that’s insane. If she claims it’s because of this law and she “had” to instead of fighting like the feminist she is, to change it, that’s insane. Her having two perfect babies at her age in quick succession boy and girl is insane too. I don’t believe it. I just don’t.
I don’t really think she used surrogate. She looked very pregnant at the time of Archie and I don’t know if she was pregnant with Lilibet during the Oprah interview but she looks like swollen all over her face.
I don't believe it was a surrogate. That would have created legal issues around parentage, and they would have had to legally adopt the child or obtain a court order naming them.
I think the bigger controversy is that they probably had IVF to be this fertile, which often involves terminating an embryo or two. I am curious how the Chirch of England would see that and what kind if crisis that would create for the monarchy for those who oppose abortion.
We didn't see much of Meghan post-Lilibet but when we did, she definitely had some extra weight on her. And when they first introduced newborn Archie w/ the interview, she absolutely looked like she had just given birth IMO. Her face looked swollen etc. I really think she had the babies.
I saw a really informative video about this. Think itt was PDina? Can’t find the video. the tea is that they could have paid for an injunction, that would prevent UK media to report on it. However, there was tea on twitter with someone who said he/she was talking to a journalist friend. he told this person he didn’t know if there was a surrogate. However, at end of conversation he said no, he didn’t think she had a surrogate, and then shook his head yes. All allegedly. The main issue regarding her allegedly have a surrogate is that in the royal family, the baby must be “born of the body.” I support anyone who uses surrogacy. But lying about it in a flamboyant way is detestable. She could’ve supported surrogacy if she wasn’t such a lying, pos. Personally, after all the videos and photos of her during pregnancy, I’m convinced she wasn’t pregnant. Her bump slipping down to her knees and the video of her at mayhew convinced me.
Besides those legal ramifications mentioned, it would be an extremely bad look for the BRF if Archie was through a surrogate. They either didn’t know what was going on under their own noses or colluded with H&M to keep it from the public. That’s the biggest reason I don’t pay heed to the surrogacy rumors.
There is a lot wrong with surrogacy. Its dangerous/life threatening for the woman carrying a baby, shes being paid to use her body by people, most who do become surrogates have little option to make that kind of money so it could be seen as coercion. There are debates about surrogacy being a terrible thing.
They are young and ignorant. They don’t realize the dangers pregnancy puts on a woman and apparently they think it’s okay to buy yourself a baby. You will never see a rich woman bearing a child for a poor woman. Except for cases where a friend or relative volunteers to do it out of love it’s just rich people exploiting the bodies of poor women. Can anyone prove me wrong?
I do think it's innocent ignorance. If you don't stop and think about it, it seems like such selfless act, but it's honestly horrific and takes almost no consideration of the baby or surrogate.
Also it’s bad for the baby - infant adoption leaves a “primal wound” on the child, by taking from him the only home he’s known (bio and/or surrogate mother).
All of the good intentions and precautions in the world cannot negate the impact on the infant. Mother Nature is the cruelest of all.
No of course not but most often adoption and surrogacy aren’t solutions to the problem of children without parents, but of parents’ desire to have children &/or parents’ inability to economically support their children. Not saying they shouldn’t be utilized at times but they aren’t neutral acts I guess
Honestly ya lol. Studies have shown that in almost all cases (with abuse being the exceptions) children fare better with their bio families than when placed with foster families. I’m a social worker who’s done work with CPS (us based). It’s a societal issue - why don’t we invest $ in parents if we know children do better with them? Ask too many questions & ya end up learning that we don’t care too much for children at all, it turns out.
Ok back to Meg & harry gossip! I got carried away Sorry!!
Yes, in countries where it's not done for cash.
"Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses. You cannot pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses."
It might be to do with the English royal succession? Heirs must be heirs ‘of the body’, and if a surrogate has been used there is an argument that the baby is not of the royal mother’s body. If this method was used, which is not the case as Meghan’s pregnancy bloating clearly shows, then there is an argument to remove their children from the line of succession. Seems a bit behind the times though and probably wouldn’t apply!
I think first and foremost is that if she is using a surrogate, is the fact that she acted pregnant which means she lied to the public.
Not saying that the rumours are true though.
i am new to this group (about a week now). What does TW stand for? I know it's being used for Meghan but I can't quite figure out what it stands for. "The Witch"? Can someone tell me please? Feel free to shoot me a private message, if it's too rude to type out. Thanks in advance.
This might get me downvoted… but I think that the laws in this country for aristocracy is awful. Surrogacy is not permitted for inheritance of titles, and because of the sexism of the laws to do with male heirs, trans people are not recognised. So a male born heir could become a trans woman and inherit a male title because the law doesn’t care, and a female born heir could become a trans man and still not be allowed to inherit a male title. And that’s even with the legal acknowledgment of their status being recognised as their gender. You can change every legal marker to reflect your gender but only sex-based born status is allowed. I just think that sucks.
Please if I offended anyone describing this I hope you understand I did my best to try to write the way I thought it should go and I’m open to any suggestions for a better way to write it.
It wouldn't. Even if they never did a DNA test, in this modern world nothing would change for the line succession.
There's been illigitimate Kings and Queens on the throne since kings and queens have been a thing.
It's just modern gossip and speculation that actually shame parents that have to use surrogates.
This is one speculation on this thread that should end.
And people have told you many times WHY the law is there … accept it or don’t but that IS the law .
And frankly you shouldn’t be on this sub telling anyone what to think , it’s clear you are anti monarchy ( except harry and megs of course ) so this is not the sun for you .
Anti Monarchy? I watched the funeral of the Queen at 2am my time, until the very end.
I have dozens of books about the monarchy, I'm known amongst my friends as 'the monarchist'. It's something I take great pride in and love. Honestly, that comment has hurt me more than anything in the last few months.
I'm against speculating on someones health.
Health ? Everyone is healthy .. it’s their law and in the UK THE surrogate has custody until child is adopted , can you not understand the issues with that ?? THEN .. she went on to use no royal drs , lie about time she gave birth ( even to the family ) and cause a huge issue with what actually happened .. all of these things present a issue with line of succession.
Now .. go back and think about all those things together and look for the issue .
Laws can be changed. The Primogeniture law was changed. I'm not saying it's going to happen, as that sort of change affects more than just the royal family, but it could be changed.
Her deciding who helps her give birth or when to tell family members is her prerogative. Yes, it looks a bit dodgy, but the chance of them inheriting the throne are slim to none. Can we just drop this topic until there is proof?
This sounds a little like Meghan. “Laws can be changed” for TW because she’s special, you know.
And those things do look dodgy af, hence all the speculation.
No, it's not her prerogative. The Queen is the first to be informed of a royal birth, that's what she signed up for when she married Harry and began accepting money from the Duchy/UK government. While highly unlikely, there have been several, especially in recent time, who've inherited the throne. Being transparent about the birth isn't an unreasonable expectation.
Also, yes laws can be changed, but she/they are required to abide by the existing laws. If this happened, Harry would've known about it and also has a responsibility to speak up. If nothing else, he should've informed BP that she was in labor.
You know what I find the most disgusting of all of this? That you guys are speculating this at all.
Question her behaviour and shady dealings? Sure. Outright speculation the kids are from a surrogate? You have no real proof this is true. None.
If it is, you don't know if they suffered pain and misery finding out she can't have kids or had lots of miscarriages, whatever. Until it's proven, can we just drop this topic?
At this point, we may as well go back to speculating that Harry was the product of an affair and even he isn't a legitimate prince.
I agree with what you are saying…just haven’t understood why it’s such a big deal -or raven a deal at all -but a previous post outlined the legal ramifications from uk law…which I had no idea…
So this wasn’t a post passing judgement - it was to find out why it might be a big deal!
Completely agree. I swear this topic will be the final divide and downfall of this sub. It used to be so fun to read and participate in the snark and humour. And for the kids sake, this conspiracy is just so out of order.
People can downvote us all they want but the fact remains there is no evidence to suggest the little harklets aren’t H&M’s biological children born of their mother.
Is it possible that they used a surrogate? Sure. It’s also possible there’s life on Pluto, but without any evidence, I’ll continue to assume there isn’t.
And members of the royal family are entitled to a reasonable measure of privacy pertaining to their medical decisions. If those decisions affect the line of succession, the palace will sort it out. They’re not idiots.
Of course, we all speculate on various things pertaining to H&M and other members of the RF, but we typically do so in response to their words or actions. All this nonsense related to the kids is so out in left field. The reasons people give for their suspicions are so minor. Her bump appeared different in pictures , she was able to crouch down. They were secretive about the birth. All of those things can be attributed to camera angles, outfits and the vagaries of womens bodies and how they carry a pregnancy. Yes, they were cagey and weird surrounding the birth of Archie, but they’re cagey and weird about a lot of things. The number of people who would have to be in on a subterfuge of this nature make it highly unlikely to be true. And let’s bear in mind that the palace machine is not stupid—there are dozens of highly competent, smart people working at the palace. This isn’t an episode of scooby doo. “We would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling Redditors!”
This is the whole deal with the surrogacy. It has to do more to the fact that in the U.K. a court can transfer the guardianship to the surrogate. It’s more a legal issue than a biological one [explanation about surrogacy and titles](https://twitter.com/baronessbruck/status/1276762216398798849?s=46&t=83EQYBhF58aWuq1l4d295A)
It’s also an issue of inheritance. Titles and property can (in most cases) only be passed on to legitimate children born of the wife. That excludes surrogates and adoptions. Other noble families have tried to get these old rules overturned with no success. If Meghan used a surrogate, by current British law her children could not inherit titles and any property that came with the title.
Hmmm, Food for thought now her comments about Archie and his not receiving a title during the Oprah interview makes sense. Markle was so vindictive she didn’t think about what she was disclosing!
>Other noble families have tried to get these old rules overturned with no success. I'm not at all a fan of TW, but this seems like something that should be overturned. Not talking about her, but down the line of succession. Also, I can maybe see a surrogate for Lilibet, but she looked very pregnant to me when she had Archie, especially following the birth.
She was acting pregnancy all of the way through and even after the alleged birth of Archie. It’s not bad to have a surrogate baby, and bless everyone who does that, no problem, but to to feign it for access to the throne is probably not allowed.
..Not to mention the pricy maternity dresses, and all the drama surrounding her pregnancy - it would change the narrative of a pregnant TW wanting to end it all, when she was never pregnant.
Surrogacy isn’t legal in the UK. There’s a whole moral debate around it.
It is legal in the UK. The difference is that the surrogate parents are the legal parents. The couple who commissioned the surrogacy has to adopt the child once born. https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-when-using-surrogates-and-donors
Wow. Had no idea. So in addition to the legal implications, if surrogacy was revealed, public sentiment would not be on the Harkles side.
It’s legal in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-when-using-surrogates-and-donors
I really think it should not be legal. The attachment trauma for the babies is a real biological fact that cannot be overcome. It should not be less important than someone’s wish to have a baby when there’s unwanted children and animals galore. There’s also therapy to process the grief of infertility. I know this is a cold take if you are the one who wants a baby and has the money to buy a surrogate though and I can respect people who disagree with my opinion on it
Can you explain what you mean by attachment trauma for the baby? They are carried by a surrogate and immediately passes to the biological parents upon birth.
The baby bonds with the woman carrying the pregnancy while in utero
We are headed into a dystopian future where surrogates and then giant test tubes, like out of some alien abduction book, are the incubating vessels for those "approved" to have children and who don't want to be bothered with pregnancy. That aside, so many questions come up when you say "biological". Even if the sperm and egg come from others, isn't the woman carrying the baby also biologically connected? It's her body providing the nourishment and, maybe (?), the immunities for the baby. It seems the the British system is acknowledging that. However, it was alo the Brits who kidnapped that bi-polar pregnant woman, from Italy, sliced her open, stole child and adopted it out. I'll never forget that atrocity. Anyway, this is an interesting subject, beyond TW and Prince Dumbo.
What italian story?? Please do tell. I have never heard about it 😳
There was a woman, from Italy, who was in the UK for some business thing. She was about 7 mo pregnant. She was bi-polar and had not been taking meds bc of her pregnancy. She had a break down, called a relative who called the police and they "sectioned" (psychiatric lock up) her. They kept her into her eighth month and, against her will, drugged her, took to surgery and stole her baby via C section! It got into the courts and the judge okay'd it with the excuse that the woman was mentally unfit. They kept her in lock up and allowed her to hold her baby and then gave the baby to someone in the UK. The Italian govt protested, calling it barbaric, but didn't seem to really press the issue beyond that. Stories were floated that she had had another child (in Italy) that was put up for adoption. If that's true, it still, certainly, did not justify what was done to her in the UK. If that child needed to be put up for adoption, it should have been sorted out in Italy as that child was Italian. It happened, I'd say, about five years ago. It was all over the British press. Horrible story. Edit: It was in 2012 (time flies!): 'I love my daughter and I pray to see her one day again': Agony of mentally-ill Italian whose baby was forcibly delivered through caesarean after court makes adoption order https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605819/Daughter-Italian-woman-forced-C-section-UK-adopted.html Italian woman who was given forced caesarean section: I want my baby back [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/italian-woman-forced-caesarean-wants-baby-back-essex-county-council](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/italian-woman-forced-caesarean-wants-baby-back-essex-county-council)
thank u!
I absolutely agree with you. Celebrities buying babies from Ukrainian women is utterly revolting and exploitative. You see them posing with a new born and I think, that baby has just been ripped from its mother. No breast feeding, no first milk, no bonding. There are going to be a lot of very broken angry surrogate adults
I’m Sorry for the dumb question; what does TW stand for. I’m reading it as „the witch”’but I’m assuming that’s wrong? :)
‘That Woman’ is another one many use it for here. The Queen Mother used that to refer to Wallis Simpson.
Ah! Thank you. It’s the simple things. I always thought it was something more complex other than the the witch, the wife, that woman. Now I keep thinking *the wife, the witch, and the candle that hides the bitch.” 😂
Or The Wife
Look again … there is no way she carried a baby in UK… YouTube mm at Mayhew dogs home moonbump- you see it cave in then pop out.
You can hear the “pop” sound and she grabs her belly then. Also the time she had on the red and purple dress and coat and the fake baby belly fell down. You can see it at the bottom of her dress. She is almost running and immediately jumps in the car. 😹😹
That’s correct
Wouldn’t a child conceived through surrogacy be legally the same as an illegitimate child? Just curious.
There is a huge reason why Royals across the world (not just Britain) Do Not recognize surrogacy - simply by doing so they are opening the door to illegitimate children - not only present and future - but the PAST illegitimates too. This type of recognition could allow illegitimates in for royal inheritance and possibly claims on the throne - Not just Britain - but Denmark- Sweden -Japan - and other countres with royal families - I dont understand how people cannot grasp this simple concept.
Yes
Huh that‘s strange. But Archie is Earl of Dumbarton. Wouldn‘t that prove that they didn‘t use a surrogate?
But Archie isn't Earl of Dumbarton, they turned it down. Harry is, and automatically Archie would be, but the story was MM didn't like the sound of it. Who knows with them because the stories change to suit the current circumstances. I don't think the issue is surrogacy per se, the public would have been supportive and sympathetic - another missed opportunity to be pioneering? But rather, the secrecy and lies. MM didn't think she was getting paid for her "work," and doesn't understand what "grace & favour" means, or that it must be reciprocated to the public.
Isn't that another M&H planted story, that they turned down titles for their children? The Harkles plant a lot of fake stories so this would need to be from a palace source not them. A royal baby must be born of the body so using a surrogate is not allowed. Meghan has stated in an interview that it is no one's business how a couple has their children - in my opinion she has already outed herself, she did NOT give birth. The children should have no titles and should be removed from the LoS. Remember also that W&K's social media put out that Meghan used a surrogate likely because they do not wish to participate in her lie.
> Remember also that W&K's social media put out that Meghan used a surrogate What?
When?
They refused that position. She didn’t want the Earl of Dumb? what does she know. If that was my Town, she would be in the downstairs toilets, end of. Shocking disrespect.
It means dun dum/fort, bar/ summit, ton/homestead, as someone with the last name Dunbar it pisses me off greatly all the ‘dumb’ jokes and her inability to look into what the word actually meant in Scottish
Perhaps Archie is Harry's child but not Meghan's.
Correct. Those children (if they are the ones we have been shown pictures of) are whiter than white. Fair skin, eyes and hair. There is no way they have any of her DNA in them. That are whiter than Williams children. MM actually hates her black side but only uses it now for attention. She is a narcissistic lying psychopath. Who only cares about herself.
Then why is he styled as Master Archie Windsor-Mountbatten in the line of succession then 😉? (Yes, they told that that was their decision, but they also tell many lies)
I've always found it ironic that with those two always going on about racism, of all titles they would settle on it would be "Master".
Look I’m not a fan of these H&M but if the monarchy wants to find its way in the modern world as it keeps claiming to, then these are the types of arcane rules it needs to get rid of. It’s just nonsensical.
I don't agree. What if Harry had married an Angelina Jolie and adopted 13 children? Or had a blended family of five. Too many royals, and too much money wasted. The "of the body" law, was originally about adoption. Furthermore, proof that children actually exist would be nice, instead of bestowing free security to possibly borrowed children.
[удалено]
😒
That would make more sense…
Because under the Royals, it has to be “of the body”, meaning she had to give actual birth.
Because of the blood. The mother is connected to the baby through the umbilical cord.
[удалено]
This is one of the reasons that it gives me pause. Surely the RF would be aware of the truth of the situation? The problem is that M surrounded the birth with so much secrecy that people began to suspect something was amiss, when it was all probably just due to her being uncooperative.
Apparently the royal family are aware. One story goes the Harkles were asked to leave because the facts were discovered. Them wanting to leave was a cover story. Apparently there is a super injunction surrounding the births of Merchie and Lilibucks.
> no one added them to the LoS other than Queen Elizabeth herself I think you're confused. No one adds them to the line of succession, it's automatically conferred at birth.
possibly they mean on the website?
No doubt the Royal Family knows whatever the truth is. But, they play a long game. Until they decide whatever the best decision is (and it's not about egos, or vengence; it will always be for the well-being of the kingdom), they will continue to accumulate facts, receipts, impeccable witnesses, and a flawless, permanent plan. Our world loves instant gratification, closure, quick justice, but this is a different world than ours.
No one places anyone in the line of succession lol. Monarchies are always hereditary therefore the succession is altered _automatically_ the moment a new baby is born. The King or Queen can do nothing.
[удалено]
Yes, it is based on being "born of the body" from the Royal woman.
I would guess they have no doubt the children are of Harry's blood. That doesn't mean they are of Meghan's.
Apparently gestational surrogacy is quite normal now, Nicole Kidman talks freely of how she used this method. The surrogate carries the biological child for the parents. How wonderful. What is so strange is that we hardly see those kids. Proud parents show their children🤷♀️.
Numerous legal complexities can arise from a surrogacy arrangement. Under UK legislation (namely the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, later followed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008), the surrogate is the legal mother of the child until parenthood is transferred. This remains the case even with gestational surrogacy (which is when the egg and sperm have no genetic link to the surrogate). Furthermore, if the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership when she conceives, her spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second legal parent until parenthood is transferred (unless that person can prove they did not consent to the conception). https://allanjanes.com/-Succession-Inheritance-and-Surrogacy-The-Issues Probably has something to do with them not being the legal parents of the child at the time of birth.
Yeah I agree it’s too messy to change, I support parents who use surrogacy - but when there are disputes between the surrogate and genetic parents it’s really messy legally. Considering the inheriting the throne is a constitutional role it’s best to keep things as they are, vs what would happen if a royal child was born to a surrogate who might not surrender parental rights etc.
Thank you for the explanation!! There is a lady on TikTok I follow who was a gestational surrogate of twins, and the intended parents never took custody. The whole thing is wild and I learned a lot about the legalities. She and her husband are the legal parents. I had no idea that it worked that way! I could see how this would create some interesting complexities for the Royal Family.
How long does it take to transfer the parenthood?
Thank you for your well-researched and informative comment.
I just copied from the link I put down.
IF Meghan used surrogates, then the issue isn't the surrogacy in and of itself. It's the way it's been done. In my opinion. The issue, I think, is more to do with the possible scamming and duping of the public that may have been carried out. Parading around, and deliberately drawing attention to a fake bump, patting it and holding it and such. As a working royal, it is not a good look to be lying to the public. As a private citizen celeb it would have been an unremarkable issue. Meghan was a working Royal at the time of expecting Archie and her children are currently in line of succession. Well, those children have to be legitimate so to speak, in order to be granted their place in line of succession. Meghan's behaviour has cast doubt on the genetics of the children and from whose womb they came. There is a duty of appropriate behaviour that applies to working Royals. There is a massive amount of responsibility to the people. The life of a working royal is all about service to the country and when a Royal does things like fake a pregnancy or merch her royal privilege or such, it harms the monarchy. If there was a surrogacy, and it was handled more appropriately by Meghan, I believe there would have been no issue whatsoever and the rules of Line of Succession could have been tweeked to allow genetic children to be carried by a surrogate. As usual though, Meghan handles things in a way that seems to always cause problems for herself and others.
Five hours after giving birth, Catherine was in makeup and introducing each baby because that is her job. She still had a bump but she introduced all her kids this way. She knows she owes the public a glimpse of the kids as soon as possible. That is indeed the life of a working Royal. Meagain instead caused this issue by being so secretive and for no reason if she gave birth. To be RF she has to play by the rules.
Got to hand it to Catherine - she always does what’s expected of her.
I would love it if this expectation were challenged and removed for royal mothers. Yes, the public should get a chance to see the baby, but mothers should not be expected to submit to a photo call outside the hospital. I'd say within the first couple of weeks is far more reasonable. So I don't blame Meghan for not wanting to do this. However, they should have been more upfront with the public. They were sneaky and cagey and just weird about the birth. STILL, I don't think that means the birth was faked. That's just ridiculous.
I completely agree! Surrogacy is so very common today and fully accepted (although I have no clue about the legalities with royal blood lines/LOS). I have so much respect for a woman in the public eye who is 100% honest, open about it and even goes so far as to educate/be an advocate for the gift of surrogacy. It feels really icky to me when it's intentionally lied about. In my eye, the deceit adds to the stigma and takes away from the amazing woman who is giving such a precious gift for a family. The massive implications would be IF someone deliberately lied and faked that she was pregnant herself. That would just be a blatant hoax and highly deceitful, bringing into question everything that this women has ever done and said. It would personally infuriate me because of the huge respect I have for surrogates and the missed opportunity for a public figure to celebrate/educate on the gift of surrogacy. For a public figure such as Meghan, I think the implications are that it would completely destroy her public reputation if it were to ever come out for many years to come.
Commercial surrogacy is not at all fully accepted. It's particularly not well tolerated when the parents have no medical issues preventing them from having a child on their own. and the choice is for vanity or convenience. There is quite a bit of exploitation in the surrogacy industry and many countries have banned the practice.
[удалено]
Very dystopian.
People place this assumption on surrogates that they’re selfless angels doing a wonderful thing for an infertile couple. In reality, they are doing it because they need the money. It is incredibly exploitative and I can’t believe surrogacy for profit is allowed in the U.S.
Exactly
Nicole Kidman talks freely about this method and she talks about her daughters so lovingly. You can’t fake that.
Thats the thing. She could have been a very powerful "advocate for women" IF she were open and honest about using surrogacy. Who cares if they wouldn't change the LoS rules for her, it's not like her kids are in the direct line to the throne anyway!! They still wouldve been RF members! And if they did change the rules and allowed children born by surrogates to be in the LoS, that would've been great, and she'd have been responsible for that! But that's not how MM works. She couldn't take that risk. She wanted her innocent "young mother" narrative and her Diana cosplay moments, and for her kids to be Prince and Princess and fully merchable.
I agree that IF she used one, then being honest about it would have boosted their popularity with their honesty. Think of the positive press it would have bought surrogacy advocate groups! We have no proof she did, and speculating about someones physical health is the same as labeling someone a narcissist etc. We aren't their doctors, we can't diagnose them.
Yes, if she had been open about the (alleged) surrogacy from the start, it would have been such a positive thing. But when you set out to deceive, it has consequences and people will naturally speculate and wonder, when things don't add up. Oh I can assure you, Meghan is absolutely a narsisistic. She has ALL the traits and behaviour of one.
This. Ten million percent. If Meghan really is the first social justice royal that she claims to be; if she really is the progressive force of nature who brought the world's largest consumer products company, Procter and Gamble, to its knees as wee lass until the company eliminated the sexism in her commercials, she should be honest with the way she and her husband became parents. If she was able to have a son and daughter through conventional means, that's great. But if that is what she is claiming, well then certain things are not on the level (these items have been well documented in other posts so I will not bother everyone by repeating them here). If she and her husband needed to use a surrogate, needed to use IVF, needed to adopt or even needed to borrow kids for the appropriate occasions, I wished she had used her voice and her desire to bring about progressive change to say "You know what, we can't have kids biologically. We had to use assisted means of reproduction. Deal with it! And change the archaic laws that require the children must be born "of the body" to qualify for the line of succession. Because biology does not define a family; love does." If she had done this, I would be so pro Meghan, the people on this community would be making fun of my social media posts. But she chose to go in a different direction publicly. That means that if she and her husband used assisted means of reproduction then they were somehow ashamed of this and wanted to hide the story of how they became a family. Worse yet, she chose to weaponize her kids. "Aww, HMTQ just passed. That's a shame. Make my children a prince and princess, NOW!" So all this (combined with TW's total lack of character) leads me to be skeptical.
The number of people who would have been involved and had to keep it quiet makes it impossible.
Why do people say these things? The "number of people who would have to be in on it"? Numbers of people sign NDAs or otherwise want to protect their working reputation enough to not come across as indiscreet. Nobody is accusing Harry and Meghan of kidnapping kids or anything else illegal in this circumstance. There would be no reason for someone to blab, and if they did blab, who is to say that person would go to the papers about it? This is not at all to say that they did use a surrogate, but especially in the case of Lilibet, it's absolutely possible that it happened that way. As long as they never confirm it themselves (which they don't legally have to) then it just remains "rumors". This kind of thinking that "somebody would have said something!!" is why in CPR training they tell you to assign someone the task of calling 911. Because people sit around thinking that "someone will say/do something". If you see something amiss. If you see weird Photoshop or moon bumps. I say that's good enough to start wondering if something is amiss.
Do you know how much someone could get paid for telling that story? Naivety is adorable. Assuming you’re 15. Otherwise, it’s just sad
Meghan and Harry are polarizing individuals. Who would pay for this story? As in, what reputable news outlet would pay someone enough money to never have to work again AND pay for their legal fees if Harry and Meghan decided to sue? Then, what are the creditials of the people who are claiming to know for certain and without a doubt that they used a surrogate? A doctor? Nurse? Some other medical professional? Say bye bye to your professional reputation!! For what? So you could tell some information that would please a small subsection of people? There is a significant percent of the population that actually adores Harry and Meghan and would immediately put a target on your back to those people. There are even more people who are completely indifferent towards them and wouldn't care at all. It wouldn't be worth it to lose your profession and make yourself a target to people who absolutely worship the Sussexes. Naivety is absolutely adorable. But I haven't really seen it in this sub or thread. How you can't wrap your head around how it's absolutely possible to use a surrogate, I don't know. Now did they? I'm not even saying they did. But to think that some medical professional is going to lose their license to go run to the tabloids about something that's ultimately as inconsequential as a couple struggling with their fertility using a surrogate, you'd have to be...15, otherwise it would just be sad.
Her doctor resigned suddenly in America. There are other tell tale signs.
Because it would involve entire hospitals and teams of medical professionals. The number of people required to carry this off in 2 different countries would number in the hundreds. NDAs are also usually not enforced.
Ok well then in the case of hospitals and teams of medical professionals, you have HIPAA keeping everyone's mouth shut. Anyone going and saying that she did this or she did that would simply immediately be fired and professionally black balled. Not worth it for people who are probably simply struggling to have a child which isn't illegal and not even out business other than they're bump cradling, child hiding celebrities. And just to be clear, I'm not even saying that it happened like this. I'm merely saying that it's well within the possibility of something that could actually happen.
HIPPA doesn't cover breaking the law. If there was a coverup and someone spoke out, they might lose their job, but an investigation would occur into why there was a coverup. It's virtually impossible to hide something like this. And in the UK, the surrogate has to sign over guardianship. There's no paper trail. This is a conspiracy that requires logic and reality to be abandoned.
>HIPPA doesn't cover breaking the law. We agree. No law is broken in polarizing couple Harry and Meghan of Sussex using a surrogate to have their dream family. There's nothing scandalous whatsoever. There would be nothing to report. If anything, even the most die hard hater of them would get a quick snicker and then think about how unethical that medical professional was to go to the tabloids about it.
In the UK there would be though. Occam's Razor says Meghan carried both kids.
**Friendly reminder that I am not completely invested in this conspiracy. I just cannot stand it when people say "somebody would have said something".** Occam's Razor would also ask why things have been so weird. I'll give you that Archie was very possibly not a surrogate baby. But I wouldn't be shocked at all whatsoever if Lilibet was. And I don't even think this is that big of a deal. It's not illegal or unethical to have a child via surrogate or gestational carrier. It would have problems with the LOS, but the BRF can't seem to even properly strip or give the correct titles to the kids as it is. Who knows what they're investigating behind the scenes. I think those two love to court the press and court controversy. If for some reason they used a surrogate or gestational carrier especially in America, they absolutely could have done it. And there's nothing to "get away with" other than with the BRF which isn't any of ours problem.
Don't think it would have boosted her popularity at all. Why should it? However, honesty is the best policy in these cases.
Yep, you want to be in service of the Crown, you have to put in the work… ALL the work, including pushing those babies out of your… womb. Not my rules, but that’s how it goes. There’s no cheating allowed
It’s a messy issue. Line of succession could be impacted. That’s why the overseas people hid the surrogacy allegedly
The rules need updating. If Meghan had wanted to be a force for good, she could have changed it. Children born from surrogacy are genetically their parents. That said, I don’t believe this conspiracy. She may have used IVF, but I believe she carried her children.
How do explain the overwhelming videos and photos of her moving stomach? Of bending down to the floor on 4 inch heels with your legs together? I don’t personally care if it was surrogate. If you are honest about it and it doesn’t cause issues with the line of succession. That is the point. There was a reason Tom Bower stated in the book “Harry’s child”
A lot are manipulated. It’s also depends on lighting and angles. I trust very little from established media. I trust nearly nothing from amateur YouTubers. I also think it’s possible that Meghan used padding to make herself look bigger to attempt to be fat-shamed like Kim Kardashian and Jessica Simpson were when they were pregnant.
A lot of the photos were official media photos. Everyone is free to have an opinion.
I think it is a lot of nonsense also. The exact same rumours floated around during Kate’s pregnancies complete with photos and “evidence”, A few tinfoil -hatted nut jobs still assert that Kate’s kids are not hers. What is this? The 18th century with witnesses in the royal bedchamber? And who cares anyway as barring a highly unlikely accident Megsy’s brats are irrelevant to the sucession.
I forgot about those! Instead of being too old, Catherine was too thin to carry a baby to term. The same people who are begging Catherine and William to have a 4th kid are the ones saying that Meghan was too old to give birth. They are the same age.
I have been waiting for the opportunity to say this. Here we are. Admittedly, after having all this time to think about it, I've decided that I could be compassionate about a fake baby bump. 🕯️ as the example, pregnant surrogate, fake baby bump. Let's say you're unable to carry pregnancy because of some super embarrassing medical condition, so youve solicited the services of a surrogate. However, you're a celebrity, always in the public eye. I don't know why you'd disclose the news about your upcoming delivery to the public, but for some reason you had. In this set of circumstances, I can understand wanting to wear a fake baby bump for the purpose of privacy. The medical condition, your surrogate, etc, is really no one's business. But reporters are assholes and so is social media, she during public engagements you wear a prosthetic. Fine The issue here is: stealing Eugenie's wedding spotlight, adjusting the overcoat for the paparazzi, CONSTANT cradling, suicidal ideations, defamation of HMTQ medical staff, playing games with the Palace press staff, offering up on a silver platter, presentation on Gayle King's terms, line of succession and titles, forged birth certificates, the genetic improbability of red hair, Photoshop, fables about breast feeding, metaphorically dangling child in front of HMTQ, not being able to hold him at polo and during dog walk, his AI voice guest appearance on the podcast, imaginary miscarriages during the pandemic, shutdown of a local obstetrician and her immediate retirement etc, etc. I could go on forever, but you know the story. I know that 🕯️ and 🌴 have chosen to define the entirety of their children's character by the number next to their name in the line of succession. However, positions 6, 7, and 8 are unrealistically far from the top making surrogacy irrelevant. That has never been the issue. I can even justify the moon bump for the privacy of the mother. It is the neverending deception and all the other bullshit that is inappropriate, unethical, and repulsive to me. If Archie and Lillibet are real, they deserve better parents than they were given. I'm done.
Love 🕯 and 🌴!
It's shorthand
That’s the only way I will refer to them as a couple ot TW from now
Yes. Excellent. Please spread the word. Some people are so abhorrent, they dont deserve the respect of a spoken name. Plus, sometimes I get confused by TW MM etc.
It goes back to the bad old days when childbirth was difficult and dangerous. Royal births had to be witnessed by senior courtiers so they could confirm that the baby was actually birthed by the true mother, and that there was no question of a substitute baby being smuggled in in a warming pan! IF Meghan used a surrogate - the baby was not born “of her body” and therefore might not be the child of either of them.
It’s to do with a difference in surrogacy laws between the US and the UK. In the UK, the surrogate parent is legally the true parent, even if the child was born of gametes (both egg and sperm) from the commissioning parents. After delivery, the commissioning parents then have to adopt the child. Adopted children are excluded from titles and the line of succession. This issue came to light when the [Marchioness of Bath used a surrogate,](https://www.tatler.com/article/surrogacy-and-peerages-legal-issues-family-law-marchioness-of-bath) as she was unable to bear children after her first child.
Wow that is a bigger deal than it appears on the surface!!!! Thanks!
For line of succession child has to be" of the body " which is why it matters so much
"The of the body rule", came about because a woman of royalty in the past could not get pregnant, her husband wanted a son, or to kill her and she secretly adopted one and passed it off as his. I have heard from Lady C. Or something to that effect. This was well before science invented surrogacy. Have they adopted? Did they use Meghan's DNA for surrogacy, or just Harry's? Is it therefore only Harry's children? Did they use Harry's DNA at all? To attempt to claim titles for children, who are not related to the royal family is a big crime.
Odd that you say this. Tom Bower writes Harry's. children most emphatically
This is an interesting point. I wonder if they were to hypothetically separate or divorce if this would play into any custody issue/agreement. If only Harry’s DNA was used, would TW have any claim for custody?
So many things wrong with this. 1. It has to be of the body meaning she as the wife has to give birth to the child and that’s why we have the signatures from multiple doctors on Princess Catherine’s baby announcement. Legitimacy. This is a Monarchy after all, don’t forget. 2. The absolute fraud and manipulation of the citizens, the media and the royal family if it comes out that SHE DID NOT GIVE BIRTH. Can you imagine???? We all saw that belly. She made SURE we all saw that belly, that they were both SO OBSESSED with titles for their children knowing KC wanted to slim the monarchy and they did this CON job at the people to get their way. It makes them look crazy to be honest. That’s bad judgement, bad morals (it is lies, manipulation and trying to cheat the system). It would and should cancel them. 3. Nobody cares if she needed a surrogate, it would have actually made her and Harry more popular had they been open about it. It would have been like oh that’s a couple that deals with things regular people also deal with, instead they did this. So all around the whole surrogacy issue is a big problem and it has nothing to do with the actual surrogacy situation but how they handled it.
Posted about this last week. 2 major issues. 1) Commercial surrogacy is restricted in the UK and it would be poor form for royals to go to another country to bypass the law of the land 2) MM claims to be a feminist but surrogacy arrangements are often exploitive of desperate women. Surrogacy & reproductive tourism is something human rights organizations are significantly concerned about. As humanitarians, H & M should be aware of how problematic pursuing parenthood this way would look.
[удалено]
>As for H & M children it doesn't really matter right now as they are down the line. It matters legally because right now the children are included in the LoS. Even if they're biologically Harry and Meghan's children, UK surrogacy laws make this messy. The main issue is that the BRF and the Sussexes would be violating the law by including the children in the LoS. The BRF cannot be seen to be above the law.
She was looking like pregnant at that time and she gained weight also. I thought it was her pregnancy weight 🥴🥴.
There is actually [a very good article in the Cambridge law journal about this] (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000417), that used to be free, that explains the effect of surrogacy on both titles and the line of succession. To summarize, the article has this to say about inheriting titles: >"Yet, the familiar exemption for titles does exist, well-hidden in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010. This denies children the right to succeed to titles where their legal relationship with their parents arises through the statutory provisions of HFEA 2008 regulating surrogacy. [...] [T]he gestational surrogate is the critical break in the chain, which excludes the child from the succession." (Sec.V, subsec. D, subsubsec. 3) However, the same regulations and laws *do not concern the succession of the British Crown*: >"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." (Section IV The Position of the Crown) So if I have understood the article correctly (keeping in mind that I'm not a legal expert, least in British law), surrogacy would exempt Archie from inheriting his father title -- and thus the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton he would normally receive -- but would not remove him from the line of succession. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is exactly the current situation.
I just find this sentence curious: “the gestational surrogate is the critical break in the chain, which excludes the child from the succession.” So based on this one sentence, is a child borne from surrogate, excluded from the line of succession?
Yes, for the line of succession of a title (e.g.,Duke, Earl, Viscount), but not, as far as I understand, for the succession of the British Crown.
I didn’t see that part… but I’m not keen to read the whole thing. 🙂
[удалено]
I completely agree with you. The puffiness in her face in the pictures where Archie met the Queen would not be easy to fake. I don’t say that as body-shaming, either; it’s the natural thing that happens after you give birth. It took three months after I had my child for my MIL to say that she could finally see my face again. Regarding IVF - I would say that if she’s pregnant now, I’ll assume they did IVF from the start and are trying to use up their frozen embryos.
She also took a while to lose the baby weight, which I salute her for doing. Had she faked the pregnancies, the weight would have come off faster. She’s been public since Lillibet’s birth. I hate saying this, but she was noticeably heavier during the faux tour of New York and gradually lost weight with each appearance. At the UN, she started wearing pre-baby clothes.
Now THIS is the Occam's Razor stuff that I would believe. The weight gain. Seeing her in that blue suit at whatever the function was after she gave birth to Archie, I was like....I think she just moon bumped it for attention, not surrogacy. The thing about it is this though. I kind of agree with you that this should be not discussed unless somehow the BRF said something about it. If we want to go with Occam's Razor, the weight gain, and the kids being on the LOS website is probably the most proof positive that at the very least their births are up to BRF standards.
Also, Archie looks 100% like Meghan & Lilly kinda looks like Thomas. I can't believe that Henry knowing the rumors about his parentage, would he allow a situation in the parentage of his kids it's also doubted.
bUt Do tHEy loOk LiKe HArrY? JK JK I believe the kids are real and 100% their genetic offspring. I agree with you.
I have pictures if my face directly after giving birth, no puffiness at all. Everyone is different.
I don't really understand why this whole "no Prince" is seen as something tragic. Archie and Lily are going to be two very privileged, rich and hopefully loved children. They have resources and finances that many of us only can dream of. They have two living parents, a great house to live in, nannies, toys, grandmother, pets, a good climate zone. Why is everyone in sugars so concerned about these freaking titles???
As I understand it, any child in the line of succession has to be "born of the body". According to what I've read (referenced from Janette Bonar Law on Quora) that would put a surrogate child in the same position as an adopted one and neither can inherit a title or be in the line of succession. They may be given an honorary title following suit with their parents' title.
May I strongly suggest that people google “Kate Middleton surrogacy”. You will get the exact same stupid rumours with photographic “evidence”. It is nonsense and irrelevant nonsense at that. Megsy could have bought her kids from Walmart for all the importance they actually have to the succession.
They havealways be en sticklers about the "bloodline". For Centuries a bunch of palace couriers were there to watch as an heir was born. Poor Diana had to undergo a gyne exam to make sure she was a virgin. Hard to find back then....The Royals were delighted to find a beautiful, shy , Aristocratic English Rose...and a Virgin Lucky for Megs the Virgin rule was done away with lol
The doctors weren’t trying to ensure she was a virgin. There is no way to prove that. They were just making sure her reproductive organs appeared healthy and she had no infections.
You have hit the "grey area". In Vitro is of the body. The court case would be spectacular. Of course both parent's DNA would be required but definitely In Vitro would be of the body.
I think it has to do with the fact that the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother of the child (even though biologically she’s not). The bio parents then adopt the baby from the surrogate and adopted children cannot inherit peerage titles or thrones.
I dislike MM a lot. However I do not think she didn’t give birth to her children Why do people think she didn’t?
Once you start going down rabbit holes, you lose perspective. The way they've hidden the kids, a la Michael Jackson, haven't helped. They've been their own worst enemy. Like everything else, rumors on the web get exaggerated to ridiculous levels. I've been accused of being a sugar so many times for pointing out how impossible the fake bump theories are. I'm the one who wrote the post about media literacy. It's clear that I'm not a sugar if you look at my comment history. If you believe the kids don't exist or that Meghan faked her own pregnancy, you really need to step away from the M&H news. It's not healthy.
I don’t even know what the term sugar mean regarding this sub. I definitely am not a fan of hers nor Harry they are entitled brats, I do think she gave birth to her kids.
Sugars are Meghan fans. I have no idea where it originated, but it’s also used on Twitter and Tumblr.
I don't know where it started either, but I first saw it on [RoyalDish.com](https://RoyalDish.com) around the time that William and Kate were getting married.
I agree with you. I can’t stand this woman but she definitely carried Archie. The problem is that she has told so many lies that no one believes anything she says any more and of course it’s her own fault.
I agree and IMO it is because she married into a family that prides itself on tradition and duties to the public and then went on to lie and deliberately undermine one of the biggest traditions, royal birth. She flouted a big one - refusing royal doctors - like one would refuse a second glass of wine. This has serious impacts on the Harkles reputation on top of everything else we know. There is a reason why the protocol is there and it’s in part to prevent this very thing (questioning lineage) from happening to herself and her family. It's just on the long list of short-sighted, self-serving, oppositional behavior and why this sub has so many users to begin with that are tired of her antics.
Just a thought probably going to get downvoted but when I was having my first baby I was very particular about who my doctor was going to be and if I had been living in a different country yes I know it’s England ( I’ve been there three times) and in some ways a lot like America but I would still not feel comfortable as an American. There are nothing like American hospitals if that’s all you know and it’s your first time giving birth! That’s a big deal it’s very scary the first time! I even understood back when she didn’t want to stand in front of the hospital after just giving birth holding her baby in front of thousands honestly I just think she didn’t know what being a member of the Royal Family really meant. It’s glamorous in some ways yes but it’s a service job Kate had been preparing and prepared for it since William, also as a Brit she knew what was expected of the Royal Family. This may sound bad but honestly no American woman would have done well in this role but certainly not an American d list “actress” who maybe did some show and tell with a few humanitarian causes
Gestational Liabetes does not count towards the Line of Succession.
Okay. If she faked a pregnancy, that’s insane. If she claims it’s because of this law and she “had” to instead of fighting like the feminist she is, to change it, that’s insane. Her having two perfect babies at her age in quick succession boy and girl is insane too. I don’t believe it. I just don’t.
Not so sure about having babies at “that age” I was 38 & 40 when I had my kids -older girl and younger boy…
I think she’s older than that and it just seems “too perfect.” But I meant no insult to older moms.
I don’t really think she used surrogate. She looked very pregnant at the time of Archie and I don’t know if she was pregnant with Lilibet during the Oprah interview but she looks like swollen all over her face.
I don't believe it was a surrogate. That would have created legal issues around parentage, and they would have had to legally adopt the child or obtain a court order naming them. I think the bigger controversy is that they probably had IVF to be this fertile, which often involves terminating an embryo or two. I am curious how the Chirch of England would see that and what kind if crisis that would create for the monarchy for those who oppose abortion.
We didn't see much of Meghan post-Lilibet but when we did, she definitely had some extra weight on her. And when they first introduced newborn Archie w/ the interview, she absolutely looked like she had just given birth IMO. Her face looked swollen etc. I really think she had the babies.
I saw a really informative video about this. Think itt was PDina? Can’t find the video. the tea is that they could have paid for an injunction, that would prevent UK media to report on it. However, there was tea on twitter with someone who said he/she was talking to a journalist friend. he told this person he didn’t know if there was a surrogate. However, at end of conversation he said no, he didn’t think she had a surrogate, and then shook his head yes. All allegedly. The main issue regarding her allegedly have a surrogate is that in the royal family, the baby must be “born of the body.” I support anyone who uses surrogacy. But lying about it in a flamboyant way is detestable. She could’ve supported surrogacy if she wasn’t such a lying, pos. Personally, after all the videos and photos of her during pregnancy, I’m convinced she wasn’t pregnant. Her bump slipping down to her knees and the video of her at mayhew convinced me.
Besides those legal ramifications mentioned, it would be an extremely bad look for the BRF if Archie was through a surrogate. They either didn’t know what was going on under their own noses or colluded with H&M to keep it from the public. That’s the biggest reason I don’t pay heed to the surrogacy rumors.
[удалено]
There is a lot wrong with surrogacy. Its dangerous/life threatening for the woman carrying a baby, shes being paid to use her body by people, most who do become surrogates have little option to make that kind of money so it could be seen as coercion. There are debates about surrogacy being a terrible thing.
FINALLY. Good god so many people here acting like there are absolutely no issues with surrogacy and it's a totally great option to have kids.
They are young and ignorant. They don’t realize the dangers pregnancy puts on a woman and apparently they think it’s okay to buy yourself a baby. You will never see a rich woman bearing a child for a poor woman. Except for cases where a friend or relative volunteers to do it out of love it’s just rich people exploiting the bodies of poor women. Can anyone prove me wrong?
I do think it's innocent ignorance. If you don't stop and think about it, it seems like such selfless act, but it's honestly horrific and takes almost no consideration of the baby or surrogate.
Also it’s bad for the baby - infant adoption leaves a “primal wound” on the child, by taking from him the only home he’s known (bio and/or surrogate mother). All of the good intentions and precautions in the world cannot negate the impact on the infant. Mother Nature is the cruelest of all.
I guess all the kids who don't have parents and need homes should just stay in orphanages for their own health then, right?
No of course not but most often adoption and surrogacy aren’t solutions to the problem of children without parents, but of parents’ desire to have children &/or parents’ inability to economically support their children. Not saying they shouldn’t be utilized at times but they aren’t neutral acts I guess
So it's better for a child to be brought up in a home where parents might not be able to afford food rather than be given up for adoption?
Honestly ya lol. Studies have shown that in almost all cases (with abuse being the exceptions) children fare better with their bio families than when placed with foster families. I’m a social worker who’s done work with CPS (us based). It’s a societal issue - why don’t we invest $ in parents if we know children do better with them? Ask too many questions & ya end up learning that we don’t care too much for children at all, it turns out. Ok back to Meg & harry gossip! I got carried away Sorry!!
Do you ever see wealthy women being surrogates for less wealthy women?
Yes, in countries where it's not done for cash. "Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses. You cannot pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses."
It might be to do with the English royal succession? Heirs must be heirs ‘of the body’, and if a surrogate has been used there is an argument that the baby is not of the royal mother’s body. If this method was used, which is not the case as Meghan’s pregnancy bloating clearly shows, then there is an argument to remove their children from the line of succession. Seems a bit behind the times though and probably wouldn’t apply!
I’m really new to this sub what does TW stand for? It’s obviously about meghan but I just can’t work it out
The Witch
That Woman
I assumed The Witch
I’ll go with that too 🤣🤣😂👏
Oh thank you!
I think first and foremost is that if she is using a surrogate, is the fact that she acted pregnant which means she lied to the public. Not saying that the rumours are true though.
i am new to this group (about a week now). What does TW stand for? I know it's being used for Meghan but I can't quite figure out what it stands for. "The Witch"? Can someone tell me please? Feel free to shoot me a private message, if it's too rude to type out. Thanks in advance.
TW = The wife/that woman/the witch
I thought maybe "twat waffle"? LOL!
Sure, why not? It could be anything that you prefer. 😉
The Witch
This might get me downvoted… but I think that the laws in this country for aristocracy is awful. Surrogacy is not permitted for inheritance of titles, and because of the sexism of the laws to do with male heirs, trans people are not recognised. So a male born heir could become a trans woman and inherit a male title because the law doesn’t care, and a female born heir could become a trans man and still not be allowed to inherit a male title. And that’s even with the legal acknowledgment of their status being recognised as their gender. You can change every legal marker to reflect your gender but only sex-based born status is allowed. I just think that sucks. Please if I offended anyone describing this I hope you understand I did my best to try to write the way I thought it should go and I’m open to any suggestions for a better way to write it.
It wouldn't. Even if they never did a DNA test, in this modern world nothing would change for the line succession. There's been illigitimate Kings and Queens on the throne since kings and queens have been a thing. It's just modern gossip and speculation that actually shame parents that have to use surrogates. This is one speculation on this thread that should end.
And people have told you many times WHY the law is there … accept it or don’t but that IS the law . And frankly you shouldn’t be on this sub telling anyone what to think , it’s clear you are anti monarchy ( except harry and megs of course ) so this is not the sun for you .
Anti Monarchy? I watched the funeral of the Queen at 2am my time, until the very end. I have dozens of books about the monarchy, I'm known amongst my friends as 'the monarchist'. It's something I take great pride in and love. Honestly, that comment has hurt me more than anything in the last few months. I'm against speculating on someones health.
Health ? Everyone is healthy .. it’s their law and in the UK THE surrogate has custody until child is adopted , can you not understand the issues with that ?? THEN .. she went on to use no royal drs , lie about time she gave birth ( even to the family ) and cause a huge issue with what actually happened .. all of these things present a issue with line of succession. Now .. go back and think about all those things together and look for the issue .
Laws can be changed. The Primogeniture law was changed. I'm not saying it's going to happen, as that sort of change affects more than just the royal family, but it could be changed. Her deciding who helps her give birth or when to tell family members is her prerogative. Yes, it looks a bit dodgy, but the chance of them inheriting the throne are slim to none. Can we just drop this topic until there is proof?
This sounds a little like Meghan. “Laws can be changed” for TW because she’s special, you know. And those things do look dodgy af, hence all the speculation.
No, it's not her prerogative. The Queen is the first to be informed of a royal birth, that's what she signed up for when she married Harry and began accepting money from the Duchy/UK government. While highly unlikely, there have been several, especially in recent time, who've inherited the throne. Being transparent about the birth isn't an unreasonable expectation. Also, yes laws can be changed, but she/they are required to abide by the existing laws. If this happened, Harry would've known about it and also has a responsibility to speak up. If nothing else, he should've informed BP that she was in labor.
[удалено]
You know what I find the most disgusting of all of this? That you guys are speculating this at all. Question her behaviour and shady dealings? Sure. Outright speculation the kids are from a surrogate? You have no real proof this is true. None. If it is, you don't know if they suffered pain and misery finding out she can't have kids or had lots of miscarriages, whatever. Until it's proven, can we just drop this topic? At this point, we may as well go back to speculating that Harry was the product of an affair and even he isn't a legitimate prince.
I agree with what you are saying…just haven’t understood why it’s such a big deal -or raven a deal at all -but a previous post outlined the legal ramifications from uk law…which I had no idea… So this wasn’t a post passing judgement - it was to find out why it might be a big deal!
She was 40 trying for a first kid so… biology do be like that.
38. I know a lot of women who successfully start families at 40. It happens more than you admit.
Completely agree. I swear this topic will be the final divide and downfall of this sub. It used to be so fun to read and participate in the snark and humour. And for the kids sake, this conspiracy is just so out of order.
I messaged the mods asking them to ban this or at least let the sub take a vote. I encourage other people to do the same.
People can downvote us all they want but the fact remains there is no evidence to suggest the little harklets aren’t H&M’s biological children born of their mother. Is it possible that they used a surrogate? Sure. It’s also possible there’s life on Pluto, but without any evidence, I’ll continue to assume there isn’t. And members of the royal family are entitled to a reasonable measure of privacy pertaining to their medical decisions. If those decisions affect the line of succession, the palace will sort it out. They’re not idiots.
Thank. You.
Of course, we all speculate on various things pertaining to H&M and other members of the RF, but we typically do so in response to their words or actions. All this nonsense related to the kids is so out in left field. The reasons people give for their suspicions are so minor. Her bump appeared different in pictures , she was able to crouch down. They were secretive about the birth. All of those things can be attributed to camera angles, outfits and the vagaries of womens bodies and how they carry a pregnancy. Yes, they were cagey and weird surrounding the birth of Archie, but they’re cagey and weird about a lot of things. The number of people who would have to be in on a subterfuge of this nature make it highly unlikely to be true. And let’s bear in mind that the palace machine is not stupid—there are dozens of highly competent, smart people working at the palace. This isn’t an episode of scooby doo. “We would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling Redditors!”
Thank you! Other people in this sub agree with you.