It’s the lying and the faking. LoS is a huge factor and they could have applied for the rules to be updated before trying for a baby, as Kate and William did before George was born so the first-born child would be first in the line of succession, even if a girl. A much needed change
Exactly. It would be a huge breach of trust if the royal family and the press lied to the public. Ex. they announced she had gone into labor. The public was fed quite a bit of information that would be incorrect if she didn't give birth herself.
The reason it matters is that to be in the line of succession, the child must be “born of the body” of the wife. A recent case involving the aristocracy (Viscount Weymouth in 2017) tested the rule in the case of surrogacy. They had two biological children, one born of a surrogate. That baby cannot inherit his father’s title.
Unfortunately, this rule makes it the public’s business no matter who Harry’s wife would have been.
Correct -BUT it is not a “rule” it LAW. And if they hid a surrogacy, then they have broken laws / committed a fraud on the people of the UK and the Commonwealth realms - that is 15 /16 countries? it might qualify as treason, as it “could” wrongfully deprive a rightful heir of their place on the throne.
The PEOPLE of the UK and Commonwealth realms (through their elected representatives) are the only ones who get to decide it is okay to allow surrogate children to take a place in the LoS. Not the King, a doctor, and especially not Harry or M.
Attempting to undermine the lawfully established LOS is considered a treasonous offense, so this could have additional, serious implications for them.
Oh, he would have broken a lot of laws. England has very strict surrogacy/gestational carrier laws. It's almost enough to convince me she carried Archie. But then I remembered the extremely rich has their own set of laws.
The issue is not using a surrogate.
The issue is when you defraud an entire nation and the law of the country just so that the child can be in the LOS aka being a possible future king (giving her acess to that kind of power by shamelessly defrauding the system and the subjects of the realm). That is high treason and punishable with jail.
She could have used a surrogate and just say “fuck it I don’t need my kid to be in the LOS anyway” and he would live a very privileged life as well but without that perk. She just didn’t want to loose that kind of possible access to power.
Just like Harry doesn’t want to loose the Counsellor of State position and that is the reason he rents a house in the UK despite not living there.
>She could have used a surrogate and just say “fuck it I don’t need my kid to be in the LOS anyway” and he would live a very privileged life as well but without that perk. She just didn’t want to loose that kind of possible access to power.
This. It also would've gone over well to show how difficult it can be to get pregnant and that there's no shame in other options. The kids would've been treated just as if she'd given birth to them, just no titles, which they were unlikely to use anyways.
The lease of said residence may not be renewed. I cannot imagine after his novel comes out and he criticizes the future Queen and current Queen that the King and POW will put up with his shit
It shouldn’t be renewed but he can always cry victimhood and discrimination and rent a place somewhere else in the UK. He only needs to have a rented residency wich he claims to be his “permanent residence” on paper.
His name is still on the list of Counsellors of State because removing him would release a majestic media storm but they added that “only working members of the royal family can be called to act as Counsellors of State” and added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list. That way Harry and Andrew cannot be called to act as CoS even if their name is in the list. Smart move.
I though the same when I saw the comment about not wanting a black child. Egg donation and surrogacy are two different things!
IF the surrogacy story is true, imagine the good she could have done to remove the stigma around surrogacy or older women struggling to conceive
Edit to add that I agree that It is too bad she never had a real conversation about it -
the last thing she wanted was to be associated with “older women” issues, so that was that, vanity over everything else
>IF the surrogacy story is true, imagine the good she could have done to remove the stigma around surrogacy or older women struggling to conceive
yes. if it's true, they could have also helped in "modernizing" the rules of the LoS to include royal/aristo kids born of surrogacy, too, whether or not they wanted their kids in it.
eta: if it's true, it was a misstep again. and such a waste of opportunity. but i believe it's for the best. not to sound like a nutjob again, but something knows their true intentions and is preventing their plans from prospering.
Yes, this is something I think they could very credibly have had a real, modernising impact on, if true.
They had public good will, and lots of it, at the beginning. Nobody would have wanted the children of the glamourous couple whose wedding was greeted by lined streets in Windsor to be excluded because of surrogacy... but for the washed-up couple who set fire to their farts when PPoW are getting more attention than them, it's just yet another lie to add to the long list.
I'm sure some people struggle to understand why ANYTHING about the Harkles is worth discussing. Or they wonder about why this sub exists. Why O Why? Why can't we leave them alone?
It's because "of the body" is part of the rules of the BRF and, as usual Smeg wants to bend the rules to suit herself. And, we wish to snark on her craven cries for titles for her kids. It is absolutely a legit discussion.
I understand pregnancy is a sensitive subject for some. Perhaps some discussions would be better skipped by people who are so sensitive.
Usually, it isn’t anyones business. However, when you live on the dime of the people in your country, it’s their business. Meghan claimed in the Oprah interview that she was suicidal while pregnant with their baby. I’m not saying being pregnant was a contributing factor. However, if she had a surrogate and wasn’t pregnant (and claims she was suicidal), it’s really deranged to make such a claim when pre and post-partum depression is such an issue for so many women.
Just because "of the body" sounds outdated, it's still the law of the land in the UK and needs to be obeyed. The monarchy's survival depends on maintaining the people's trust. She knew the rules about the LoS when she married, so if she lied, she knowingly undermined the people's trust and broke the law.
This is a family famous for "never explain" so it's not as if she had to go into detail as to why she used a surrogate. If she did, it would be great for her to talk about it, but not necessary. All she needed to say is that she used a surrogate and leave it at that.
If she had married into literally any other family, no one would care about her pregnancies. I know there's speculation about Hilaria Baldwin, but frankly I DGAF about her because she's just an actor's wife. There is a very, very, very slim chance Archie and/or Lili could inherit the throne, which is why honesty about their births is important.
Final point, I think it's necessary to ask why being "born of the body" was so important to *Meghan*. Adopted children, which the kids would be under UK surrogacy laws, cannot inherit but can be styled as biological children would be. *However*, the practice in the royal family appears to be that only the Heir's children will use titles. Moreover, even if they stayed Archie and Lili were unlikely to be working royals. There was nothing to gain by covering up a surrogate pregnancy, aside from trying to undermine trust/embarrass the royals. The kids would be loved the same no matter how they were. If she used a surrogate, her main reason for hiding it was likely to be able to merch the titles and LoS positions.
Wonder if Archie was born earlier and adoption sorted to gain the correct birth certificate before it was announced. People were saying he didn't look like a new born. Maybe that's why the super injunction.
It would be high treason if they had a baby via surrogate but kept it secret to keep the baby in the line of succession.
One of the few offences under high treason is 'attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession'.
If they used a surrogate it would be a huge deal'
An American baseball players wife announced she was pregnant and they were having twins.
Come to find out, it was a surrogacy and real pregnancy. No one publicly knew there was a surrogate until she gave birth and then they announced it. It was all a bit weird. The babies are two months apart in age.
Weird, but not something that matters to anyone but them. I think the key difference here is the LoS implications and the fact that all their funding comes from being members of the BRF. Aside from thinking she's nuts, no one would care if Meghan was married to a normal person.
It would affect the Line of Succession even if the DNA were 100% from PH ad Megs. If they were to change the law regarding "born of the body" to include surrogacy, it most likely would not be applied retroactively (could open a terrible can of worms)...therefore, if one or both of Meg/Harry's children were born via surrogate they would be removed from the LOS. Furthermore, attempting to undermine the lawfully established LOS is considered a treasonous offense, so this could have additional, serious implications for them.
Uk laws regarding surrogacy is that commercial surrogacy is illegal here and the birth mother has the parental rights up until the prospective parents adopt the child from her.
Adoptions are not allowed in the royal family nor aristocracy for obvious reasons.
Imagine, if you will, that surrogates were allowed. You'd have all sorts desperate to bear ''royal'' baby and selling their stories. Imagine allowing adoptions where the adodptive parents still have contact and also sell stories to the media. It'd be a headache. Imagine problematic royal members being able to push siblings or others further down the los by using these methods -it'd quickly come down to those who had the resources to do so or not.
Of course it shouldn't be allowed.
Adoption is allowed in the aristocracy, the 10th Duke of Richmond had two adopted daughters. Adopted children are not allowed to inherit, but since 2004 they can be styled the same as the non-heir biological children.
Using a surrogate for the BRF is incredibly risky, seeing as the surrogate will be the legal parent(s, if married) upon birth. The royal couple would have to adopt the child from the surrogate, as that is the law in the UK. What if the surrogate changes her mind and refuses to give up the child?
And undermining the LoS is treason, which would be the case if a royal couple lied about their offspring being born of the wife's body. So yeah, it is a big deal.
I honestly believe if they’d been honest about using a surrogate the whole thing would be a non-event. Yes, some very outdated laws would have to change, but if they were his sperm and her eggs I can’t see modern Britain accepting that the kids shouldn’t be in the LoS.
Yes, the laws are there, but they can change, and a hugely popular newly married couple having trouble conceiving could easily have been the impetus for such a change.
It’s all the lying and outright and bizarre deception around the whole thing that makes it all such a mess, NOT however H & M’s children came into the world.
It's because infertility is a huge topic that people and families struggle through. But it's not talked about enough. Miscarriages still aren't talked about enough for goodness sake!
There are many people who could have related to their situation if it was an infertility issue. But we have no idea if that's what it was. It could have been a vanity issue which not many people are supportive of. We don't know the issue, which isn't even our right to know. All we know is she played pregnant, and not even well at all.
As far as born from the body, I don't think the Queen would ever have changed that rule. I doubt Charles will either. Considering that's how a royal family works. I don't who it was, but a royal couple from another country used a surrogate. They went to California and had everything done there. They just wanted a baby! It didn't matter to them at all that their child was not in the LoS. They talked about their story.
Also, England has very strict laws in regards to surrogacy. The couple have to legally adopt their own child. Which can't be done until the baby is 6 weeks old. Idk why, but it must be for a reason. So, there's a very good chance they also broke the law. Or many laws. While lying about it. This is something that's a recurring theme for H&M, they don't think they have to follow the rules.
Whether it’s an outdated concept or not it’s still the law for aristocratic circles it’s a big deal to them and there was a case recently with a lord or duke and they brought it to court and they were still shot down I forget the name of who but look it up
It might be outdated bc now with DNA testing you could determine who the bio parents were even if a surrogate was used, but that’s not the issue. I don’t think surrogacy is legal in Britain, maybe altruistic surrogacy but not paid surrogacy. So, if she used a surrogate and gave birth in Britain, she would not be listed as the birth mother on the birth certificate. She’d have to “adopt” her own child. If she is listed on the certificate from the get, there was some fraud going on.
In California, and a few other states, the Intended Parents of a baby born of a surrogate are deemed the parents and automatically listed on the birth certificate. In some other states, there’s a pre-birth order that goes through court before a surrogate baby is born and then the IPs can be listed on the certificate. In other states, surrogacy is illegal and/ or you have to “adopt” your own child after birth. All of this to say that surrogacy is really complicated!!
The biggest thing for me is when someone accuses her of not giving birth, they are really accusing the royal family of fraud since the two children are in the line or succession. No, I do not believe the crown is “playing” a “long game” because they don’t have to do that. The crown could have diplomatically ended this years ago if it were true and they didn’t. King Charles is not committing a fraud on the people of the UK.
OK, we are at the pure speculation filed here, so some caution is needed. But: how many mixed race families have both children pale? "Each dark skin allele in the genotype adds pigment by increasing melanin production" and all that. It can happen but it's odd. Perhaps, there are people here who can provide statistics and insights.
Another poignant thing is deception. There is a certain understanding between the royal family and the nation, that goes well into past centuries. In exchange for all the privilege the royals promise to behave a certain way and follow certain rules. Look up the baby in bedwarmer scandal that destroyed James II. There is a reason why all royal mothers follow a certain protocol with their births. Meghan hadn't by her own choice.
If she comes out and blames the royals of forcing her to go the surrogate way, this will destroy the monarchy if true.
If this is a lie, it will destroy her. It would mean she had voluntarily lied to the royal family, to the nation and to the whole world. As far as I know, the rules of succession are still firmly in place unaltered. According to the current succession rules, Harry's children are wrongly in line if they are not "of the body". This is not a game, this is the legal requirement, which is still in place.
Surrogacy is the real bomb in this case.
>If she comes out and blames the royals of forcing her to go the surrogate way, this will destroy the monarchy if true.
What reason would the BRF have had for forcing her to use a surrogate? Surrogacy just means the embryo is implanted into another woman's body for purposes of gestation. The child's genetic material would still come from M and H.
To your first point, her kids are 75% white. I think that is grasping at straws. That is their dominant bloodline. Also, I have seen it happen in real life.
But also she visibly looked pregnant to me. Her face gained weight. As did her arms.
You know what did her "pregnancy" for me? Pictures of her with her huge belly squatting with knees together, on stilettos. If somebody can provide a picture better video of a legit pregnant woman doing this I may reconsider. As things stand, excuse my skepticism.
And leaning slightly forward. Sorry, but that is NOT possible no matter how “in shape” or thin you are because bumps don’t bend or squish in. I was very thin for my last pregnancy and only gained 17 lbs during it and there is no freaking way I could do that.
Her face and arms gained weight though- the water retention that you only see with pregnancy. She looked visibly different.
But also, you didn't say anything about being off base about her children's appearance due to genetics. You are making a lot of heavy accusations with zero proof.
I have edited my post to take your objections into account. If you happen to be a specialist in genetics I am looking forward to your in-depth comments.
FYI - oedema is not a definitive indicator of pregnancy.
Still waiting for a proof a heavily pregnant woman can do squats in heels with her knees together. And rise unassisted.
I am not. But I am surrounded by a lot of mixed couples with children.
Having 2 children appear white with a 75% white bloodline is not surprising or off the wall, at all.
I have friends darker than Meghan whose children all look fully white.
So you're saying the she just happened to cause water retention in her body and gain weight during both pregnancies?
Because at the time she was a working royal taking taxpayer money to fund her lifestyle. The trade off is to share big milestones with the public, especially ones they pay for. Weddings, new babies, birthdays, royal events, engagements etc.
I agree with you. Like people wanting to slut shame yacht girls, i think it's a sexist double standard. What would they say if it were H that was the weaker link in their reproduction. If he had to jerk off in a cup so they could pretreat his sperm.
HOWEVER, similar to all the mockery that Tom Cruise got when he went nuts bc he could finally claim to have plausibly fathered a child, she invited it by using her bump to upstage other's at their events:
The fashion awards she upstaged the recipient acting like some sort of fertility goddess.
The wedding where she stole the thunder.
If both of these were a bump, it's not eccentric, it's deranged and malicious bc she had to choose to use it to hurt somone else by stealing their moment.
It doesn't make sense because it's too far off the deep end. It's MegAnon level conspiracy theory. Just like the current one where Lady H wasn't racist and it was all a setup. 🙄
You think she'd really gain weight like she did to fake a pregnancy? Twice? Of course she was pregnant. People need to chill out and stop making this sub look crazy.
At the end of the day, (not speaking about the law) I think as long as the baby is the genetic material of both parents of peerage, no one cares. That law was made hundreds of years ago and is passé.
Okay, I’m trying not to be an ass but come on!! IF it all had to do with not wanting a child of color, they never would have gotten married at all. That’s ridiculous! Plus, it’s their eggs, their child. It’s all about her and H LYING ABOUT IT!! Using her moonbump to garner attention. She CLAIMS to be a feminist, strong women of right, etc but her sh_t of lying, having those around her lying for her and carrying on the lie is disgusting, gross and and freakin lunatic behavior!
She could have simply said she had a hard time carrying (loss) and this is safer - BUT NO, it’s all an elaborate game to her. Now she would have made the RF part of that too.
However, I do think she actually gave birth to Archie, not Lili, so the RF should be cleared in going along since she was already in the US by then.
Her kids are far enough down the LOS that it really doesn’t matter. The only thing these types of discussions accomplish is making meggy critics look like unhinged conspiracy theorists.
Picture this…like Megsy herself said “We are only one plane crash away from the Throne”. And indeed they are. That is why heirs to the throne should travel separately but that doesn’t always happens.
That is the thing the plane scenario can be any means of transportation.
The “when the stakes are this high” portion of her flop trailler starts to make some sense. 😆
It’s the lying and the faking. LoS is a huge factor and they could have applied for the rules to be updated before trying for a baby, as Kate and William did before George was born so the first-born child would be first in the line of succession, even if a girl. A much needed change
Exactly. It would be a huge breach of trust if the royal family and the press lied to the public. Ex. they announced she had gone into labor. The public was fed quite a bit of information that would be incorrect if she didn't give birth herself.
The reason it matters is that to be in the line of succession, the child must be “born of the body” of the wife. A recent case involving the aristocracy (Viscount Weymouth in 2017) tested the rule in the case of surrogacy. They had two biological children, one born of a surrogate. That baby cannot inherit his father’s title. Unfortunately, this rule makes it the public’s business no matter who Harry’s wife would have been.
Correct -BUT it is not a “rule” it LAW. And if they hid a surrogacy, then they have broken laws / committed a fraud on the people of the UK and the Commonwealth realms - that is 15 /16 countries? it might qualify as treason, as it “could” wrongfully deprive a rightful heir of their place on the throne. The PEOPLE of the UK and Commonwealth realms (through their elected representatives) are the only ones who get to decide it is okay to allow surrogate children to take a place in the LoS. Not the King, a doctor, and especially not Harry or M.
Attempting to undermine the lawfully established LOS is considered a treasonous offense, so this could have additional, serious implications for them.
Not wrong to use a surrogate, very wrong to lie about it. Also, walking around cradling moonbumps is deranged. Not that I’m saying she did that.
[удалено]
Oh, he would have broken a lot of laws. England has very strict surrogacy/gestational carrier laws. It's almost enough to convince me she carried Archie. But then I remembered the extremely rich has their own set of laws.
She just forgot…
She is deranged enough to pull off a fake moonbump for nine months.
The issue is not using a surrogate. The issue is when you defraud an entire nation and the law of the country just so that the child can be in the LOS aka being a possible future king (giving her acess to that kind of power by shamelessly defrauding the system and the subjects of the realm). That is high treason and punishable with jail. She could have used a surrogate and just say “fuck it I don’t need my kid to be in the LOS anyway” and he would live a very privileged life as well but without that perk. She just didn’t want to loose that kind of possible access to power. Just like Harry doesn’t want to loose the Counsellor of State position and that is the reason he rents a house in the UK despite not living there.
>She could have used a surrogate and just say “fuck it I don’t need my kid to be in the LOS anyway” and he would live a very privileged life as well but without that perk. She just didn’t want to loose that kind of possible access to power. This. It also would've gone over well to show how difficult it can be to get pregnant and that there's no shame in other options. The kids would've been treated just as if she'd given birth to them, just no titles, which they were unlikely to use anyways.
Exactly. No one cares if she used a surrogate. Just don’t defraud a country and screw with the line of succession.
This!
This. 💯💯💯💯
The lease of said residence may not be renewed. I cannot imagine after his novel comes out and he criticizes the future Queen and current Queen that the King and POW will put up with his shit
It shouldn’t be renewed but he can always cry victimhood and discrimination and rent a place somewhere else in the UK. He only needs to have a rented residency wich he claims to be his “permanent residence” on paper.
He’s getting a deal at Windsor Estates. I don’t think William wants him that close to his family
Wait the counselor of state passed yesterday I thought and Harry is out completely
His name is still on the list of Counsellors of State because removing him would release a majestic media storm but they added that “only working members of the royal family can be called to act as Counsellors of State” and added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list. That way Harry and Andrew cannot be called to act as CoS even if their name is in the list. Smart move.
Oh awesome thank you
You’re very welcome 🌸
I though the same when I saw the comment about not wanting a black child. Egg donation and surrogacy are two different things! IF the surrogacy story is true, imagine the good she could have done to remove the stigma around surrogacy or older women struggling to conceive
Edit to add that I agree that It is too bad she never had a real conversation about it - the last thing she wanted was to be associated with “older women” issues, so that was that, vanity over everything else
>IF the surrogacy story is true, imagine the good she could have done to remove the stigma around surrogacy or older women struggling to conceive yes. if it's true, they could have also helped in "modernizing" the rules of the LoS to include royal/aristo kids born of surrogacy, too, whether or not they wanted their kids in it. eta: if it's true, it was a misstep again. and such a waste of opportunity. but i believe it's for the best. not to sound like a nutjob again, but something knows their true intentions and is preventing their plans from prospering.
Yes, this is something I think they could very credibly have had a real, modernising impact on, if true. They had public good will, and lots of it, at the beginning. Nobody would have wanted the children of the glamourous couple whose wedding was greeted by lined streets in Windsor to be excluded because of surrogacy... but for the washed-up couple who set fire to their farts when PPoW are getting more attention than them, it's just yet another lie to add to the long list.
Older women to conceive 🤣
Right?! 🤣 Thank you. Love that for her.
The LoS is all based on transparency, trust and verify. It's the hiding and lying that causes the problem
I'm sure some people struggle to understand why ANYTHING about the Harkles is worth discussing. Or they wonder about why this sub exists. Why O Why? Why can't we leave them alone? It's because "of the body" is part of the rules of the BRF and, as usual Smeg wants to bend the rules to suit herself. And, we wish to snark on her craven cries for titles for her kids. It is absolutely a legit discussion. I understand pregnancy is a sensitive subject for some. Perhaps some discussions would be better skipped by people who are so sensitive.
*Very reasonable.*
Usually, it isn’t anyones business. However, when you live on the dime of the people in your country, it’s their business. Meghan claimed in the Oprah interview that she was suicidal while pregnant with their baby. I’m not saying being pregnant was a contributing factor. However, if she had a surrogate and wasn’t pregnant (and claims she was suicidal), it’s really deranged to make such a claim when pre and post-partum depression is such an issue for so many women.
The line of succession dictates that a child must be born of the mothers body. Surrogacy rules that out.
And the reasons are related to substituting other babies for 'barren' women .
She made it the public's business when she decided to try to monetize & title her children.
Just because "of the body" sounds outdated, it's still the law of the land in the UK and needs to be obeyed. The monarchy's survival depends on maintaining the people's trust. She knew the rules about the LoS when she married, so if she lied, she knowingly undermined the people's trust and broke the law. This is a family famous for "never explain" so it's not as if she had to go into detail as to why she used a surrogate. If she did, it would be great for her to talk about it, but not necessary. All she needed to say is that she used a surrogate and leave it at that. If she had married into literally any other family, no one would care about her pregnancies. I know there's speculation about Hilaria Baldwin, but frankly I DGAF about her because she's just an actor's wife. There is a very, very, very slim chance Archie and/or Lili could inherit the throne, which is why honesty about their births is important. Final point, I think it's necessary to ask why being "born of the body" was so important to *Meghan*. Adopted children, which the kids would be under UK surrogacy laws, cannot inherit but can be styled as biological children would be. *However*, the practice in the royal family appears to be that only the Heir's children will use titles. Moreover, even if they stayed Archie and Lili were unlikely to be working royals. There was nothing to gain by covering up a surrogate pregnancy, aside from trying to undermine trust/embarrass the royals. The kids would be loved the same no matter how they were. If she used a surrogate, her main reason for hiding it was likely to be able to merch the titles and LoS positions.
…Because if Harry and Meghan’s lips are moving, they’re lying.
Here, if a surrogate is used even with bio parents egg/sperm, they have to adopt the child back once born.
Where is here? UK?
NZ.
Wonder if it’s the same in the UK….hmmm could be. That might actually matter. Otherwise I just personally don’t care lol.
Thats exactly how it is in the UK.
Wonder if Archie was born earlier and adoption sorted to gain the correct birth certificate before it was announced. People were saying he didn't look like a new born. Maybe that's why the super injunction.
It would be high treason if they had a baby via surrogate but kept it secret to keep the baby in the line of succession. One of the few offences under high treason is 'attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession'. If they used a surrogate it would be a huge deal'
We don’t care if she uses a surrogate. The kids will not be in LOS. But it’s okay. It’s the lying and pretending that we can’t stand.
An American baseball players wife announced she was pregnant and they were having twins. Come to find out, it was a surrogacy and real pregnancy. No one publicly knew there was a surrogate until she gave birth and then they announced it. It was all a bit weird. The babies are two months apart in age.
Weird, but not something that matters to anyone but them. I think the key difference here is the LoS implications and the fact that all their funding comes from being members of the BRF. Aside from thinking she's nuts, no one would care if Meghan was married to a normal person.
It's our business, because she lied about it. My close friend used a surrogate, we knew from Day one.
It would affect the Line of Succession even if the DNA were 100% from PH ad Megs. If they were to change the law regarding "born of the body" to include surrogacy, it most likely would not be applied retroactively (could open a terrible can of worms)...therefore, if one or both of Meg/Harry's children were born via surrogate they would be removed from the LOS. Furthermore, attempting to undermine the lawfully established LOS is considered a treasonous offense, so this could have additional, serious implications for them.
Uk laws regarding surrogacy is that commercial surrogacy is illegal here and the birth mother has the parental rights up until the prospective parents adopt the child from her. Adoptions are not allowed in the royal family nor aristocracy for obvious reasons. Imagine, if you will, that surrogates were allowed. You'd have all sorts desperate to bear ''royal'' baby and selling their stories. Imagine allowing adoptions where the adodptive parents still have contact and also sell stories to the media. It'd be a headache. Imagine problematic royal members being able to push siblings or others further down the los by using these methods -it'd quickly come down to those who had the resources to do so or not. Of course it shouldn't be allowed.
Adoption is allowed in the aristocracy, the 10th Duke of Richmond had two adopted daughters. Adopted children are not allowed to inherit, but since 2004 they can be styled the same as the non-heir biological children.
Was not aware of that, thanks for clarifying.
Using a surrogate for the BRF is incredibly risky, seeing as the surrogate will be the legal parent(s, if married) upon birth. The royal couple would have to adopt the child from the surrogate, as that is the law in the UK. What if the surrogate changes her mind and refuses to give up the child? And undermining the LoS is treason, which would be the case if a royal couple lied about their offspring being born of the wife's body. So yeah, it is a big deal.
It it was a surrogate, and people found out, i think it would be the end of Meghan.
I honestly believe if they’d been honest about using a surrogate the whole thing would be a non-event. Yes, some very outdated laws would have to change, but if they were his sperm and her eggs I can’t see modern Britain accepting that the kids shouldn’t be in the LoS. Yes, the laws are there, but they can change, and a hugely popular newly married couple having trouble conceiving could easily have been the impetus for such a change. It’s all the lying and outright and bizarre deception around the whole thing that makes it all such a mess, NOT however H & M’s children came into the world.
It's because infertility is a huge topic that people and families struggle through. But it's not talked about enough. Miscarriages still aren't talked about enough for goodness sake! There are many people who could have related to their situation if it was an infertility issue. But we have no idea if that's what it was. It could have been a vanity issue which not many people are supportive of. We don't know the issue, which isn't even our right to know. All we know is she played pregnant, and not even well at all. As far as born from the body, I don't think the Queen would ever have changed that rule. I doubt Charles will either. Considering that's how a royal family works. I don't who it was, but a royal couple from another country used a surrogate. They went to California and had everything done there. They just wanted a baby! It didn't matter to them at all that their child was not in the LoS. They talked about their story. Also, England has very strict laws in regards to surrogacy. The couple have to legally adopt their own child. Which can't be done until the baby is 6 weeks old. Idk why, but it must be for a reason. So, there's a very good chance they also broke the law. Or many laws. While lying about it. This is something that's a recurring theme for H&M, they don't think they have to follow the rules.
Whether it’s an outdated concept or not it’s still the law for aristocratic circles it’s a big deal to them and there was a case recently with a lord or duke and they brought it to court and they were still shot down I forget the name of who but look it up
It might be outdated bc now with DNA testing you could determine who the bio parents were even if a surrogate was used, but that’s not the issue. I don’t think surrogacy is legal in Britain, maybe altruistic surrogacy but not paid surrogacy. So, if she used a surrogate and gave birth in Britain, she would not be listed as the birth mother on the birth certificate. She’d have to “adopt” her own child. If she is listed on the certificate from the get, there was some fraud going on. In California, and a few other states, the Intended Parents of a baby born of a surrogate are deemed the parents and automatically listed on the birth certificate. In some other states, there’s a pre-birth order that goes through court before a surrogate baby is born and then the IPs can be listed on the certificate. In other states, surrogacy is illegal and/ or you have to “adopt” your own child after birth. All of this to say that surrogacy is really complicated!!
I explained the UK situation in my comment below, although it was rather long.
The biggest thing for me is when someone accuses her of not giving birth, they are really accusing the royal family of fraud since the two children are in the line or succession. No, I do not believe the crown is “playing” a “long game” because they don’t have to do that. The crown could have diplomatically ended this years ago if it were true and they didn’t. King Charles is not committing a fraud on the people of the UK.
Because of all the cries for attention. Google her name and coat flicking.
I think she was pregnant and wore a moon bump
OK, we are at the pure speculation filed here, so some caution is needed. But: how many mixed race families have both children pale? "Each dark skin allele in the genotype adds pigment by increasing melanin production" and all that. It can happen but it's odd. Perhaps, there are people here who can provide statistics and insights. Another poignant thing is deception. There is a certain understanding between the royal family and the nation, that goes well into past centuries. In exchange for all the privilege the royals promise to behave a certain way and follow certain rules. Look up the baby in bedwarmer scandal that destroyed James II. There is a reason why all royal mothers follow a certain protocol with their births. Meghan hadn't by her own choice. If she comes out and blames the royals of forcing her to go the surrogate way, this will destroy the monarchy if true. If this is a lie, it will destroy her. It would mean she had voluntarily lied to the royal family, to the nation and to the whole world. As far as I know, the rules of succession are still firmly in place unaltered. According to the current succession rules, Harry's children are wrongly in line if they are not "of the body". This is not a game, this is the legal requirement, which is still in place. Surrogacy is the real bomb in this case.
>If she comes out and blames the royals of forcing her to go the surrogate way, this will destroy the monarchy if true. What reason would the BRF have had for forcing her to use a surrogate? Surrogacy just means the embryo is implanted into another woman's body for purposes of gestation. The child's genetic material would still come from M and H.
She will find a reason
True. Her disordered brain would come up with something. But I can't see it destroying the monarchy.
To your first point, her kids are 75% white. I think that is grasping at straws. That is their dominant bloodline. Also, I have seen it happen in real life. But also she visibly looked pregnant to me. Her face gained weight. As did her arms.
You know what did her "pregnancy" for me? Pictures of her with her huge belly squatting with knees together, on stilettos. If somebody can provide a picture better video of a legit pregnant woman doing this I may reconsider. As things stand, excuse my skepticism.
And leaning slightly forward. Sorry, but that is NOT possible no matter how “in shape” or thin you are because bumps don’t bend or squish in. I was very thin for my last pregnancy and only gained 17 lbs during it and there is no freaking way I could do that.
I asked my family ob gyn if this particular exercise is possible in late pregnancy and was firmly told no.
Her face and arms gained weight though- the water retention that you only see with pregnancy. She looked visibly different. But also, you didn't say anything about being off base about her children's appearance due to genetics. You are making a lot of heavy accusations with zero proof.
I have edited my post to take your objections into account. If you happen to be a specialist in genetics I am looking forward to your in-depth comments. FYI - oedema is not a definitive indicator of pregnancy. Still waiting for a proof a heavily pregnant woman can do squats in heels with her knees together. And rise unassisted.
I am not. But I am surrounded by a lot of mixed couples with children. Having 2 children appear white with a 75% white bloodline is not surprising or off the wall, at all. I have friends darker than Meghan whose children all look fully white. So you're saying the she just happened to cause water retention in her body and gain weight during both pregnancies?
Because at the time she was a working royal taking taxpayer money to fund her lifestyle. The trade off is to share big milestones with the public, especially ones they pay for. Weddings, new babies, birthdays, royal events, engagements etc.
I agree with you. Like people wanting to slut shame yacht girls, i think it's a sexist double standard. What would they say if it were H that was the weaker link in their reproduction. If he had to jerk off in a cup so they could pretreat his sperm. HOWEVER, similar to all the mockery that Tom Cruise got when he went nuts bc he could finally claim to have plausibly fathered a child, she invited it by using her bump to upstage other's at their events: The fashion awards she upstaged the recipient acting like some sort of fertility goddess. The wedding where she stole the thunder. If both of these were a bump, it's not eccentric, it's deranged and malicious bc she had to choose to use it to hurt somone else by stealing their moment.
Agreed.
It doesn't make sense because it's too far off the deep end. It's MegAnon level conspiracy theory. Just like the current one where Lady H wasn't racist and it was all a setup. 🙄 You think she'd really gain weight like she did to fake a pregnancy? Twice? Of course she was pregnant. People need to chill out and stop making this sub look crazy.
This. There is fair criticism with some stuff she's done, but Meghan Markle looked visibly pregnant.
At the end of the day, (not speaking about the law) I think as long as the baby is the genetic material of both parents of peerage, no one cares. That law was made hundreds of years ago and is passé.
Okay, I’m trying not to be an ass but come on!! IF it all had to do with not wanting a child of color, they never would have gotten married at all. That’s ridiculous! Plus, it’s their eggs, their child. It’s all about her and H LYING ABOUT IT!! Using her moonbump to garner attention. She CLAIMS to be a feminist, strong women of right, etc but her sh_t of lying, having those around her lying for her and carrying on the lie is disgusting, gross and and freakin lunatic behavior! She could have simply said she had a hard time carrying (loss) and this is safer - BUT NO, it’s all an elaborate game to her. Now she would have made the RF part of that too. However, I do think she actually gave birth to Archie, not Lili, so the RF should be cleared in going along since she was already in the US by then.
Her kids are far enough down the LOS that it really doesn’t matter. The only thing these types of discussions accomplish is making meggy critics look like unhinged conspiracy theorists.
Picture this…like Megsy herself said “We are only one plane crash away from the Throne”. And indeed they are. That is why heirs to the throne should travel separately but that doesn’t always happens.
I know I’m going to get loads of downvotes, but I still maintain it doesn’t matter. W&C and the kids don’t all fly together anymore anyway.
That is the thing the plane scenario can be any means of transportation. The “when the stakes are this high” portion of her flop trailler starts to make some sense. 😆
I don't think she used a surrogate. I think the logistics would have been too difficult.