Split Thread: Duchess of Sussex conspiracy theories

[Vixen]

Reading into Meghan's lies that she had no idea who Harry was, nor anything about the British Royal Family, together with the scandalous mud-racking, falsely claiming Archie was denied the title of 'Prince' , is very revealing actually. She admits the plan to leave the UK was within six months of the wedding. However, they had already registered their profit making organisations (Archewell behind a Delaware LLC wall) round about the time of Eugenie's wedding (September that year). In other words before there was any chance for anyone to direct racists comments towards the forthcoming child.

It is clear it was always Meghan's plan to cash in on her wedding. Many of he people invited to her wedding were/are employed by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions, owned by CNS. These included Clooney, who the pair also did not know at the time. Scobie and Durrell who cashed in on a biography are also connected to Harpo. Meghan was very close to Markus Anderson who ran Soho House and appeared to be virtually living with him, they bought a dog together and he always seemed to be in the background. He set up the meeting with Harry and Meghan. In other words, for Meghan and Oprah & co, this was a great chance for a multi-million dollar opportunity. Now, there is no law against commercial enterprise, which I believe Meghan's marriage to Harry was. Problem is, it is very much against the Royal Family ethos. Meghan coldly mud-raking and stirring up scurrilous gossip on the Royal Family to earn millions for Oprah and raise her own commercial profile is so obviously her strategy from the start. I blame Harry for allowing himself to go along with it. He is a disgrace and a great disappointment to his grandparents, one of whom is seriously ill in hospital.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My only issue with Oprah is that she's been the biggest mouthpiece and soapbox for Woo Slingers in the last couple of decades.

As an American every layer of every angle of "The Royalty" and their relationship with the British public is functionally insane.

She's good at what she does. However, anyone who hasn't followed what happened to Diana, believes all this bullcrap about how she was killed by the papparazzi, failing to mention she got into a car with a very drunk driver, did not wear a seat belt and refused an RPO (royal protection officer) which had been offered her by the bad bad Royal Family.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Reading into Meghan's lies that she had no idea who Harry was, nor anything about the British Royal Family, together with the scandalous mud-racking, falsely claiming Archie was denied the title of 'Prince' , is very revealing actually. She admits the plan to leave the UK was within six months of the wedding. However, they had already registered their profit making organisations (Archewell behind a Delaware LLC wall) round about the time of Eugenie's wedding (September that year). In other words before there was any chance for anyone to direct racists comments towards the forthcoming child.

It is clear it was always Meghan's plan to cash in on her wedding. Many of he people invited to her wedding were/are employed by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions, owned by CNS. These included Clooney, who the pair also did not know at the time. Scobie and Durrell who cashed in on a biography are also connected to Harpo. Meghan was very close to Markus Anderson who ran Soho House and appeared to be virtually living with him, they bought a dog together and he always seemed to be in the background. He set up the meeting with Harry and Meghan. In other words, for Meghan and Oprah & co, this was a great chance for a multi-million dollar opportunity. Now, there is no law against commercial enterprise, which I believe Meghan's marriage to Harry was. Problem is, it is very much against the Royal Family ethos. Meghan coldly mud-raking and stirring up scurrilous gossip on the Royal Family to earn millions for Oprah and raise her own commercial profile is so obviously her strategy from the start. I blame Harry for allowing himself to go along with it. He is a disgrace and a great disappointment to his grandparents, one of whom is seriously ill in hospital.

So Oprah's behind everything? That's quite an elaborate conspiracy theory. Any evidence?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bob001

So Oprah's behind everything? That's quite an elaborate conspiracy theory. Any evidence?

Don't take my word for it:

Quote:

Harpo Productions (or Harpo Studios) is an American multimedia production company founded by Oprah Winfrey and based in West Hollywood, California.[1][2] It is the sole subsidiary of her media and entertainment company Harpo, Inc. The name "Harpo" is "Oprah" spelled backwards, and it was also the name of her on-screen husband in The Color Purple.

Wiki

It has >12K employees. It is a commercial outfit. Of course Oprah was eager to come to the wedding even though she didn't know the pair! She offered Meghan an interview which the Royal Family blocked. Gayle King also offered an exclusive on the birth of Archie. Also part of Harpo.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Don't take my word for it:
.....

Everyone knows that Oprah operates a large multimedia business. Your claim is that Meghan conspired with her from before her marriage to milk the royal family. That's quite a charge. Evidence?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Vixen

She's good at what she does. However, anyone who hasn't followed what happened to Diana, believes all this bullcrap about how she was killed by the papparazzi, failing to mention she got into a car with a very drunk driver, did not wear a seat belt and refused an RPO (royal protection officer) which had been offered her by the bad bad Royal Family.

Squirrels are the leading cause of power outages in the United States.

...

..

.

Oh I'm sorry I thought you were challenging me to a "response that has the least possible to do with what you were responding to" contest and I'm competitive by nature.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Everyone knows that Oprah operates a large multimedia business. Your claim is that Meghan conspired with her from before her marriage to milk the royal family. That's quite a charge. Evidence?

I didn't say comspired. I see it as a big scam by Meghan. It is not illegal to cash in but IMV it was dishonourable of her to marry into the Royal Family just for the purpose of cashing in on it. The fact that the pair had trademarked and patented Sussex Royal and Archewell from the get go indicating a desire to go into business. Meghan left all of her stuff in storage in Canada. She made no attempt to fit in with the Royal Family. Refused to wear a hat when sitting with the Queen, rudely pushing in front of her. Banning the bridesmaids from wearing tights, just because Kate kindly suggested it, tales of bullying staff.

OK so she is entitled to have her perspective on it but there are two sides to every tale. I don't believe Charles is a racist. He was a great fan of the Three Degrees and kindly walked Meghan down the aisle. I don't believe William or Kate would have said anything racist to her, either, nor even Camilla. The Queen is certainly not racist. Prince Philip maybe, but he was there at the wedding. He is pictured with Archie. Oprah confirms the accusations of racism were nothing to do with the Queen or Philip.

Meghan said it came during her pregnancy, Harry claims it was before. He has to say that, because if as is rumoured it was a surrogate, Meghan would have known in advance the baby's likely outward appearance.

[JoeMorgue]

Oh you're still on the fake pregnancy conspiracy theory I see.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I didn't say comspired. I see it as a big scam by Meghan. It is not illegal to cash in but IMV it was dishonourable of her to marry into the Royal Family just for the purpose of cashing in on it. The fact that the pair had trademarked and patented Sussex Royal and Archewell from the get go indicating a desire to go into business. Meghan left all of her stuff in storage in Canada. She made no attempt to fit in with the Royal Family. Refused to wear a hat when sitting with the Queen, rudely pushing in front of her. Banning the bridesmaids from wearing tights, just because Kate kindly suggested it, tales of bullying staff.

OK so she is entitled to have her perspective on it but there are two sides to every tale. I don't believe Charles is a racist. He was a great fan of the Three Degrees and kindly walked Meghan down the aisle. I don't believe William or Kate would have said anything racist to her, either, nor even Camilla. The Queen is certainly not racist. Prince Philip maybe, but he was there at the wedding. He is pictured with Archie. Oprah confirms the accusations of racism were nothing to do with the Queen or Philip.

Meghan said it came during her pregnancy, Harry claims it was before. He has to say that, because if as is rumoured it was a surrogate, Meghan would have known in advance the baby's likely outward appearance.

I would bet the queen is racist. I bet a lot of people who were progressive in their youth have time pass them by and end up being out of touch with modern standards.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I didn't say comspired. I see it as a big scam by Meghan. It is not illegal to cash in but IMV it was dishonourable of her to marry into the Royal Family just for the purpose of cashing in on it. The fact that the pair had trademarked and patented Sussex Royal and Archewell from the get go indicating a desire to go into business. Meghan left all of her stuff in storage in Canada. She made no attempt to fit in with the Royal Family. Refused to wear a hat when sitting with the Queen, rudely pushing in front of her. Banning the bridesmaids from wearing tights, just because Kate kindly suggested it, tales of bullying staff.

OK so she is entitled to have her perspective on it but there are two sides to every tale. I don't believe Charles is a racist. He was a great fan of the Three Degrees and kindly walked Meghan down the aisle. I don't believe William or Kate would have said anything racist to her, either, nor even Camilla. The Queen is certainly not racist. Prince Philip maybe, but he was there at the wedding. He is pictured with Archie. Oprah confirms the accusations of racism were nothing to do with the Queen or Philip.

Meghan said it came during her pregnancy, Harry claims it was before. He has to say that, because if as is rumoured it was a surrogate, Meghan would have known in advance the baby's likely outward appearance.

I just fact checked this post. Not one in it.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by lionking

I just fact checked this post. Not one in it.

That post was so wrong I now sincerely doubt a person named Meghan even actually exists just because this post said they did.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Vixen

.....
Meghan said it came during her pregnancy, Harry claims it was before. He has to say that, because if as is rumoured it was a surrogate, Meghan would have known in advance the baby's likely outward appearance.

WTF?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

WTF?

Some nonsense that Vixen totally made up in the last thread about the Royals and won't let go of.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Some nonsense that Vixen totally made up in the last thread about the Royals and won't let go of.

It sounds like the kind of crap brainstormed in a meeting of British tabloid reporters and the royal representatives who feed them the proverbial party line. The idea is then tossed aside as being just a bit unsubtle.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That post was so wrong I now sincerely doubt a person named Meghan even actually exists just because this post said they did.

Yeah, it’s like a Discworld phenomena we gone so far from reality we’ve come out the other side into unreality.

I bet the UK doesn’t even have a monarchy.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yeah, it’s like a Discworld phenomena we gone so far from reality we’ve come out the other side into unreality.

I bet the UK doesn’t even have a monarchy.

*Scoffs* Get a load of this sheep, thinking the UK actually exists.

[Axxman300]

As of July 5th, 1776 I was no longer honor nor duty bound to give a rat's rear end about royalty of any kind.

Except for Elvis, I care about Elvis.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

So Oprah's behind everything? That's quite an elaborate conspiracy theory. Any evidence?

Heh. Rule of so.

The way I read it is that Meghan Markle is behind everything, and has partnered with Oprah to monetize her circumstances in some way. I'll grant it's a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't seem to describe anything very elaborate. Consider:

Markle sees her celebrity status as a business opportunity. Starts networking with a professional in that field to figure out how to work it.

Or:

Winfrey sees Markle's celebrity status as a business opportunity. Starts networking with her to see if they can figure out how to work it.

Neither seems very elaborate at all.

Is appeal to spurious complexity a subset of appeal to incredulity?

And I mean, this barely rises to the level of conspiracy theory anyway. If Markle et al. really did make some business maneuvers earlier than supposed... then they really did make those business maneuvers. That's not really a conspiracy theory at that point, just evidence of a plan in existence from at least that moment.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Heh. Rule of so.

The way I read it is that Meghan Markle is behind everything, and has partnered with Oprah to monetize her circumstances in some way. I'll grant it's a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't seem to describe anything very elaborate. Consider:

Markle sees her celebrity status as a business opportunity. Starts networking with a professional in that field to figure out how to work it.

Or:

Winfrey sees Markle's celebrity status as a business opportunity. Starts networking with her to see if they can figure out how to work it.

Neither seems very elaborate at all.

Is appeal to spurious complexity a subset of appeal to incredulity?

And I mean, this barely rises to the level of conspiracy theory anyway. If Markle et al. really did make some business maneuvers earlier than supposed... then they really did make those business maneuvers. That's not really a conspiracy theory at that point, just evidence of a plan in existence from at least that moment.

If that was all Vixen was posting about, that would be fine. But we have allegations of Markle having a phantom pregnancy (I think), making up and spreading malicious lies about the royal family and conspiring with Oprah to spread them.

Well into CT territory I believe.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by lionking

If that was all Vixen was posting about, that would be fine. But we have allegations of Markle having a phantom pregnancy (I think), making up and spreading malicious lies about the royal family and conspiring with Oprah to spread them.

Well into CT territory I believe.

I didn't say it was phantom. I said if it was by surrogate, as rumoured. There is no shame in having a surrogate baby, especially in your late-30's when conception can be difficult. The only issue is that it can cause legal problems within the royal hierachy. MM is clearly deeply upset about Archie's treatment and surely Harry explained to her the reason he was not an immediate Prince. Fact is, in the UK a baby born of a surrogate has a different legal status to one born in the USA. If it was a surragate (and I am saying IF) then the issue of what colour the baby will be has already been decided because she would know the complexion of the surrogate mother, thus if she chose a light skinned baby then she is projecting her own racism onto this imaginary figure who supposedly made a racist comment about him.

Yes, I do think what she did with Oprah was unconscionable, with zero consideration towards the people she was publicly attacking.

[sphenisc]

So, given another car accident in Paris would look suspicious, what other options are open to the Firm?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I would bet the queen is racist. I bet a lot of people who were progressive in their youth have time pass them by and end up being out of touch with modern standards.

I'm not entirely sure I want to post in this thread. To a great extent my response, "Who really cares?"

But I will stand up for my Queen.

Lawrence Hill, the author of The Book of Negroes, had a one-on-one audience with her when the book won the Commonwealth Prize. ISTR he says he was somewhat nervous initially but it turned out that the two of them got on amazingly well.

The CBC Archives are giving me a 404 on the program about where he discusses the meeting. There is a YouTube video but I remember him being interviewed on radio.

From: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canadian-auth...queen-1.310917

CTV quotes him as saying " . . . he was surprised by how conversational and engaged the Queen was during their chat, and how easygoing the experience was." And "She asked Hill about the historical roots of his novel, what it's like to be a writer, and she spoke about her visits to Canada and how she imagines it would be a "wonderful" place to live. Hill says the Queen had only been briefed on his book and hadn't actually read it but he wasn't disappointed. "

This is the YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXQDnvXWss&t

It cuts at the point where he is introduced to a smiling Queen and their shaking hands.

[whatsthedreamnow]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I'm not entirely sure I want to post in this thread. To a great extent my response, "Who really cares?"

But I will stand up for my Queen.

Lawrence Hill, the author of The Book of Negroes, had a one-on-one audience with her when the book won the Commonwealth Prize. ISTR he says he was somewhat nervous initially but it turned out that the two of them got on amazingly well.

The CBC Archives are giving me a 404 on the program about where he discusses the meeting. There is a YouTube video but I remember him being interviewed on radio.

From: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canadian-auth...queen-1.310917

CTV quotes him as saying " . . . he was surprised by how conversational and engaged the Queen was during their chat, and how easygoing the experience was." And "She asked Hill about the historical roots of his novel, what it's like to be a writer, and she spoke about her visits to Canada and how she imagines it would be a "wonderful" place to live. Hill says the Queen had only been briefed on his book and hadn't actually read it but he wasn't disappointed. "

This is the YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXQDnvXWss&t

It cuts at the point where he is introduced to a smiling Queen and their shaking hands.

And the concern about the skin tone of Harry's child? Where do you suppose that originated from?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by whatsthedreamnow

And the concern about the skin tone of Harry's child? Where do you suppose that originated from?

What we have there is Meghan's version of a conversation that she did not take part in, related to her by someone who says they won't discuss the actual details or name the person who allegedly said this.
I think the way this supposed conversation is phrased by Meghan is highly suspicious. 'Concerns were raised over the skin colour'. What concerns? We don't know. In what context? We don't know.
Consider this: I imagine that most British people would have no problem at all with a mixed-race royal. However, there is undoubtedly a segment of British society that would have a problem with this (i.e., the racist far-right). It is, I suggest, entirely possible that this claimed conversation was along the lines of "most people will be fine with this, but you may get some antagonism from certain sections of society, and so you should be ready for that. The darker the baby's skin colour, the more likely it is that there will be a reaction from racists". That scenario, too, is 'raising concerns about the baby's skin colour', but is not racist itself.
The phrasing of Meghan's version is, I think, deliberately vague and ambiguous, so as to lead viewers to conclude that they were the victims of racism, whilst allowing enough deniability in the case of legal action. Why could Harry not just tell us exactly what was said? Why these weasel words? This looks to me like a calculated attempt to create and manage a media narrative.
Before everyone starts screaming at me, all I'm saying is that we only have one side of the story, which is hearsay, and expressed in a crafted and leading way. Until we get some response from Buckingham Palace, we really don't know for sure.

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh FFS!

Why TAF is anyone actually concerned about what the pampered bunch of over-privileged, rather dim, useless know-nothings, hypocrites, closet (or not so closet in some cases) racists, alleged sexual abusers who've never done anything to justify their life of sodding Riley do or think? Sorry, that last word is used in its very loosest sense...

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Oh FFS!

Why TAF is anyone actually concerned about what the pampered bunch of over-privileged, rather dim, useless know-nothings, hypocrites, closet (or not so closet in some cases) racists, alleged sexual abusers who've never done anything to justify their life of sodding Riley do or think? Sorry, that last word is used in its very loosest sense...

This thread is not about the Trumps!

[Craig4]

I haven't watched the coverage and honestly don't care that much but it's not hard to imagine a very racist Royal family concerned about the skin color of the baby. Let's face it, there's a history there. Didn't Charles once tell a reporter she didn't look like she was from a British city because she was someone of color? There doesn't seem to be a limit to how tone-deaf the royals can be.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I haven't watched the coverage and honestly don't care that much but it's not hard to imagine a very racist Royal family concerned about the skin color of the baby. Let's face it, there's a history there. Didn't Charles once tell a reporter she didn't look like she was from a British city because she was someone of color? There doesn't seem to be a limit to how tone-deaf the royals can be.

Is there?
You see, I was thinking about this, and the only likely candidate, to my mind, was Prince Phillip. Then Harry said it wasn't him.
That leaves Charles, and the younger royals. I can't bring to mind any instance of obvious racism by any of those people- which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.
Does the current crop of Windsors have a history of public racism?

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

As of July 5th, 1776 I was no longer honor nor duty bound to give a rat's rear end about royalty of any kind.

Except for Elvis, I care about Elvis.

You don't care about Areetha?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

What we have there is Meghan's version of a conversation that she did not take part in, related to her by someone who says they won't discuss the actual details or name the person who allegedly said this.
I think the way this supposed conversation is phrased by Meghan is highly suspicious. 'Concerns were raised over the skin colour'. What concerns? We don't know. In what context? We don't know.
Consider this: I imagine that most British people would have no problem at all with a mixed-race royal. However, there is undoubtedly a segment of British society that would have a problem with this (i.e., the racist far-right). It is, I suggest, entirely possible that this claimed conversation was along the lines of "most people will be fine with this, but you may get some antagonism from certain sections of society, and so you should be ready for that. The darker the baby's skin colour, the more likely it is that there will be a reaction from racists". That scenario, too, is 'raising concerns about the baby's skin colour', but is not racist itself.
The phrasing of Meghan's version is, I think, deliberately vague and ambiguous, so as to lead viewers to conclude that they were the victims of racism, whilst allowing enough deniability in the case of legal action. Why could Harry not just tell us exactly what was said? Why these weasel words? This looks to me like a calculated attempt to create and manage a media narrative.
Before everyone starts screaming at me, all I'm saying is that we only have one side of the story, which is hearsay, and expressed in a crafted and leading way. Until we get some response from Buckingham Palace, we really don't know for sure.

Yes, and notice the speed at which Harry made Oprah put out a disclaimer that it wasn't the Queen or Philip.

MM brought up this subject in his absence and H clearly initially had no idea what Oprah's question referred to so she had to tell him, and he quickly shut the conversation down.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Is there?
You see, I was thinking about this, and the only likely candidate, to my mind, was Prince Phillip. Then Harry said it wasn't him.
That leaves Charles, and the younger royals. I can't bring to mind any instance of obvious racism by any of those people- which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.
Does the current crop of Windsors have a history of public racism?

Here's my tuppence worth guess. Two teenage boys lost their mother in a car crash, who happened to be Diana. The boys did not get on with Camilla, who they loathed (at the time) so they were mainly boarded out and apart from Charles, their father, their closest relative was the Queen whom they spent a lot of time with, as their grandmother. However, because of the wide age gap, the older brother, William, took on a protective role over Harry, who showed signs of going off the rails, drinking, partying, taking drugs, ect.

So, when Harry met Meghan and had a whirlwind romance, with Harry announcing a fast engagement, William, aware of MM's background, age, marital status, etc, took Harry to one side to suggest he give the relationship a bit longer than a year. We heard later that this talk was the major reason the two fell out. Harry revealed he was very offended, so I am guessing the the topic came up then, which Harry repeated to Meghan, who, of course, had a hissy fit and the pair had a frosty relationship with William thereafter. I honestly don't think William was being racist. Just an annoying bullying older brother concerned his easily-led little brother was making a mistake.

Having made the allegation, IMV it is not enough for the Queen to say they will deal with it in private. If true, the public are entitled to know who and why, and if untrue, they are entitled to be told that it is not true.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

You don't care about Areetha?

I do.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I'm not entirely sure I want to post in this thread. To a great extent my response, "Who really cares?"

But I will stand up for my Queen.

Lawrence Hill, the author of The Book of Negroes, had a one-on-one audience with her when the book won the Commonwealth Prize. ISTR he says he was somewhat nervous initially but it turned out that the two of them got on amazingly well.

The CBC Archives are giving me a 404 on the program about where he discusses the meeting. There is a YouTube video but I remember him being interviewed on radio.

From: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canadian-auth...queen-1.310917

CTV quotes him as saying " . . . he was surprised by how conversational and engaged the Queen was during their chat, and how easygoing the experience was." And "She asked Hill about the historical roots of his novel, what it's like to be a writer, and she spoke about her visits to Canada and how she imagines it would be a "wonderful" place to live. Hill says the Queen had only been briefed on his book and hadn't actually read it but he wasn't disappointed. "

This is the YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXQDnvXWss&t

It cuts at the point where he is introduced to a smiling Queen and their shaking hands.

Downloaded. (That is book number twelvety-nine waiting to be read.)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Downloaded. (That is book number twelvety-nine waiting to be read.)

The CBC mini-series, based on the book, is available on amazon prime. It hews pretty closely to the novel.


“A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.” - Winston Churchill (With a nod to George Santayana).

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

So, given another car accident in Paris would look suspicious, what other options are open to the Firm?

Inbreed like crazy for a few centuries?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

The CBC mini-series, based on the book, is available on amazon prime. It hews pretty closely to the novel.


“A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.” - Winston Churchill (With a nod to George Santayana).

OK, next time I am eligible for 'free trial'.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I didn't say it was phantom. I said if it was by surrogate, as rumoured. There is no shame in having a surrogate baby, especially in your late-30's when conception can be difficult. The only issue is that it can cause legal problems within the royal hierachy.

Archie's birth certificate puts this surrogacy conspiracy nonsense to an end.

A child born of surrogacy in the United Kingdom is given a birth certificate with the name(s) of the surrogate on it, as the surrogate mother ids the legal parent of the child. The parents, if one or both is the genetic parent of the child, must then obtain a parental order from the courts (which is public record) in order to get a birth certificate with their names on it as parents. The parental order cannot be applied for until at least six weeks after the child's birth. The new birth certificate must note the existence of the parental order.

If neither parent is the genetic parent of the child then the parents must obtain an adoption order, which again cannot be applied for until at least six weeks after the birth of the child.

Archie's birth was registered eleven days after his birth and his certificate was in the public domain later that same day. It contains the information obtained from the Portland hospital. It has the names of Prince Harry as the father in box 4 and the Duchess of Sussex as the mother in box 7. That in itself excludes a surrogacy arrangement.

[Captain_Swoop]

All you need to do in England or Wales is register with the website to get a copy of a birth, adoption, death, marriage or civil partnership certificate in England and Wales.

They are all public domain.
Unsupported by other documentation they are not a proof of identity.

Certificates cost £11 and are sent 4 days after you apply.
If you need it next day it is £35

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Is there?
You see, I was thinking about this, and the only likely candidate, to my mind, was Prince Phillip. Then Harry said it wasn't him.
That leaves Charles, and the younger royals. I can't bring to mind any instance of obvious racism by any of those people- which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.
Does the current crop of Windsors have a history of public racism?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8315187.html

Charles got in some hot water for telling a woman of color she didn't look like she was from Manchester.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Archie's birth certificate puts this surrogacy conspiracy nonsense to an end.

A child born of surrogacy in the United Kingdom is given a birth certificate with the name(s) of the surrogate on it, as the surrogate mother ids the legal parent of the child. The parents, if one or both is the genetic parent of the child, must then obtain a parental order from the courts (which is public record) in order to get a birth certificate with their names on it as parents. The parental order cannot be applied for until at least six weeks after the child's birth. The new birth certificate must note the existence of the parental order.

If neither parent is the genetic parent of the child then the parents must obtain an adoption order, which again cannot be applied for until at least six weeks after the birth of the child.

Archie's birth was registered eleven days after his birth and his certificate was in the public domain later that same day. It contains the information obtained from the Portland hospital. It has the names of Prince Harry as the father in box 4 and the Duchess of Sussex as the mother in box 7. That in itself excludes a surrogacy arrangement.

No, it doesn't, because when a child is adopted, it will have a new birth certificate with its new parents' names on it.