Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

#62,311
caramelize126 said:
I don’t remember the details anymore but when the questions about surrogacy first came up, it was thought that they were secretive about it because if it came out that Archie was born from a surrogate, he could not be in the line of succession. Does anyone remember the details?
Click to expand...

yes. There is a law in the UK that the child must be born “of the body”. Ie. even if the egg and sperm were from M&H, if she used a gestational carrier, then the child is not born of the body of the biological mother, so no title. This applies to all aristos - not just the royal family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purseinsanity, DeMonica, Bagatha Christie and 9 others
#62,312
needlv said:
yes. There is a law in the UK that the child must be born “of the body”. Ie. even if the egg and sperm were from M&H, if she used a gestational carrier, then the child is not born of the body of the biological mother, so no title. This applies to all aristos - not just the royal family.
Click to expand...

I did not know of this law, and it would thus make sense that they wanted to keep it quiet (having a surrogate if they did). I don't have strong feelings as to whether she had a surrogate or not but if this is the law it would make sense that they wanted to keep it quiet. But would it not be easy for a leak to occur if she did have a surrogate? There was always someone leaking some information constantly.

Its a silly rule and one that could've been overturned by the Queen (I think). I know they changed the laws so that the eldest child of the monarch (regardless of sex) would become the heir apparent, so basically re-writing the sexist inheritance/succession laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purseinsanity, sweetasc6h12o6, Bagatha Christie and 2 others
#62,313
Shopaholic2021 said:
I did not know of this law, and it would thus make sense that they wanted to keep it quiet (having a surrogate if they did). I don't have strong feelings as to whether she had a surrogate or not but if this is the law it would make sense that they wanted to keep it quiet. But would it not be easy for a leak to occur if she did have a surrogate? There was always someone leaking some information constantly.

Its a silly rule and one that could've been overturned by the Queen (I think). I know they changed the laws so that the eldest child of the monarch (regardless of sex) would become the heir apparent, so basically re-writing the sexist inheritance/succession laws.
Click to expand...

I looked up the surrogacy law in the UK earlier out of curiosity and saw this (below). This makes me doubt she'd take the risk of a surrogate then...

Overview
Surrogacy is legal in the UK, but if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law.
The legal parents at birth
If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth.
If the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership, their spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second parent at birth, unless they did not give their permission.
Legal parenthood can be transferred by parental order or adoption after the child is born.
If there is disagreement about who the child’s legal parents should be, the courts will make a decision based on the best interests of the child.
Surrogacy agreements
The intended parents and surrogate can record how they want the arrangement to work in a surrogacy agreement.
Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: purseinsanity, DeMonica, Starflower2305 and 7 others
#62,314
lalame said:
Ohh, now I'm caught up on the book. :facepalm: "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex"

Is she legally required to use that title or whyyy must it be used so obnoxiously? Seems like that person who signs ", Ph.D" or whatever everywhere their name appears.
Click to expand...
The use of the duchess title by Ginger's wife is beyond ridiculous. PhD, MD, MD/PhD, MBA, or Ed.D are merit earned titles, there is no comparison imo. In our society, women are often criticized by using their titles, it's usually Dr. Man and Mrs. Woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andrashik, Miss Camellia, lanasyogamama and 14 others
#62,315
lalame said:
I looked up the surrogacy law in the UK earlier out of curiosity and saw this (below). This makes me doubt she'd take the risk of a surrogate then...

Overview
Surrogacy is legal in the UK, but if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law.
The legal parents at birth
If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth.
If the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership, their spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second parent at birth, unless they did not give their permission.
Legal parenthood can be transferred by parental order or adoption after the child is born.
If there is disagreement about who the child’s legal parents should be, the courts will make a decision based on the best interests of the child.
Surrogacy agreements
The intended parents and surrogate can record how they want the arrangement to work in a surrogacy agreement.
Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Would this still be the case if the surrogate was american/contract was signed in america? Or is it based on where the baby is born?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bagatha Christie, Starflower2305, lulu212121 and 1 other person
#62,317
Chanbal said:
The use of the duchess title by Ginger's wife is beyond ridiculous. PhD, MD, MD/PhD, MBA, or Ed.D are merit earned titles, there is no comparison imo. In our society, women are often criticized by using their titles, it's usually Dr. Man and Mrs. Woman.
Click to expand...

I have respect for those titles but all the same I find it so obnoxious and pretentious when anyone insists on listing them after their name when the credential isn't required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: piperdog, bubablu, puffysleeves and 7 others
#62,319
CarryOn2020 said:
Trying to process all these details:
-They leave in Jan. 2020.
-South Africa tour is Sept. 24th 2019
-Dan Wootton’s article is posted in The Sun on Sept. 6, 2019.
— article confirms Palace knew she had written a book, had a contract with a publisher, was planning on spending time in the US.
-Aug. 2019 she was in contact with her US PR firm, Sunshine Sachs
www.thesun.co.uk

Meghan Markle hires crisis management firm that once represented Harvey Weinstein and Michael Jackson in bid to improve her damaged image

MEGHAN called on a Hollywood crisis management company to help improve her image after being caught up in a string of controversies. She has hired Sunshine Sachs — a firm whose clients included the…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
-May 2019 Archie born

Was the book written during the summer of 2019?
Click to expand...

I mean, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of text.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Helventara, DeMonica, Clearblueskies and 3 others
#62,321
csshopper said:
Me too. I feel a little embarrassed. I was making judgments about Jessica without knowing the whole story.

But, assuming Harry’s wife did know the full story, the fact she did not speak up on behalf of her supposedly BFF, Jessica, and instead quickly distanced herself from Jessica, is disgusting. All she needed to say is something like, "this needs another look, I feel like something must be missing", or "based on years of friendship this has not been my experience" etc.

Harry's wife, the "Douchess" (with credit to purseinsanity for the title) is a venomous snake.
Click to expand...
After sleeping on it, I'm also wondering why this wasn't brought up earlier. It's very touching that the reporter is following up with the story a year later, but didn't Mulroney have any other friends besides H's wife? So many articles describe her and her husband as a power couple. Doesn't she have connections, familial or otherwise, who can advise her? No one spoke up on her behalf at all? Everyone ditched her? If she had this evidence, why didn't she seek legal counsel? Sorry for being cynical, but it's hard to believe that in the entire Canadian press corps, no one asked her for her side of the story. Maybe the truth is somewhere in-between.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roxanna, Bagatha Christie, lulu212121 and 2 others
#62,323
scarlet555 said:
The way Beyonce was sitting with that moonbump for the interview... wow! and how she described giving birth-I can't even remember if someone wants to chime in...
Click to expand...
QueenofWrapDress said:
Re: Beyoncé, was that ever confirmed? I remember during her first pregnancy she had both a belly malfunction (it completely folded over on itself and collapsed when she sat down) and when some media person wanted to touch the belly (which I find super rude and intrusive) she grabbed the hand in a panic and placed it elsewhere on the bump which people interpreted as the original placing would have revealed it was fake.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely convinced Bey used a surrogate the first time. She was so secretive, she acted so odd and she didn't even look pregnant, other than a bump.

The second time, she was obviously pregnant and was so proud, she posted pictures of herself naked and was out there so much more, posing in front of the cameras. Also, the second time she had that pregnant look and glow and her boobs got big, you know, the usual.

But that was only for the second pregnancy.

Strangely though, years later, she produced a historical documentary about herself and showed a neck-down big bare belly when she was supposedly pregnant with her first, and although we saw no head attached to the belly, her fans all said, see she really was pregnant the first time.

This all based on a quick shot of a torso, not even seeing a head attached to the belly - that's all Bey had to do to convince her fans.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: lanasyogamama, purseinsanity, Aminamina and 5 others
#62,324
xincinsin said:
After sleeping on it, I'm also wondering why this wasn't brought up earlier. It's very touching that the reporter is following up with the story a year later, but didn't Mulroney have any other friends besides H's wife? So many articles describe her and her husband as a power couple. Doesn't she have connections, familial or otherwise, who can advise her? No one spoke up on her behalf at all? Everyone ditched her? If she had this evidence, why didn't she seek legal counsel? Sorry for being cynical, but it's hard to believe that in the entire Canadian press corps, no one asked her for her side of the story. Maybe the truth is somewhere in-between.
Click to expand...

This was a clear example of cancel culture - evidence or other sides of the story are no longer needed to judge. Nothing Jessica would’ve said publicly at the time would’ve been a good look for her. Everyone on IG was stomping their feet demanding influencers and companies to support BLM... or ELSE. I wonder how some of the influencers I follow feel now, having been pressured to donate thousands and post receipts, knowing it very well may have helped fund a couple mansions for one of the leaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allisonfaye, sweetasc6h12o6, puffysleeves and 13 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back