Hola @Annette, Harry era muy interesante antes de Meghan, para mí. Ahora los veo y me flojera porque ella, intenta resaltar más que él. Obvio, su oficio previo. Pienso que Harry se apresuró, quizá ver a William con una familia conformada le hizo despertar esa inquietud, deseo, nostalgia, no sé. Y "la regó" y feo. No veo química entre Meghan y La Firma. Es una tristeza.
Que???? me acabo d enterar, como sabéis eso??
... o tostadas con aguacate...
Totalmente de acuerdo. Si viven de los impuestos del pueblo deben tener al menos la cortesía de corresponderle como se debe, como han hecho los demás royals... parodiando a otra forera: "hay algo podrido en Frogmore"... y quizá tenga más que ver con la actitud de los padres del bebé, que con Archie mismo.
muy interesante .... hay que leerloThere's something about Archie
June 02, 2019
It was about a month ago that the birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was announced in a rather strange fashion, and as of this writing, the public has seen only one photo of the child's face.
This is unusual in itself - most new parents, particularly those who love social media, err on the side of too many pictures of their newborn instead of too few.
But there are several other odd aspects about the new baby, or at least what we've been told about him.
The other Archie
First of all, Archie's name is unusual for a Royal, and makes an unfortunate historical reference.
There has only been one Duke of Sussex before Harry, a man who also married an older woman against his family's wishes. The marriage was not successful, in part because the Duke's wife was in love with another man - named Archie. In fact, Archie was probably the real father of the Duke's children.
(Here's a Daily Mail piece from 2018 about Archibald Hamilton; here's a separate piece from a more reliable source plus one from the UK National Archive).
Names are important to the Royals
The two Archies are an odd coincidence, particularly since the Royal Family is so particular about first names and whom they pay tribute to.
Prince Harry's full name, for example, is Henry Charles Albert David - Charles for his father, Albert for his great-grandfather ("Bertie", aka George VI), and David as a tribute to the patron saint of Wales, since his father was Prince of Wales at the time of his birth.
Princess Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Diana Elizabeth, including tributes to both her grandmother and great-grandmother; Charlotte is also the feminine version of Charles.
Even Zara Tindall, who has perhaps the least formal first name in the Royal Family, is Zara Anne Elizabeth Tindall, after her mother and grandmother. Her daughter is Lea Elizabeth Tindall.
But Archie is only Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Didn't anyone want a tribute? Why did Harry only reference himself with the weak pun "Harry's son"?
And didn't anyone think that given the earlier Archie's relationship to the earlier Duke of Sussex, the name Archie might be a slightly tasteless choice? If we know about the other Archie, I'm sure the Royals do too.
In addition, the baby has no title, in a family where titles mean a lot.
Royal jokes
There have been a number of rather unfortunate coincidences since Meghan and Harry's marriage was announced, including scheduling the wedding date on the date when Anne Boyeln had her head cut off and sending a car to pick up the bride that had once ferried Wallis Simpson, the last divorced American to marry into the Royal Family, to her husband's funeral.
The choice of the name Sussex was also interesting, given that there had only been that one previous Duke of Sussex, and he was also a redhead, far down the line of succession, with a controversial marriage to an older woman who had enjoyed numerous other partners.
Granting the small, undistinguished Frogmore Cottage to Harry and Meghan as a grace-and-favor home (they do not own it, as William and Kate own Anmer Hall) could also be seen as a sly dig, since the home has primarily served as staff quarters and was the home of Queen Victoria's controversial Indian Muslim teacher, the Munshi, who was widely disliked by the other Royals.
It also looks out on a graveyard where Wallis Simpson is buried.
And now Archie is the name of their child. Somebody in the Royal inner circles has a cruel wit when it comes to the Sussexes.
It sounds a bit like Philip or Anne, or perhaps even former PR maven Sophie Wessex, who has become a devotee of royal history since joining the family. It could also be a clever staff member like Lord Geidt.
Whoever it is, they have clearly been able to get the Queen on board; the names of Royal children generally need her approval.
Some conspiracy theories
The strange appearance of the baby in its sole TV appearance - it never fidgeted or blinked or had any movement whatsoever - has some conspiracy theorists suggesting that Harry might have been holding a Realborn doll.
These highly realistic dolls were originally designed as therapy instruments for parents who had lost their children to stillbirth or miscarriages, but are now a popular collector's item. Online sleuths have suggested that "Baby Darren" may have played the role of Archie in the TV appearance.
Baby Darren doll
Others noted that Baby Archie's eyebrows and ears were carefully covered for the TV appearance, so it would be easy to switch in another baby without questions about identifying marks.
This corresponds to a theory that perhaps a surrogate baby had been lined up for delivery in May but something went wrong, and that the Sussexes are currently casting a mixed-race newborn to play the part of Archie.
Sound absurd? Yeah, it does.
Is it more absurd than the idea of the 7th in line to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other Realms and Territories and Defender of the Faith being named "Archie"?
Good question.
Archie's visitors
The press has assured the public that Archie has received a steady stream of visitors, beginning with Princess Diana's sister Lady Jane Fellowes (who gave a reading at the Sussex wedding) and followed by Charles and Camilla, Will and Kate, and Duchess of Sussex's make up artist Daniel Martin and her friends Jessica Mulroney, Serena Williams, and Priyanka Chopra. (Priyanka, whose career is thriving at the moment without the Meghan connection, later denied the story and said she had never met Archie.)
It's quite impressive that none of these people photographed themselves with the baby, or the mother and baby together, to share on their active social media accounts.
One could argue that this is because the Duke and Duchess want privacy; but in that case, why bother to announce the baby visitors at all?
And there is the additional complication that no one has been seen coming or going from Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes' supposedly live.
More strange occurrences
Wherever they actually live, the Sussexes' life is never dull.
Within the past week, there were press reports that Archie's nanny had already resigned, after two weeks on the job. In addition, Heather Wong, Harry's sole remaining staff member from before his marriage, is also reportedly seeking new employment.
In the meantime, Meg continues to run the Sussex's Instagram feed, apparently without a copy-editor. Typos are frequent, and last week instead of tagging her own patronage, The National Theatre, in a post, she managed to tag Australia's national theater.
Another ham-handed Instagram post, this one for Pride month, linked to 8 US-based LGBTQ+ organizations and only three UK ones.
Harry, meanwhile, has been particularly busy with Royal duties, despite the initial suggestion that he would take paternity leave after the baby's birth.
In addition to numerous events with the Queen (Is she trying to separate him publicly from Meghan? Or is he trying to play nice with the monarch to get a bigger house?) he has also appeared in the Netherlands and at a polo match in Rome.
After the polo match ended early Friday, he chose to stay an extra night in Italy, not returning home to his wife and newborn until late Saturday afternoon.
Meg and the Trumps
Finally, Meg and Donald Trump - certainly two of the most controversial Americans on the worldwide stage - had a minor beef after Trump called Meghan "nasty" in response to Meg's comments calling Trump divisive.
Meg could be called nasty for so many other reasons (after all, we haven't seen the notorious salad-tossing porn tape yet, if it exists) but she can hardly be called an opponent of the Trump family.
She interviewed Ivanka for her blog the Tig, calling her "staggeringly beautiful, no question, but so incredibly savvy and intelligent" and was reportedly merching Ivanka Trump products as late as 2018, well after Ivanka's father's political views were well known.
What a strange story this is.
Why bother with a baptism at all? Questions for the Sussexes
O pollo asado
Flipo en colores con el artículo! Y el nombre!!!!
