Did Meghan Use a Surrogate? (Part 1)

In a word: unlikely. I say this not to bash the surrogacy theorists, because there was an abundance of suspicious activity related to Meghan's pregnancy, but because I believe most of the weird goings-on have a relatively non-sinister explanation. So how did the surrogacy rumors get started in the first place? Let's review the evidence.

A non-sinister explanation for this? Why yes, actually!

Let us begin by pointing out that surrogacy rumors are an ancient and unavoidable aspect of hereditary monarchy. After all, the central defining aspect of hereditary monarchy is, well, heredity. Paternity and maternity. The right genes, acquired under the right circumstances. The stakes are extremely high, since the winner takes all the marbles, and as a consequence rumors about legitimacy, paternity, and even maternity are almost inevitably bound to occur.

Crenellated castle marbles, glimmering jeweled marbles, scepter and orbed marbles, head of state marbles, offshore account marbles... Lots and lots of marbles

Indeed, the recent history of the BRF is thickly littered with rumors of this nature. Surrogacy rumors about Meghan. Paternity rumors about Archie. Surrogacy rumors about Kate. Maternity rumors about George. Paternity rumors, almost certainly false, about Harry. Paternity rumors, almost certainly true, about Andrew. More paternity rumors about Edward. Paternity rumors about Zara Tindall. Rumors that the Queen and Princess Margaret were conceived via turkey baster. And even maternity rumors about the Queen Mother herself, claiming she was the offspring of a kitchen maid (hence "Cookie," Edward's mocking nickname for her).

And those are just the modern-day royals. A rumor about a baby in a warming pan was once weaponized to force the Stuarts off the throne. Such is the power of heredity in a monarchical system: it can literally destroy dynasties. The British royals are well aware of this, and that's why there are so many "intrusive" requirements surrounding royal pregnancies and births. It's not a straightforward question of outmoded misogyny, but also a body of practices with real implications for the public's willingness to accept the legitimacy of an heir.

Some dynasties fall by the sword, some by the pen... and some by the mighty warming pan!

A corollary to the foregoing is that I do not believe the claim that Meghan surrogacy rumors emerged because of racism. Which is not to say that Meghan never faced any racism - she absolutely did (Straight Outta Compton, exotic DNA, Archie monkey tweet) - but racism has never at any point been the main driver of the public reaction to Meghan. I know that statement will anger a lot of folks, particularly those who only follow Meghan through the American media, but it's the God's honest truth. Ironically, the idea that racism is the main driver of this story is itself a celebrity PR narrative, planted and aggressively cultivated by Sunshine Sachs. The primary driver of Meghan's story is and always has been her own behavior.

The surrogacy controversy is no exception to the rule. Meghan gave this narrative wings in just about every way imaginable:

• She created confusion over the timeline by announcing waaaaaay earlier than three months, likely because she wanted to steal the spotlight at Eugenie's wedding. (Details in Part 2)
• Critically, there was a lot of weirdness involving the physical baby bump: it constantly changed in size, occasionally appeared unnatural in shape, once seemed to re-inflate with a popping sound, and once seemed to slip clean off her body. (Details in Part 2)
• She and Harry created a lot of confusion about the birth, including explicitly lying to the press about the timeline (leaving Buckingham palace with egg on its face).
• She and Harry "chose" not to give private citizen Archie a title, but their explanation doesn't make sense on a number of levels.
• She and Harry created more deliberate confusion surrounding Archie's Christening.

The internet, reacting

Fear not good reader, we will discuss these claims and the supporting evidence at length. Continue on to Part 2, and check back for future posts!

Meghan Had Nothing to Do With Kate's Tatler Disaster (Part 2)

Wherein we discuss the social decapitation of a Future Future Queen

Having set the dramatic tone of the bust-up in Part 1, we now get into the real meat and potatoes of this mess. Tuck in, folks - there's a lot to digest!

In May 2020 the Duchess of Cambridge's world was rocked by a spiteful mean-girl article published by Tatler magazine. Under an exceedingly thin veneer of praise, author Anna Pasternak lobbed grenade after grenade at Kate, lambasting everything from her limp work ethic, spectacular sense of entitlement, dull personality, and tenacious social-climbing to rumors of an eating disorder. Kate's nearest and dearest were hit by shrapnel as well, with wounding barbs directed towards her pretentious sister, weakling father, unspeakably vulgar mother, and even her foolishly manipulable husband William.

(Aside: I'm almost totally unsympathetic to Kate, a dyed-in-the-wool mean girl herself, as well as the preposterously rapacious Middleton clan. They have largely brought this catastrophe upon their own heads. However, even I will admit that Pasternak's speculation over an ED crossed the line from tit-for-tat gossip to genuine harm. Uncool.) 

ED ≠ ammunition

A newly Kate-besotted public raised an outraged finger of accusation, and after the briefest of hesitations, swung it directly toward Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, Our Lady of Perpetual Clapbacks and known Mean Girl Extraordinaire. After all, Meghan has indisputably been waging a low-grade press war against Catherine ever since that February 2017 blind item in Lainey Gossip, in which Kate neglected to offer Meghan a ride to the shops. Surely this was just the latest salvo in that ongoing conflict?

(Another aside: This is normally where I'd link to the Lainey blind, but I refuse on the basis that she's not only a liar and a hack, she's also desperate and transparent. I do appreciate the entertainment value of a good triangulating viper, but they better not let that game face slip.)

The public's suspicion further hardened as a personal connection between Meghan and Tatler staff was established. Journalist Vanessa Mulroney, the sister-in-law of Meghan's then-best friend Jessica Mulroney, was revealed to be a former employee of the magazine. Surely then, that must be the conduit through which Meghan planted the story?

The plot thickens

I say no. In fact, I think this connection is essentially meaningless. Elite circles, the likes of which Meghan and the Mulroneys move in, are highly interconnected. I'd be willing to bet that just about anyone could Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon themselves into the current Tatler inner circle (in fact, I bet *I* could do it and I'm hardly an elite). I'm also skeptical that a former staffer would have enough clout to single-handedly convince current leadership to essentially go to war with Kensington Palace.

This brings me back to a point I made in Part 1: when it comes to royal ructions, we tend to forget that the Cambridges and Sussexes are not the sole four humans in the universe. There exists an entire elite ecosystem, populated by a substantial cast of characters all pursuing their own agendas. This network of relationships forms a kaleidoscope of constantly shifting alliances and conflicts. Kate occupies a corner of this world which is particularly renowned for its power plays and machinations. After all, the term "court intrigue" has long been a universal metaphor for the power dynamics amongst any group of insiders.

And that's what I think happened here. This is the latest episode of a long-running court intrigue which has basically nothing to do with Meghan. In fact, I contend that the Tatler debacle is actually a continuation of L'Affaire Hanbury. How's that for a bold claim?

I'm baaaaaack!

The Hanbury angle is ultimately what ties all of this together - Kate, Anne Boleyn, Catherine the Great, Anna Pasternak, Dan Wootton, Richard Kay, Tatler, The Sun, Daily Mail, the Royal Rota, and so on, from the heart of the establishment all the way to its periphery. Kate is engaged in a society turf war, and it does not appear to be going well for her. We finish laying out this theory in Part 3. See you there.

____________________

Meghan Had Nothing to Do with Kate's Tatler Disaster (Part 1)

 On May 19, 1536, one of England's most infamous psychohistorical dramas reached its bloody climax with the execution of Anne Boleyn. The mad King Henry VIII had splashed out a sanguine new chapter in his legend, an epic of ravenous lusts that had singlehandedly altered the face of Christendom and reshaped the course of world history.

Watch 'The Last Days of Anne Boleyn' (BBC) or 'Anne & Mary Boleyn: Two Sisters' on Youtube. Amazing stuff

May 19th thus marks a momentous event, to be sure, but hardly a happy one. So why then, on May 19, 2020, were so many royal reporters chirpily announcing the 484th anniversary of Anne's execution? Her death isn't celebrated as a Guy Fawkesian national holiday, and 484 isn't particularly special as far as anniversaries go (as opposed to, say, the imminent 500th). You might expect one or two history buffs to note the timing, but the number of near-identical tweets from such a large fraction of a specialist press pack had my spidey-senses tingling. (Nota bene: many of these tweets were deleted not long after. Were I a cannier royal watcher I'd have the screenshots; alas, I do not.)

Could this be a coordinated back-handed insult to the Sussexes? After all, their wedding anniversary is May 19th (an inauspicious date even at the time, though almost cartoonishly apposite in retrospect). It seemed unlikely, as many of those same reporters had wished them a happy anniversary in other tweets. Furthermore, and I freely base the following claim on intuition, supposition, and absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever: as a back-handed jab it just doesn't *feel* very British. The passive-aggression in marking an anniversary this way is too roughhewn, too obvious and inexpert. One would expect a professional cadre of British men-and-women-of-letters to land the killing blow with certain savage politesse, not this na-na-boo-boo level of playground snark.

So I went about my week, intuitive feathers vaguely ruffled, until the 25th of May 2020 when the killing blow was indeed landed (albeit not against Meghan):

Savage politesse? Madam, you rang?

The coup de grace came in the form of a cover story about Kate from Anna Pasternak, writing for that storied bastion of savage politesse, Tatler magazine. While superficially flattering, the Pasternak article in fact stabs a knife in every exposed inch of Catherine's back, then twists the blades till the flesh rends.

(IMPORTANT ASIDE: Large swathes of the original article have been scrubbed from the Tatler website due to Cambridge legal maneuvering. But Mr. Gore's Good Internet is forever, beloveds, and I have therefore linked you to the unflinching truth via The Wayback Machine. Besos, Señor Gore.)

In truth, I should have put two-and-two together earlier. Like many, I raised an eyebrow when the "Catherine the Great" cover was announced, because no one considers Kate great. Even her most ardent admirers talk about her in terms of her potential for future greatness, while the rest of us consider her a lazy, charmless ingrate hopelessly out of her depth.

Moreover, the comparison to Catherine the Great hadn't made sense in the context of a flattering article. After all, the famed Russian Empress was a usurping German upstart, an ambitious married-in who had shoved aside her weak husband in order to seize power for herself. An odd reference indeed. But in the context of a society takedown of a middle-class upstart, a social-climbing married-in trying to seize power over her aristocratic social set... well suddenly the comparison starts to make sense. (We'll talk about this suspected society turf war in Parts 2 and 3, but there's some limited background at the end of this post.)

Make way, bitches

So that's what all that "484th anniversary" Twitter business had been about. Not a playground spat with the Sussexes, but rather a harbinger of the imminent social beheading of a middle-class grasper who didn't know her place. It was a wolfish winking-and-nudging binge between insiders, and a status-signaling public roll call which asserted the Boleyn Clique as the favored members of the Rota.

And what, the reader asks, does Meghan have to do with any of that? Simple: nothing. Nothing at all. Royal watchers tend to forget that the Cambridges and Sussexes are not the only four humans in the UK, and that there is a vast, complex web of social and political relationships that continues to be at play independent of the latest Harkle shenanigans. We'll continue the discussion in Part 2, where we demolish the claim of Meghan's culpability and begin the reveal of the real malefactors.

____________________

Tiaragate: The Grand Unified Theory (Part 3)

To recap: Claims emerged in spring 2018 that Meghan and Harry had thrown a corker of a tantrum over which tiara she was to be loaned for their wedding. A different version of the story emerged in August 2020, in which Meghan's press mouthpiece claimed that the conflict was really about access to the tiara during preparations for the wedding. Catch up on Part 1 and Part 2 for all the backstory you will need in Part 3!

'Twas I that caused [some of] the ructions!

And so, we at last come to the apotheosis of Tiaragate. Which version of the tale should we believe? A bride coveting the irresistible allure of precious emeralds, viridescent in the light? Or a trip to the hair salon, never to be, thwarted by a viperous Scouser in a fussy hat? In answer, I say:

 ¿Por qué no los dos?

I think both Tiaragates happened, starting with a fight with Eugenie over the Greville Kokoshnik and ending with a fight with Angela Kelly over access to the Queen Mary Bandeau. I think the AK-47 conflict happened more or less as described in Part 2 and in Finding Freedom, with the obvious caveat that I am unsympathetic to the Harkles' motives.

The Greville half of Tiaragate is a slightly trickier knot to unpick, but I think this Shakespeare quote boils it down for us nicely:

O beware, my lord, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on.

Meghan's envy has been the ruin of her

Since her entrance on the royal scene, Meghan has been bizarrely obsessed with one-upping Princess Eugenie. First she and Harry pulled rank on Eugenie and Jack regarding their respective engagements, forcing the Brooksbanks to delay their announcement so that the Harkles could announce their own betrothal. They pulled rank again by taking Eugenie's wedding date, forcing her to delay her spring wedding to the fall. Finally, I believe Meghan tried to pull off a humiliating hat trick by taking Eugenie's tiara as well, resulting in the first Tiaragate.

Why would Meghan do such a thing? How could she dare? Where would she find the temerity to step into someone else's family and immediately begin demanding their most precious possessions?

Simple, my friends: Meghan is a malignant narcissist.

Meghan's entire life has been devoted to the accumulation of material wealth and social status. Her past is a debris field of discarded lovers, friends, and family members, all jettisoned as soon as they were surplus to requirements. Meghan has a need for power and dominance that corrodes her from the inside out, a gnawing acid in her gut that has chewed its way across continents and is now (post-Megxit) consuming Meghan herself. I don't think she cared about the Greville Kokoshnik per se - I think she simply wanted to assert her dominance over a blood princess.

This scenario also explains how Meghan knew about the Greville Kokoshnik in the first place. The tiara had supposedly been promised to Eugenie since childhood. However, it hadn't been seen in public in nearly a century and royal watchers weren't certain it still existed. Courtiers would not have presented this tiara as an option to Meghan, but it might have been common knowledge in royal circles that the GK was meant for Eugenie. At the very least, if Meghan was targeting Eugenie she could have asked around herself, or had Harry find out.

Assuming my suppositions are more or less true... Meghan neither took this defeat in stride nor gave up her campaign of bullying against Eugenie. In fact, she pulled the ultimate attention-stealing narc revenge stunt at Eugenie's wedding...

Dastardly

By flouncing up in an unbuttoned maternity coat, thus unofficially announcing her first pregnancy to the world's media. An official announcement would follow mere days later. (Nota bene: This incident is the reason I started to dislike LaMarkle. Beforehand I had brushed off accusations of misbehavior and narcissism as the typical knife-sharpening of Britain's racist, sexist tabloid press. But I simply could not explain away the fact that I found out about Meghan's pregnancy through her appearance at Eugenie's wedding. Further investigation led me past the twinkling façade of Meghan's celebrity press to the sordid truth beneath.)

Unbelievably, the baby shenanigans were not limited to this very public scene. Per Lady Colin Campbell's biography of the gruesome twosome, Meghan and Harry raised an obscene ruckus at Eugenie's reception by approaching the guests individually to announce their pregnancy, working their way around the venue until each guest had been informed face-to-face. This account has never appeared in the papers, so ultimately each reader will have to decide if they believe LCC is telling the truth. (I do.) As you evaluate LCC's credibility, dear reader, keep in mind that Meghan has sued the press over avocados, copper bathtubs, and a letter that her own friends made public - but she hasn't made so much as a whimper over this book.

LCC is a real piece of work, but I don't think she's a liar.

The Tiaragate saga eventually reached its sad dénouement with the publication of Finding Freedom. It was through this hagiography that the Angela Kelly half of Tiaragate was revealed (as we have discussed). And it was also in this tome that Meghan landed a final brutal sucker punch against the blood princess she so envied. Eugenie and Harry, the authors explained, had once had a very close relationship. But then Eugenie turned Judas: she was the graceless traitor who first leaked the Harkles' relationship to the press back in 2016. Not a shred of evidence was presented to support this claim, but since when did a character assassination require evidence?

There's a final point we need to raise about this whole fiasco. Meghan may or may not have been the driving force behind Tiaragate, but Harry enabled every inch of her bullying. Harry could have stopped the train derailment at a moment's notice, but he chose to be a participant instead. Harry is the Judas. Harry is the graceless traitor. And his cousin deserved better.

Justice for Eugenie!

And thus the diadem is closed. The Grand Unified Theory of Tiaragate is complete.

____________________

Something Weird Is Going On With The Royal Marines (Part 2)

Hoist anchor and set a course for Dramatopia, mateys, because it appears that the Captain General saga is far from over.

I love mess

In Part 1 of what is shaping up to be an ongoing series, I put forth a theory that some major behind-the-scene dramatics are going on with respect to the leadership of the Royal Marines. Recent events have only further convinced me that, in the immortal words of esteemed American chanteur Yung Joc, IT'S GOING DOWN.

Today's Daily Mail published a weirdly fervent article about the appointment of the Queen's new equerry, a Royal Marine by the name of Major Tom White. Of course this event is newsworthy in it's own right, as this Marine will serve as the Queen's "eyes and ears." However, the tone of the announcement is, in a word... weird. Major White is no doubt deserving of the lavish praise heaped upon him, but such effusiveness a little unusual coming from a military source.

Odder still are the repeated references to Harry stepping down as Captain General, since the equerry post has nothing to do with Harry and is not even necessarily held by a Royal Marine (in fact, Major White will be the first). So why does this article repeatedly draw a link between Harry's departure and Major White's appointment? Oddest of all, the article contains this rather vivid characterization of the Marines' reaction to Harry's exit:

[Harry] walking away was a huge disappointment. The Royal Marines have felt they’ve been handed from pillar to post but this is a proud moment.

Between all this dramatic verbiage and the repeatedly drawn link between Harry's scarper and Maj White's promotion... well friends, my Spidey Senses are a-tinglin'.

The drama is out there... I feel it...

There's one more odd thing about this story, but this time we have to look to the negative space. Recall from Part 1 that around the time of the Farewell Tour, Anne was tipped to take over as Captain General. However this Daily Express article made clear that at 70 and with 15 extant appointments, she wasn't willing to take on a new role. Recall also that William was tipped in her stead, and military brass were clearly mounting a pressure campaign through the press to get him to take on the role.

Well guess who's not mentioned in the new Daily Mail article? (Hint: William.) And guess who is? (Hint: Anne.)

I conclude from this that William has refused to take on the Captain General post. Perhaps he doesn't want to fuel a brothers-at-war narrative in the press; perhaps he is concerned for his personal relationship with Harry; perhaps he is simply lazy, if you buy the Duke of Dolittle narrative. But who knows, really? No matter what William's motive, this would mean a double-snub for the Royal Marines by the BRF.

Handed from pillar to post

Therefore, reading between the lines, I think this equerry appointment is an effort to placate the Marines and smooth over ruffled feathers. That would explain all the fuss and botheration over a routine staff handover. "Sorry my feckless grandchildren can't be bothered to perform the basic duties of their positions. Here, have an equerry position instead!" And wouldn't that just be a classic QEII conflict resolution method?

In the final accounting I think this saga bodes poorly for the future of the monarchy. Captain General of the Royal Marines is an extremely important position, and a prestigious one at that. If William isn't motivated to do the high-profile glamorous jobs, he's unlikely to take on the unglamorous day-to-day scutwork of being Sovereign.

Thank God (for now, at least), for Princess Anne!

____________________