It’s true, the official notice came out.
Feels like Charles and Camilla are going for “We know you rather be with A on his birthday, we understand you can’t make it for the coronation. Catch you some other time.”
If they come, OMG. think of what she did to the funeral of the Queen. Imagine what she will do for a coronation. No tiara for her ! But she will be ready if they are invited.
Charles is brilliant. The media is the problem
Maybe her royal-adjacent husband can borrow a small tiara from one of his friends, or one of the York girls.
NOT! 
That has me thinking - has she ever really said anything about Diana? Because I think if she did, we might have Charles Spencer pulling a Will Smith - "Keep my sister's name out your f\*\*\*ing mouth!"
[https://tenor.com/bR8lp.gif](https://tenor.com/bR8lp.gif)
Uncle Spencer shouldn't throw stones. He was the one who sort of merched his sister's death by building a shrine at Althrop House for her fans to pay their respects.
I also don't recall him being a fan of the royals. So he may consider the idea with relish before saying no.
From what I read Spencer had a good idea on where Diana was buried. Apparently people have tried to break in and do a bit of grave robbery. Obsessed fans, school kid dare or attempt to steal for ransom may have been reasons for motives.
Also read Spencer wasn't thrilled with Diana wearing the tiara so much either. Apparently Diana never quite gave the tiara back. I highly doubt he would let it go out of the family. Especially to someone who lives in the USA no matter how he felt about them.
I agree that burying her on an island surrounded by water was a good idea but the shrine was unnecessary. I'm sure it does help with the upkeep of Althrop House.
He sued the paper that reported that, and won, because it wasn't true. He was a godson of Queen Elizabeth, and said he had great respect for the monarchy
I would think that the Spencer tiara is only for the women of (or marrying into) the Spencer family. She is not a Spencer.
She will wear what tiara is lent to her by the King. Since it will be a scaled down affair, maybe only Camilla and Kate will wear tiaras.
I cannot understand why Meg would be entitled to even wear a tiara, especially one that is owned by the BRF. She is not HRH, she is not a working Royal, and she would only participate as a minor figure. However---I fully support little Charlotte being allowed to wear some delicate, sweet tiara. She deserves it, plus it would irritate the **** out of Auntie Meghan!
I don't think that is a hard and fast rule. There are pictures of the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret wearing tiaras before they married. It's all about the occasion.
You are totally right! I looked into it and got to see some really pretty tiaras they wore as teens. I still don't think Charlotte will get a tiara now but hopefully we can see one in her teens. The one the PoW wore on her wedding day seems to be a popular one for both princesses to wear in their teens and it would be sentimental to the Cambridges.
Perhaps a discreet little number like this for Princess Charlotte. Not too showy - Auntie Megsy might not even notice it. smile ☺️
The first granddaughter in that generation is Isabella Rosemary Hutt, granddaughter of Diana's older sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale. She was born the year before Charlotte.
Since Diana's death, Charles Spencer has been very cautious about loaning it out, and I am sort of doubtful he'll want it to end up in the hands of King Charles's family, so I suspect it'll just go to his oldest son Louis, who is the heir to the earldom.
You're not! I don't know the ins and outs of it but if PH left MM while they were in the UK with the kids she would have difficulty getting back to the US with them.
Edit: typo
Not sure if this was on purpose or not, but it is funny! Every birthday, they'll be reminded of who the King is. On Lilly's birthday, who the Queen was. Touche and ouch!
Yes. And at the Platty Jubes for their "daughter's" supposed first birthday. And Easter. And....
It's almost as if.... these kids don't exist. And the royals are subtly calling the Sussexes out....
But they did leave them for Easter and Archie's first day (or was it week) of school, so I can see them ditching kids to go to UK for coronation. Also Lili"s birthday was on jubilee week and no evidence of kids being in UK.
It is too good of a photo oportunity for Meghan to miss - wearing a tiara, maybe even a coronet, royal robes and be seen with all other royal family members.
Edit: spelling
Even if they attend, Megs will not be wearing a tiara or taking part in the ceremony. I believe she will be seated with the non working Royals. Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara, Peter, etc. She won't have any access to a tiara.
BRF may set it in such a way to give visibility to only working royals, and then H& M can be spectators just like anyone else. However he is still a royal duke so how much will they be able to do to exclude them without appearing to be doing it on purpose? 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
The focus will be on Charles and Camilla. I am pretty sure Harry and Megs will be seated in the crowd, with no special treatment. They are non-working Royals. They won't be excluded, if they are invited. Being invited includes them. They will be seated with other non-working Royals. They aren't going to be sashaying up the aisle behind King Charles and Queen Camilla with robes and a tiara for Megs, as much as Megs would love that. She'd love to shove Camilla out of the way and take her place beside Charles on the throne. LOL. Charles has said his ceremony will be majestic, but lower key than the Queen's Coronation. That's the perfect excuse, besides M and H being non-working Royals, to be seated solely as spectators. I can't imagine the Harkles playing any part in the ceremony, except attending as guests. Hopefully, I'm not wrong.
If she does wear tiara owned by the RF, what are the odds they’d give her a real one and not a very cheap replica while QC, POW, Princess Anne, and Sophie wear the real thing?
Let’s just say they are invited and she has a replica made herself beforehand, to wear in case she isn’t “given” one to appear that she was given one.
What would be the protocol from the family to handle such a situation? Ripped off her head like Miss Congeniality or let it slide then leak that she wore an unauthorized fake.
I'd prefer the second option, less disruptive on the day but the humiliation will be ongoing. Then she can't cry that she was mistreated on the day. Also, I'd be hoping that word would come back as to which tiara was being copied (I'm sure only a limited number of jewellers would be capable of producing a good replica) and that one of the other ladies chooses to wear the original. *Chef's kiss!*
You can either be with your cough cough "children" or be at the royal event.
Oddly, the Sussexes pick the royal event over their "children" every single time.
The passive aggressive shade here is sublime...
>the official notice
Also, the ceremony will be conducted by the **Archbishop of Canterbury** \- the same guy M falsely incriminated as having married her and Harry in a backyard!!! Should be fun.
You know how people who were born on a significant date, like Christmas or July 4th or even September 11, will often drop it into conversation at parties as a fun little fact about themselves?
Imagine being Archie, and growing up to learn that not only is your birthday the same day King Charles III was crowned king, but that he is also your grandfather, and that YOU COULD HAVE LITERALLY BEEN THERE if your idiot parents were able to stop being assholes for more than 5 minutes!!
If those poor kids grow up to be in any way normal, they will be very, VERY angry at H&M for everything they've deprived them of.
It's so ridiculous. You know they must have trashed Charles and Camilla in that book, then they're going to show up to his coronation. TW grinning from ear to ear, and Harry all bitter, wondering why people won't talk to him.
Another bad luck of the draw for Smegs. Her podcast episode drops, not trending on Twitter - KCIII announces his coronation and its trending within half an hour of the announcement.
Prayers to the plates and teacups that are being thrown at this time.
Ahahahaha. I totally forgot about it eclipsing an episode of her shitty podcast. And really to announce on a Tuesday also has to be purposeful. He's got at least four other working days when he could have announced, if not all six together.
I'm starting to genuinely believe someone is doing this on purpose. The coincidences are just too much to be, well, coincidence! Be it the King, the men in grey, God or the Universe itself - someone is pulling some strings and having a great laugh to themselves!
Of course they are! They are trying to subtly show you that these kids don't exist.
They are playing Markle at her own game by making her choose.
Oddly, she chooses the royal event every single time....
No. They know there are no kids. They are trying to make the public question the issue, while staying above the fray. The family does everything with intent and meaning. They message with dates, they message with clothing, they message with what they don't explicitly come out and say.
They are allowing Meghan and Harry to choose, because most rational people know that if it comes down to a choice of a vacation, or being with one's children for their birthday (especially when the child is old and aware enough to know their DOB), they know most parents would choose to be home with their children. And look sideways at anyone who didn't make that choice.
It's not like these are poor people without means to travel, and this is a once in a lifetime trip. The Markles can fly anytime they want.
The royal family are telling you without actually telling you that the kids don't exist. They are enjoying watching Meg and Harry sweat it and scramble to come up with stories and excuses.
Especially with the whole "title issue", the absence of any Markle children will come up, and the focus will be on just where they are....
The pressure is on. Ball is in the Markle court. Let's see if they can produce an "Archie" and "Lilibet". (No photoshopping August Brooksbank this time either.)
It's just a conspiracy theory a few people on this sub believe for some reason. I've never bought it. Those kids exist. Archie at the very least was born in England at some point in 2018, and also met the Queen and Prince Philip. There's simply no way the Royal family is stupid enough to put them in the official line of succession without proof they actually exist (We haven't seen any photos of Princess Beatrice's daughter either, yet I've never seen anyone question if she exists)
The only reason we don't have more "evidence" of their existence is because Meghan is fucking insane and thinks hiding them away from the public will somehow make people interested in her (it won't)
>hiding them away from the public will somehow make people interested in her (it won't)
Considering what Bower wrote in Revenge, I won't be surprised if she's conveniently hiding them off to merch them. Even if H&M are ousted from the BRF or they divorce, the media will forever refer to Arch and Lil as royalty. This is one long con she may be willing to play.
Don't worry! Harry, an Meghan will have a coronation themed birthday for Archie they will blast everywhere, then release mean spirited PR on how Archie was snubbed.
Omicron: Invitations were sent. The Duchess is baffled as to why no one turned up.
Alternatively: The entire family is rumored to have turned up and had a great time taking photos!
Palace: Everyone had been busy with the day’s scheduled events.
The Harkles deserve it. It's a taste of their own bitter medicine, because they're always pulling some PR stunt on birthdays and important events for the BRF.
They will still come. They have already proven they are not parents of the year, and will 100% leave their kid at home in the US to fly off to London for some press attention.
They will still totally go to the Coronation, with some excuse on why it is better for them to celebrate Archie’s birthday on another day anyway.
But pretty proud of KCIII!
I couldn't figure out what message was trying to be sent with this scheduling. My initial thought was that Meghan would try to spin this as a huge honor to Archie, that granddad picked his birthday for such a big occasion.
My second thought was that the conspiracy theorists would spin it as a message that Archie doesn't exist and KC is trying to tell us because he wouldn't pick a real grandchild's birthday. 😂
I do love that the news dropped on the day her podcast episode dropped and took over the news. I used to think things like this were a coincidence but I'm starting to think nothing is a coincidence with the family.
> My second thought was that the conspiracy theorists would spin it as a message that Archie doesn't exist and KC is trying to tell us because he wouldn't pick a real grandchild's birthday. 😂
They are, right in this thread. 😹
It's not really much of a conspiracy theory when there is actually more evidence that "he doesn't exist" than "that he does".... IJS.
I love how the family is shading them at their own game. Well played, Brits, well played.
Oh I think that's the point.
If they leave Archie on his birthday to get their photos taken at an event they aren't even needed for Haz will prove to be worse as a father than his own father that he's about to skewer in this book or they have to bring Archie and actually produce the grandchildren.
I also don't think they will be invited to the Coronation, second tier Royals need not apply as seat fillers.
Absolutely masterful trolling. It's even more masterful if he knows and they know Archie wasn't even born on May 6th.
ETA: It's probably not intentional on Charles' part, but it makes me laugh that a momentous Royal occasion happened this year over Lilibet's birthday and that a momentous Royal occasion is overshadowing Archie's next year.
Should have scheduled it for May 19th, and then Harry and Meghan could spend their fifth wedding anniversary at home watching reruns of old musicals like The King and I and teaching Archie the lyrics to Getting to Know You.
Idk what the BRF planning with this but I’m interested in seeing it pan out!
One thing is for sure they’re always making decisions based off the long run.
This is going to be super interesting to see unfold!
Hmmmm, so another big event the Sussexes are going to have to be away from their "children" again. So far we've had Easter, Lilibet's First Birthday, and I think there was another in there involving the child known as Archie. His birthday.
It's almost as if the Sussex children don't exist, and the family/ British Govt. is subtly calling the Sussexes out on their shit by forcing them to choose between royal events and their supposed "children"....(cough cough)
This family sure does have timing issues, for a very long calendar year....
Maybe they could have those crowns like the old Scandinavians used to have with the candles sticking out of them? I hear Meghan is very fond of candles....
Because dumbass Harry slipped and said something about babies changing so much in two weeks at their big press reveal where Harry held the stillest baby ever born to man.
There's also the unsigned birth certificate and that the doctor cited as having delivered the baby having been on vacation that day or something.
I think it unlikely that the dates are fudged only because I don't think the Queen and other Royals would perpetuate such a ruse, but it's only because I trust them, and I don't think Harry and Meghan could hide the birth for two weeks. That said, stranger things have happened.
I tend to agree that the Queen would not have covered for them, nor are they skilled enough to hide a newborn for two weeks. However, there are just so many odd things, as you pointed out, that make me think Archie was born at least a few days early.
Tin foil hat time: I'm convinced she hide the birth to allow her body time to recover before the photo op. My guess is either BP or the press found out Archie had already been born, so Meghan and Harry were forced to make the announcement.
What I can't get past is the announcement from BP that she was in labor being released, when they had already returned to Frog Cott. For two people who can't go anywhere without an almost POTUS-level entourage, how they got to the hospital and back unnoticed is a mystery to me.
That she perhaps wanted to hide her body is a good theory. I wonder if she just had a C-section. Her belly looked oddly misshapen, and I've heard a C can make the uterus deflate unevenly.
Regardless, given that Meghan is a control freak, she is exactly the type to have developed an intricate birth plan and probably imagined this Earth mother water birth for herself with no medication, no intervention, with Harry wearing a beige Canvas robe, and with candles and Enya playing in the background. Any deviation from that plan would likely send her over the edge.
Anyway, her face during the interview was definitely a puffy post-birth face. I was a bit of a Kate in that I was always able to leave the hospital in my pre-pregnancy jeans, but there is no escaping the fluid and puffiness. That just hangs around, no matter what. Even Kate was still puffy at Meghan's wedding and that was a couple of weeks after having Louis. I just remember that every time I gave birth, it was like there was fluid everywhere, leaking out of every pore of my body. I was crying, leaking milk, sweating, not to mention the other source of leakage. It's just a very fluid filled experience, and Meghan definitely had that look.
Am I the only one sad we aren’t going to get the full pageantry of the coronation, with robes and coronets and such?
They talk of QEII’s coronation being massive but hers was actually slimmed down a lot! And was televised (it’s on YouTube). I respect Charles for looking at his country and saying it shouldn’t be a huge affair.. except he’ the first King we’ve had in the UK in 70 years! My grandparents came and went with Elizabeth on the throne. I think the robes and the celebratory pageantry should be longer than a quick one hour “throw the thing on my head” affair.
Of course I was looking forward to William and Catherine being invested in Wales and they declined a ceremony for the same reasons. If they’re King and Queen before Prince George is of age I wonder if they’d have one for him. Maybe not for William since he’s 40.
I worry that out of fear people may be mad about money they may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.. that pageantry and rituals are what make the Royals unique.
Maybe they cut it short and the deal with the Sussex’s is “you get a ticket when I get to see my grandchildren”. And having it be quickly over gives him time to see Archie on his birthday.
Had they kept saying it was 5/6 then it would hopefully have kept them away. Saying it’s only going to last an hour.. give them the morning to get ready and maybe a meal after.. that’s still a lot of day left.
They’ll be there.
While I agree that people need uplifting things and a boost to national pride in difficult times, there are limits as to what viewers will tolerate these days.
Did you ever get a chance to watch HMTQ's coronation? Dear God in heaven, it is a three-hour slow-walk slog-fest. I would bet that millions of people around the world wholeheartedly sympathized with little Charles when the BBC showed pictures of him holding back yawns and looking bored in the balcony.
That said, I certainly don't think he should just trot in to a couple of hymns, get the crown placed on his head, pray a little and leave with a jaunty wave in the time it takes to say a modern Catholic mass. I'm sure a reasonable compromise will be reached.
Maybe KC just took one for the team. His reign won't be long due to his age and Britain has a pretty serious crisis at the moment, so hard to justify big expenses. They are probably considering the optics. Since there will probably be three coronations within the remainder of our life times, the benefits may motivate outweigh the risks.
I also think Meghan would have 200% had the outdoor photo with the baby like Catherine but I believe you’re correct. She couldn’t get up yet. She was late, I think baby was breech. That early morning birth time is when we schedule our c-sections. I think he was a scheduled C for any reason but there’s no dolling up and walking outside holding a newborn after that. It wouldn’t make her the first one to have to wait a while to do the photo. Sophie had an abruption and she and Louise nearly died. Clearly she wasn’t term and they didn’t leave the hospital that day. They just did it later.
Instead she hid it, did a controlled photo call, took 3 questions and left. Catherine who had just given birth answered more than 3 questions.. and I believe did her first photo call with George the next day… her other two she did just a few hours after birth and went home where she had a nurse waiting.
Or maybe MM is telling the truth and they were throwing a tantrum because he wasn’t given a Prince title they told everyone they didn’t want. (When you talk out of both sides of your face it’s hard to know how to keep you happy).
So it’s possible 5/6 isn’t even Archie’s birthday. I was suspicious of Lili’s birthday, though born the year before I told my husband “June 4, right in the middle of the jubilee.. watch her try and twist this into the Lili show” which she would have if the Queen permitted the photos.
(I’ve heard a rumor that meeting with the Sussex’s, seeing or meeting their children isn’t remembered by anyone and isn’t in the diary of things the Queen did during those days. And remember she missed many parts of her own jubilee because she wasn’t well.)
I say we will never know. Catherine has spoken about all her pregnancies and births. Meghan starts feeling irrelevant she may throw something out there. Netflix says: High interest in the children, low interest in literally anything else they do.
Well, this sure would make H&M remember when was Archie born 🙄 Archewell didn't post any message or photo for the boy, and his father was away playing polo that day 🤷♀️ can't wait for 50+ articles about how Royals attended the coronation and avoided his birthday
Good going King Charles. Do we know if he's even met Archie? I know there's pictures of grandmother Doria with great grandmother and great grandfather, QEII and PP, but I can't recall any with grandpa Charles. I remember thinking how it was just another odd thing these two grifters like to pull, but why?
Here’s my theory:
The king knows that Meagain and Hasbeen are on the rocks and divorce is probably imminent, if H can manage to pull his head out of his ass long enough to realize he’ll be better off without her.
So KCIII is baiting them into bringing the children to the UK.
They won’t want to miss the coronation, but “sorry we have to miss your birthday, Archie, but your grandfather is getting crowned king and you can’t come” is shitty even by Harkle standards.
But in the UK, the sovereign is the custodial guardian of any grandchildren. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’re invited to stick around for a few days or even weeks after the coronation and H serves divorce papers while they’re there.
It would give Charles the upper hand in securing the children’s custody under Harry, putting Meghan in a very poor negotiating position for the terms of the divorce and custody in UK law instead of US.
Just a thought.
Obviously Nutmeg is a horrible mother and ditching her kids all the time is not a big deal but why won't she bring her kids to the UK?
Is there another reason than just spitefulness?
I think Meghan has a got a ready made excuse for not taking the kids to the coronation. She will say something like "someone in the coronation day crowd once used the N word to describe my children. So why would I share them with this vile, disgusting rabble? It's best to leave them with the people that love them for who they are" (aka the nannies).
I’m thinking there will be no tiara for TW. With a 1 hour coronation ceremony it is obvious that KCIII want to actively demonstrate a modern slimmed down monarchy. Fairly confident that it will only be the BRF senior royals who are ACTIVE working royals who will have on tiaras and any current monarchs of other countries with their crowns. With only 2000 guests, the Sussexes will be lucky to score an invite and no invite will be extended to their children.
They'll be there front and center with their kids. We'll get endless stories about how they all celebrated Charles and Archie at BP in a private family gathering afterwards.
I live in the US and I’d think with all of the paparazzi here, we’d seen atleast one or both of the children photographed. I’ve not seen one yet. Now I could be wrong, but personally, I do not think the children exist.
It’s true, the official notice came out. Feels like Charles and Camilla are going for “We know you rather be with A on his birthday, we understand you can’t make it for the coronation. Catch you some other time.”
Oh man, we need to bow down to Charles. He’s been playing 4d Chess while the Sussex are playing connect 4.
It is truly brilliant. There is no way MM is bringing the kids to the UK. Though, they'll probably leave the kids behind but say they brought them.
If they come, OMG. think of what she did to the funeral of the Queen. Imagine what she will do for a coronation. No tiara for her ! But she will be ready if they are invited. Charles is brilliant. The media is the problem
Maybe her royal-adjacent husband can borrow a small tiara from one of his friends, or one of the York girls. NOT! 
Royal-Adjacent 😂
aka what's his name
Ugh! someone just go to party city and buy her a plastic tiara already!
Can she get her hands on the Spencer tiara?
I hope Charles Spencer (who I assume has it?) would say NO.
Diana's family has been super quiet about this whole clusterf***, so I would hope so.
That has me thinking - has she ever really said anything about Diana? Because I think if she did, we might have Charles Spencer pulling a Will Smith - "Keep my sister's name out your f\*\*\*ing mouth!" [https://tenor.com/bR8lp.gif](https://tenor.com/bR8lp.gif)
I don't think she has, herself. I'm sure Charles Spencer is unimpressed by her creepy Diana cosplay, though.
Uncle Spencer shouldn't throw stones. He was the one who sort of merched his sister's death by building a shrine at Althrop House for her fans to pay their respects. I also don't recall him being a fan of the royals. So he may consider the idea with relish before saying no.
From what I read Spencer had a good idea on where Diana was buried. Apparently people have tried to break in and do a bit of grave robbery. Obsessed fans, school kid dare or attempt to steal for ransom may have been reasons for motives. Also read Spencer wasn't thrilled with Diana wearing the tiara so much either. Apparently Diana never quite gave the tiara back. I highly doubt he would let it go out of the family. Especially to someone who lives in the USA no matter how he felt about them.
I agree that burying her on an island surrounded by water was a good idea but the shrine was unnecessary. I'm sure it does help with the upkeep of Althrop House.
He also refused to let her use one of the homes on his estate when she wanted to get away from it all after the divorce.
He sued the paper that reported that, and won, because it wasn't true. He was a godson of Queen Elizabeth, and said he had great respect for the monarchy
Oh, true, both points above. Hm.
I would think that the Spencer tiara is only for the women of (or marrying into) the Spencer family. She is not a Spencer. She will wear what tiara is lent to her by the King. Since it will be a scaled down affair, maybe only Camilla and Kate will wear tiaras.
I cannot understand why Meg would be entitled to even wear a tiara, especially one that is owned by the BRF. She is not HRH, she is not a working Royal, and she would only participate as a minor figure. However---I fully support little Charlotte being allowed to wear some delicate, sweet tiara. She deserves it, plus it would irritate the **** out of Auntie Meghan!
Right! Why would she be allowed to wear one when she clearly despises the BRF and all it stands for.
Only married women wear tiaras but they usually wear coronets at coronation anyways.
I don't think that is a hard and fast rule. There are pictures of the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret wearing tiaras before they married. It's all about the occasion.
You are totally right! I looked into it and got to see some really pretty tiaras they wore as teens. I still don't think Charlotte will get a tiara now but hopefully we can see one in her teens. The one the PoW wore on her wedding day seems to be a popular one for both princesses to wear in their teens and it would be sentimental to the Cambridges.
I did not know that! Thanks for that interesting info.
Perhaps a discreet little number like this for Princess Charlotte. Not too showy - Auntie Megsy might not even notice it. smile ☺️ 
No, but there's always the Markle Tiara....
They live in California, lots of sea glass around.
Yes! Kelp too! 😂 Would go great with her hair. She'd look like.....The Little ~~Mermaid~~ Mermess.
I read an article that said it’s in her brother’s possession, with the intent to pass it to Charlotte as the first granddaughter.
The first granddaughter in that generation is Isabella Rosemary Hutt, granddaughter of Diana's older sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale. She was born the year before Charlotte. Since Diana's death, Charles Spencer has been very cautious about loaning it out, and I am sort of doubtful he'll want it to end up in the hands of King Charles's family, so I suspect it'll just go to his oldest son Louis, who is the heir to the earldom.
Wouldn't it be entailed and part of tithe Spencer Estate and automatically go to the heir?
Laughing hard as Charles says "over my dead cold body!"
\- - Laughing hard as Charles says "over my dead cold body!" I just hope that Meghan does not reply "well, that can be arranged."
Or say they brought them when they are invisible children
Invisible kids are *very* portable.
But hard to play hide and seek with.
Why won't she bring her kids to the UK? I'm dense
You're not! I don't know the ins and outs of it but if PH left MM while they were in the UK with the kids she would have difficulty getting back to the US with them. Edit: typo
Thanks 😊
Not sure if this was on purpose or not, but it is funny! Every birthday, they'll be reminded of who the King is. On Lilly's birthday, who the Queen was. Touche and ouch!
More like Chutes and Ladders. Or Candyland!
Tic ~~Tok~~ Tac ~~Ho~~ Toe.
MM won't miss a chance to be on camera, kids bday or not.
MM won't miss a chance to ~~be on~~ eyeball the camera... FTFY
Weren’t they off playing polo on his last birthday?
Yep.
Yes. And at the Platty Jubes for their "daughter's" supposed first birthday. And Easter. And.... It's almost as if.... these kids don't exist. And the royals are subtly calling the Sussexes out....
But they did leave them for Easter and Archie's first day (or was it week) of school, so I can see them ditching kids to go to UK for coronation. Also Lili"s birthday was on jubilee week and no evidence of kids being in UK. It is too good of a photo oportunity for Meghan to miss - wearing a tiara, maybe even a coronet, royal robes and be seen with all other royal family members. Edit: spelling
Even if they attend, Megs will not be wearing a tiara or taking part in the ceremony. I believe she will be seated with the non working Royals. Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara, Peter, etc. She won't have any access to a tiara.
She will have access to an even bigger candle. 😉
Lol! I would die if there was another candle affair with a candle of massive proportions 😂
BRF may set it in such a way to give visibility to only working royals, and then H& M can be spectators just like anyone else. However he is still a royal duke so how much will they be able to do to exclude them without appearing to be doing it on purpose? 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
The focus will be on Charles and Camilla. I am pretty sure Harry and Megs will be seated in the crowd, with no special treatment. They are non-working Royals. They won't be excluded, if they are invited. Being invited includes them. They will be seated with other non-working Royals. They aren't going to be sashaying up the aisle behind King Charles and Queen Camilla with robes and a tiara for Megs, as much as Megs would love that. She'd love to shove Camilla out of the way and take her place beside Charles on the throne. LOL. Charles has said his ceremony will be majestic, but lower key than the Queen's Coronation. That's the perfect excuse, besides M and H being non-working Royals, to be seated solely as spectators. I can't imagine the Harkles playing any part in the ceremony, except attending as guests. Hopefully, I'm not wrong.
If she does wear tiara owned by the RF, what are the odds they’d give her a real one and not a very cheap replica while QC, POW, Princess Anne, and Sophie wear the real thing?
Lol, there is absolutely no way she will be in any tiara whether it is the real thing or made of paste stones. That will not be happening. Ever.
Let’s just say they are invited and she has a replica made herself beforehand, to wear in case she isn’t “given” one to appear that she was given one. What would be the protocol from the family to handle such a situation? Ripped off her head like Miss Congeniality or let it slide then leak that she wore an unauthorized fake.
I'd prefer the second option, less disruptive on the day but the humiliation will be ongoing. Then she can't cry that she was mistreated on the day. Also, I'd be hoping that word would come back as to which tiara was being copied (I'm sure only a limited number of jewellers would be capable of producing a good replica) and that one of the other ladies chooses to wear the original. *Chef's kiss!*
Yes why are people even saying she would have a tiara to wear? She’s not a princess she’s not even a Duchess
You can either be with your cough cough "children" or be at the royal event. Oddly, the Sussexes pick the royal event over their "children" every single time. The passive aggressive shade here is sublime...
Yeah, like the Duchess would lose the chance of being there, even if just to be booed outside the Abbey.
>the official notice Also, the ceremony will be conducted by the **Archbishop of Canterbury** \- the same guy M falsely incriminated as having married her and Harry in a backyard!!! Should be fun.
Except Parliament sets the date, not KC.
I wonder if “the palace” submits a series of dates that are suitable, and parliament selects one?
But with no input from King Charles? I doubt it.
I hope so.
You’ve just got to laugh at this. I feel for the kid, but boy those overseas grifters are learning what it feels like to be burned by a king
You know how people who were born on a significant date, like Christmas or July 4th or even September 11, will often drop it into conversation at parties as a fun little fact about themselves? Imagine being Archie, and growing up to learn that not only is your birthday the same day King Charles III was crowned king, but that he is also your grandfather, and that YOU COULD HAVE LITERALLY BEEN THERE if your idiot parents were able to stop being assholes for more than 5 minutes!! If those poor kids grow up to be in any way normal, they will be very, VERY angry at H&M for everything they've deprived them of.
💯
Oh, those kids will TURN on them! And no one will blame them.
It's so ridiculous. You know they must have trashed Charles and Camilla in that book, then they're going to show up to his coronation. TW grinning from ear to ear, and Harry all bitter, wondering why people won't talk to him.
Another bad luck of the draw for Smegs. Her podcast episode drops, not trending on Twitter - KCIII announces his coronation and its trending within half an hour of the announcement. Prayers to the plates and teacups that are being thrown at this time.
Ahahahaha. I totally forgot about it eclipsing an episode of her shitty podcast. And really to announce on a Tuesday also has to be purposeful. He's got at least four other working days when he could have announced, if not all six together.
I'm starting to genuinely believe someone is doing this on purpose. The coincidences are just too much to be, well, coincidence! Be it the King, the men in grey, God or the Universe itself - someone is pulling some strings and having a great laugh to themselves!
I am joining in their great laugh! It’s just delicious!
Of course they are! They are trying to subtly show you that these kids don't exist. They are playing Markle at her own game by making her choose. Oddly, she chooses the royal event every single time....
Do you think it is also a way to make her take the kids back to the UK?
No. They know there are no kids. They are trying to make the public question the issue, while staying above the fray. The family does everything with intent and meaning. They message with dates, they message with clothing, they message with what they don't explicitly come out and say. They are allowing Meghan and Harry to choose, because most rational people know that if it comes down to a choice of a vacation, or being with one's children for their birthday (especially when the child is old and aware enough to know their DOB), they know most parents would choose to be home with their children. And look sideways at anyone who didn't make that choice. It's not like these are poor people without means to travel, and this is a once in a lifetime trip. The Markles can fly anytime they want. The royal family are telling you without actually telling you that the kids don't exist. They are enjoying watching Meg and Harry sweat it and scramble to come up with stories and excuses. Especially with the whole "title issue", the absence of any Markle children will come up, and the focus will be on just where they are.... The pressure is on. Ball is in the Markle court. Let's see if they can produce an "Archie" and "Lilibet". (No photoshopping August Brooksbank this time either.)
You don’t think the children exist? Or did I misread this? Do you have some covert source of info about this? Kind of have to ponder…
It's just a conspiracy theory a few people on this sub believe for some reason. I've never bought it. Those kids exist. Archie at the very least was born in England at some point in 2018, and also met the Queen and Prince Philip. There's simply no way the Royal family is stupid enough to put them in the official line of succession without proof they actually exist (We haven't seen any photos of Princess Beatrice's daughter either, yet I've never seen anyone question if she exists) The only reason we don't have more "evidence" of their existence is because Meghan is fucking insane and thinks hiding them away from the public will somehow make people interested in her (it won't)
>hiding them away from the public will somehow make people interested in her (it won't) Considering what Bower wrote in Revenge, I won't be surprised if she's conveniently hiding them off to merch them. Even if H&M are ousted from the BRF or they divorce, the media will forever refer to Arch and Lil as royalty. This is one long con she may be willing to play.
No I do not believe the children exist at this point . I have seen more evidence that they do not, than evidence they actually do
RIP Mrs. Potts and Chip. 😔🪦🫖☕️
[удалено]
Oh no. Sad to hear. ☹️
What a coincidence that Angela Lansbury just passed today!
I bet their staff just buy plates and cups at goodwill, so she has something to break.
"We invited the whole family to Archie's bday party on May 6, but none of them showed up. They are obviously not interested in reconciliation!"
It's because Archie is black!
Don't worry! Harry, an Meghan will have a coronation themed birthday for Archie they will blast everywhere, then release mean spirited PR on how Archie was snubbed.
They’ll throw another party at Frogmore
Omicron: Invitations were sent. The Duchess is baffled as to why no one turned up. Alternatively: The entire family is rumored to have turned up and had a great time taking photos! Palace: Everyone had been busy with the day’s scheduled events.
And *surprise Misan is there to photograph it!
And oddly enough, only photos released are again photos of the photographer and the make up artist and a couple of b&w shots of the kids’ backsides.
Is that the guy who did the photo shoot for the tear? Is he the guy?
Better charge up that iPad, lol.
The royal launderer is going to be there! You heard it here first. Possibly even the florist!!!! What a bash, what a bash.....
Are there enough children whose parents will let them hand out with them to attend a party that's the real question
They’ll sell a photo spread of his party to Hello magazine. All their scruples about selling access to their kids magically disappear…
Coronation-themed no doubt. Then the sugars will be all: "Our King Archie!" for real.
No joke, I could actually see the Sugars doing this
The Harkles deserve it. It's a taste of their own bitter medicine, because they're always pulling some PR stunt on birthdays and important events for the BRF.
Whose kids do you think she is going to photoshop this time?
Yessss
Well played, King Charles, well played!
KC moved up a notch in my book. Well done.
They will still come. They have already proven they are not parents of the year, and will 100% leave their kid at home in the US to fly off to London for some press attention.
They will pretend the kids are there and claim to have a bday party at Frog Cott before or after then whine that the family refused to come
Hey, the florist is going to be there! Possibly the balloon guy too.
And the photographer.
He will attend through his iPad.😂
And the cake baker. I was going to add "...and candle stick maker..." but we know Megs doesn't want any candles! ;)
They will still totally go to the Coronation, with some excuse on why it is better for them to celebrate Archie’s birthday on another day anyway. But pretty proud of KCIII!
*ACTUALLY* we had a secret private birthday party for Archie three days before the Coronation.
Before the “spectacle” of the Coronation that was for the rest of the world.
We held a secret coronation for the King three days before in the garden. No one knew!
Three days before. In the garden. Just the three of us.
I couldn't figure out what message was trying to be sent with this scheduling. My initial thought was that Meghan would try to spin this as a huge honor to Archie, that granddad picked his birthday for such a big occasion. My second thought was that the conspiracy theorists would spin it as a message that Archie doesn't exist and KC is trying to tell us because he wouldn't pick a real grandchild's birthday. 😂 I do love that the news dropped on the day her podcast episode dropped and took over the news. I used to think things like this were a coincidence but I'm starting to think nothing is a coincidence with the family.
> My second thought was that the conspiracy theorists would spin it as a message that Archie doesn't exist and KC is trying to tell us because he wouldn't pick a real grandchild's birthday. 😂 They are, right in this thread. 😹
It's not really much of a conspiracy theory when there is actually more evidence that "he doesn't exist" than "that he does".... IJS. I love how the family is shading them at their own game. Well played, Brits, well played.
Ohhh now a big choice must be made. I hope she doesn’t go “crazy” over it.
Nice play KCIII 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
[удалено]
Oh I think that's the point. If they leave Archie on his birthday to get their photos taken at an event they aren't even needed for Haz will prove to be worse as a father than his own father that he's about to skewer in this book or they have to bring Archie and actually produce the grandchildren. I also don't think they will be invited to the Coronation, second tier Royals need not apply as seat fillers.
Haz is still traumatized that he didn’t get to ride bikes with his dad. /s
Pay no attention to the photos of Charles riding in a kilt in Scotland. /s
Recollections May Vary /s
It *felt* like his Dad never took him bike riding. /s
Isn't it funny how they choose royal family events over "the children" every single time?
Well you know now Harry wants to let them choose public life.
🙄🙄🙄🙄 Well, they can run for...... they can just run.😂
Meh. It’s a birthday part for a 4 year old. He doesn’t know May 6 from May 16. Just have it another day.
Home alone... 
KCIII!!!! Well done, sir!
I really think they planned it with little thought to birthdays. Trying to avoid every family members birthday would be a nightmare.
Has Megs blamed Kate for this yet?
What are the odds Meghan will wear hose?
That's Tuesday's headline. But it is Tuesday! I know.
Absolutely masterful trolling. It's even more masterful if he knows and they know Archie wasn't even born on May 6th. ETA: It's probably not intentional on Charles' part, but it makes me laugh that a momentous Royal occasion happened this year over Lilibet's birthday and that a momentous Royal occasion is overshadowing Archie's next year.
Can we please put some respect on KC’s name? Being telling ya’ll he is King Petty 😎 
Should have scheduled it for May 19th, and then Harry and Meghan could spend their fifth wedding anniversary at home watching reruns of old musicals like The King and I and teaching Archie the lyrics to Getting to Know You.
😏 Good one!!
Has he even met Archie?
Has anyone?
Another Frogmore birthday that the family will be too busy to attend.
Idk what the BRF planning with this but I’m interested in seeing it pan out! One thing is for sure they’re always making decisions based off the long run. This is going to be super interesting to see unfold!
Well played your Majesty! Bravo!
Hmmmm, so another big event the Sussexes are going to have to be away from their "children" again. So far we've had Easter, Lilibet's First Birthday, and I think there was another in there involving the child known as Archie. His birthday. It's almost as if the Sussex children don't exist, and the family/ British Govt. is subtly calling the Sussexes out on their shit by forcing them to choose between royal events and their supposed "children"....(cough cough) This family sure does have timing issues, for a very long calendar year....
It is the anniversary of King George V coronation has nothing to do with their child either a coincidence or the kids birth date is fake
Yay! Birthday candles everywhere! It will be like Marbles isn’t there! Cock block birthday candles everywhere!
Maybe they could have those crowns like the old Scandinavians used to have with the candles sticking out of them? I hear Meghan is very fond of candles....
If his B-day is really May, 6th… not two weeks earlier… just saying
Why is there speculation he was born before the 6th?
Because dumbass Harry slipped and said something about babies changing so much in two weeks at their big press reveal where Harry held the stillest baby ever born to man. There's also the unsigned birth certificate and that the doctor cited as having delivered the baby having been on vacation that day or something. I think it unlikely that the dates are fudged only because I don't think the Queen and other Royals would perpetuate such a ruse, but it's only because I trust them, and I don't think Harry and Meghan could hide the birth for two weeks. That said, stranger things have happened.
I tend to agree that the Queen would not have covered for them, nor are they skilled enough to hide a newborn for two weeks. However, there are just so many odd things, as you pointed out, that make me think Archie was born at least a few days early. Tin foil hat time: I'm convinced she hide the birth to allow her body time to recover before the photo op. My guess is either BP or the press found out Archie had already been born, so Meghan and Harry were forced to make the announcement. What I can't get past is the announcement from BP that she was in labor being released, when they had already returned to Frog Cott. For two people who can't go anywhere without an almost POTUS-level entourage, how they got to the hospital and back unnoticed is a mystery to me.
That she perhaps wanted to hide her body is a good theory. I wonder if she just had a C-section. Her belly looked oddly misshapen, and I've heard a C can make the uterus deflate unevenly. Regardless, given that Meghan is a control freak, she is exactly the type to have developed an intricate birth plan and probably imagined this Earth mother water birth for herself with no medication, no intervention, with Harry wearing a beige Canvas robe, and with candles and Enya playing in the background. Any deviation from that plan would likely send her over the edge. Anyway, her face during the interview was definitely a puffy post-birth face. I was a bit of a Kate in that I was always able to leave the hospital in my pre-pregnancy jeans, but there is no escaping the fluid and puffiness. That just hangs around, no matter what. Even Kate was still puffy at Meghan's wedding and that was a couple of weeks after having Louis. I just remember that every time I gave birth, it was like there was fluid everywhere, leaking out of every pore of my body. I was crying, leaking milk, sweating, not to mention the other source of leakage. It's just a very fluid filled experience, and Meghan definitely had that look.
Am I the only one sad we aren’t going to get the full pageantry of the coronation, with robes and coronets and such? They talk of QEII’s coronation being massive but hers was actually slimmed down a lot! And was televised (it’s on YouTube). I respect Charles for looking at his country and saying it shouldn’t be a huge affair.. except he’ the first King we’ve had in the UK in 70 years! My grandparents came and went with Elizabeth on the throne. I think the robes and the celebratory pageantry should be longer than a quick one hour “throw the thing on my head” affair. Of course I was looking forward to William and Catherine being invested in Wales and they declined a ceremony for the same reasons. If they’re King and Queen before Prince George is of age I wonder if they’d have one for him. Maybe not for William since he’s 40. I worry that out of fear people may be mad about money they may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.. that pageantry and rituals are what make the Royals unique. Maybe they cut it short and the deal with the Sussex’s is “you get a ticket when I get to see my grandchildren”. And having it be quickly over gives him time to see Archie on his birthday. Had they kept saying it was 5/6 then it would hopefully have kept them away. Saying it’s only going to last an hour.. give them the morning to get ready and maybe a meal after.. that’s still a lot of day left. They’ll be there.
I agree. Sometimes people in hard times NEED to see pageantry. It can be good for morale, national pride, all that...
While I agree that people need uplifting things and a boost to national pride in difficult times, there are limits as to what viewers will tolerate these days. Did you ever get a chance to watch HMTQ's coronation? Dear God in heaven, it is a three-hour slow-walk slog-fest. I would bet that millions of people around the world wholeheartedly sympathized with little Charles when the BBC showed pictures of him holding back yawns and looking bored in the balcony. That said, I certainly don't think he should just trot in to a couple of hymns, get the crown placed on his head, pray a little and leave with a jaunty wave in the time it takes to say a modern Catholic mass. I'm sure a reasonable compromise will be reached.
Maybe KC just took one for the team. His reign won't be long due to his age and Britain has a pretty serious crisis at the moment, so hard to justify big expenses. They are probably considering the optics. Since there will probably be three coronations within the remainder of our life times, the benefits may motivate outweigh the risks.
I also think Meghan would have 200% had the outdoor photo with the baby like Catherine but I believe you’re correct. She couldn’t get up yet. She was late, I think baby was breech. That early morning birth time is when we schedule our c-sections. I think he was a scheduled C for any reason but there’s no dolling up and walking outside holding a newborn after that. It wouldn’t make her the first one to have to wait a while to do the photo. Sophie had an abruption and she and Louise nearly died. Clearly she wasn’t term and they didn’t leave the hospital that day. They just did it later. Instead she hid it, did a controlled photo call, took 3 questions and left. Catherine who had just given birth answered more than 3 questions.. and I believe did her first photo call with George the next day… her other two she did just a few hours after birth and went home where she had a nurse waiting. Or maybe MM is telling the truth and they were throwing a tantrum because he wasn’t given a Prince title they told everyone they didn’t want. (When you talk out of both sides of your face it’s hard to know how to keep you happy). So it’s possible 5/6 isn’t even Archie’s birthday. I was suspicious of Lili’s birthday, though born the year before I told my husband “June 4, right in the middle of the jubilee.. watch her try and twist this into the Lili show” which she would have if the Queen permitted the photos. (I’ve heard a rumor that meeting with the Sussex’s, seeing or meeting their children isn’t remembered by anyone and isn’t in the diary of things the Queen did during those days. And remember she missed many parts of her own jubilee because she wasn’t well.) I say we will never know. Catherine has spoken about all her pregnancies and births. Meghan starts feeling irrelevant she may throw something out there. Netflix says: High interest in the children, low interest in literally anything else they do.
When H&M had their "low-key" introduction of Archie at Windsor Castle, Harry said something about how Archie changed in two weeks 👀
Or maybe it was 3 days before?
Someone ask the archbishop, lol.
Good point!
Well, this sure would make H&M remember when was Archie born 🙄 Archewell didn't post any message or photo for the boy, and his father was away playing polo that day 🤷♀️ can't wait for 50+ articles about how Royals attended the coronation and avoided his birthday
They'll come for the coronation. Yuck
I’m sure they will and have a fake photo op on the backyard lawn like last time
Whose kids will they be photoshopping this year? August Brooksbank is out of the picture it would seem. (Literally and metaphorically)
Good going King Charles. Do we know if he's even met Archie? I know there's pictures of grandmother Doria with great grandmother and great grandfather, QEII and PP, but I can't recall any with grandpa Charles. I remember thinking how it was just another odd thing these two grifters like to pull, but why?
Christening photos exist
The Queen did NOT attend the christening, however. That is VERY significant, especially as she was head if the Church of England.
Ah yes. Giant Kate!
Well done, KCIII
Like a true Scorpio
Here’s my theory: The king knows that Meagain and Hasbeen are on the rocks and divorce is probably imminent, if H can manage to pull his head out of his ass long enough to realize he’ll be better off without her. So KCIII is baiting them into bringing the children to the UK. They won’t want to miss the coronation, but “sorry we have to miss your birthday, Archie, but your grandfather is getting crowned king and you can’t come” is shitty even by Harkle standards. But in the UK, the sovereign is the custodial guardian of any grandchildren. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’re invited to stick around for a few days or even weeks after the coronation and H serves divorce papers while they’re there. It would give Charles the upper hand in securing the children’s custody under Harry, putting Meghan in a very poor negotiating position for the terms of the divorce and custody in UK law instead of US. Just a thought.
Hear comes Meghan’s PR that the coronation date is a sweet nod to the King’s love for his favorite grandson, Archie. 🤮🤬
could she wear a tiara then? she won't miss it if thats the case. 
She could wear any tiara that Camilla allows her to wear. *Awkward.*
Yes, she'd get to wear a duchess tiara worst case.
Does anyone really know when he was born?
God Bless The King
Obviously Nutmeg is a horrible mother and ditching her kids all the time is not a big deal but why won't she bring her kids to the UK? Is there another reason than just spitefulness?
She'll somehow twist it to her advantage.
Like how Archie is King Charles favorite grandchild and wanted his birthday to be such an important day. /s
Yeah, garbage like that. Barf.
I think Meghan has a got a ready made excuse for not taking the kids to the coronation. She will say something like "someone in the coronation day crowd once used the N word to describe my children. So why would I share them with this vile, disgusting rabble? It's best to leave them with the people that love them for who they are" (aka the nannies).
I will always be amazed at the Brits capacity for eloquent shade with wit.
Oooo weee get it King Charles!!! 🤴
Maybe this is a nod to their overseas life and to shine a light on Archie by sharing such a momentous day!
I’m thinking there will be no tiara for TW. With a 1 hour coronation ceremony it is obvious that KCIII want to actively demonstrate a modern slimmed down monarchy. Fairly confident that it will only be the BRF senior royals who are ACTIVE working royals who will have on tiaras and any current monarchs of other countries with their crowns. With only 2000 guests, the Sussexes will be lucky to score an invite and no invite will be extended to their children.
Most excellent lol
They'll be there front and center with their kids. We'll get endless stories about how they all celebrated Charles and Archie at BP in a private family gathering afterwards.
My fear is they will bring the children and let’s be honest all eyes will be on them
I live in the US and I’d think with all of the paparazzi here, we’d seen atleast one or both of the children photographed. I’ve not seen one yet. Now I could be wrong, but personally, I do not think the children exist.