The British tabloids can’t help themselves. They have an itch and they have to scratch it with dumb make-believe fictions about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and baby Archie too. Over the weekend, the Sun reported out of nowhere that Meghan is such an unrepentant diva that she’s now chased away THREE nannies! The evidence? Um, the evidence is… something something she’s a diva!
Baby Archie is on to his third nanny in six weeks after two stopped working for Harry and Meghan. The high turnover in such a short time raises further questions about staff leaving the couple’s employment. But sympathetic royal sources have explained the choice of a nanny is a highly personal decision and the couple might just want to get it right. Sources close to the Sussexes said on Friday night that nannies for Archie, born on May 6, was a personal matter and that Buckingham Palace does not comment on staff hiring.
The source said: “Often there are different needs at different stages of the baby’s life. The first nanny was a night nurse. But Harry and Meghan do not want to rush this or take any risks getting this decision right. It’s deeply personal and can depend on the needs of the baby and parents.”
[From The Sun]
That’s literally all there was to the story. My assumption was that one of the nannies was a night nurse or day nurse hired for the first six weeks. My assumption is that of course you would do a “trial period” with a nanny you were thinking of hiring, and maybe that trial period shows that someone isn’t a good fit. The Sun would have us believe that Meghan is personally chasing away multiple nannies because they won’t fetch her a grander tiara. Diva! Speaking of, apparently the diva has personally banned all media from Archie’s christening?
Baby Archie will be christened at the same Windsor Chapel where both his father and uncle were baptised – and his parents were married in 2018 – next weekend. However, the youngest royal’s parents are firmly staying true to their desire to raise Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor as a ‘private citizen’ by closing off the royal event to the public.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who faced criticism last week for lavish renovations of their home, Frogmore Cottage, at a cost of £2.4million to the taxpayer, look set to make their son’s christening an entirely private affair. Kate and William allowed media access to all three of their children’s baptisms before conducting the ceremonies in private. The Queen will not attend Archie’s christening with Charles and Camilla set to lead the Royal party.
Royal christenings are usually private affairs, with invitations extending only to close family and friends, and chosen godparents.
[From The Daily Mail]
I wish the Daily Mail would make up their minds about how they’re going to report a story like this – is *just* the christening going to be private? Because every royal keeps the actual christening private. Kate and William didn’t allow cameras IN the church for the christening, neither did Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall. It feels like the Daily Mail is conflating that with “no cameras or photos AROUND the christening.” Which… isn’t going to happen. With Charles, Camilla, William and Kate in attendance, and with the christening happening at Windsor Castle, of course there will be photos outside the chapel, and I would assume Meghan and Harry will release some portraits on their Instagram too. This was just the Daily Mail trying to make it sound like Meghan (and Meghan alone) is using taxpayer money to lavishly decorate her mansion all while HIDING Archie.
Also: the royal reporters are now confirming that the christening itself will be private (like all royal christenings) and that the Sussexes will release some photos, but there’s an ongoing conversation about whether the press will be allowed to cover the “arrivals.” As I said, I think at the end of the day, the arrivals will be allowed.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
Source: Read Full Article