Kate's New Picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what if it is an old photo? The point of it was to celebrate Mother’s Day, not “Here is our family at this exact moment, right now.” Why are you acting like it would be insane to celebrate Mother’s Day by posting a family photo that’s a few months old? Who cares?

The world, clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw the picture and immediately thought “this woman is paralyzed”. The way her legs look and the bend at her waist look like that of a paraplegic. Abdominal surgery or not, why couldn’t she STAND for a couple pictures MONTHS after surgery? She’s a spry young mother! Something is up.

I also wondered what’s wrong with her legs! Didn’t think she’s paralyzed but her legs look weird.

If she had abdominal surgery it might be hard for her to stand up. It took me two weeks after my c-section to feel comfortable standing up completely straight.

It’s been TWO MONTHS!

You really need to get a hobby.

Same, girl, same. Why are you still here?

To laugh at your psychotic conspiracy theories!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

[Anonymous]

This is fun to read. PSYCHOS!

[Anonymous]

Thoughts? Take a look at the timeline

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/s/NSYTYviOFS

https://tomsiebert.substack.com/p/the-strange-case-of-kate-middleton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do something with Charlotte’s teeth. The royals do wear braces but try not to show the public. England has socialized medical and braces are considered a luxury, not supported by the average medical plan. BRF does not want to appear above the others. With Invisalign type products they can probably now have them more easily.

Have you never heard of Invisalign?

George's teeth are so perfectly straight. Maybe he has something that can be worn just at night?

Some people just have good teeth.

Not usually the British and especially ones with intertwining family trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw the picture and immediately thought “this woman is paralyzed”. The way her legs look and the bend at her waist look like that of a paraplegic. Abdominal surgery or not, why couldn’t she STAND for a couple pictures MONTHS after surgery? She’s a spry young mother! Something is up.

I also wondered what’s wrong with her legs! Didn’t think she’s paralyzed but her legs look weird.

If she had abdominal surgery it might be hard for her to stand up. It took me two weeks after my c-section to feel comfortable standing up completely straight.

It’s been TWO MONTHS!

You really need to get a hobby.

Same, girl, same. Why are you still here?

To laugh at your psychotic conspiracy theories!

Enjoy your hobby then; it’s not much different from mine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do something with Charlotte’s teeth. The royals do wear braces but try not to show the public. England has socialized medical and braces are considered a luxury, not supported by the average medical plan. BRF does not want to appear above the others. With Invisalign type products they can probably now have them more easily.

Have you never heard of Invisalign?

George's teeth are so perfectly straight. Maybe he has something that can be worn just at night?

Some people just have good teeth.

Ah yes! The British and their famously good teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic...but how are all the kids teeth so perfectly straight?

hmm, I was going to ask if Brit’s or Royal’s kids get braces ?

my question

[Anonymous]

I’m not trusting anything KP puts out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

Yes, dear. “The article” said. Not “…took it earlier in the week, according to Palace sources,” or “…according to His Royal Highness.” If it is an error, it is 100% an error that can happen any day with any new source. If it were posted to Instagram and they pulled it, they should have said “was posted on Instagram earlier this week” or something. There’s no source to the “fact” that the photo was actually TAKEN in recent days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

Yes, dear. “The article” said. Not “…took it earlier in the week, according to Palace sources,” or “…according to His Royal Highness.” If it is an error, it is 100% an error that can happen any day with any new source. If it were posted to Instagram and they pulled it, they should have said “was posted on Instagram earlier this week” or something. There’s no source to the “fact” that the photo was actually TAKEN in recent days.

Instagram post says <camera emoji> 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

Yes, dear. “The article” said. Not “…took it earlier in the week, according to Palace sources,” or “…according to His Royal Highness.” If it is an error, it is 100% an error that can happen any day with any new source. If it were posted to Instagram and they pulled it, they should have said “was posted on Instagram earlier this week” or something. There’s no source to the “fact” that the photo was actually TAKEN in recent days.

Instagram post says <camera emoji> 2024

…which can reasonably be interpreted as “this photo was posted in 2024.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

Yes, dear. “The article” said. Not “…took it earlier in the week, according to Palace sources,” or “…according to His Royal Highness.” If it is an error, it is 100% an error that can happen any day with any new source. If it were posted to Instagram and they pulled it, they should have said “was posted on Instagram earlier this week” or something. There’s no source to the “fact” that the photo was actually TAKEN in recent days.

Instagram post says <camera emoji> 2024

I like how you act like Instagram is held to the same journalistic and archival standards as, say, a legitimate newspaper, or Getty Images, or the official the BRF press offices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is clearly an old photo

The article said William took it earlier in the week.

Yes, dear. “The article” said. Not “…took it earlier in the week, according to Palace sources,” or “…according to His Royal Highness.” If it is an error, it is 100% an error that can happen any day with any new source. If it were posted to Instagram and they pulled it, they should have said “was posted on Instagram earlier this week” or something. There’s no source to the “fact” that the photo was actually TAKEN in recent days.

Instagram post says <camera emoji> 2024

I like how you act like Instagram is held to the same journalistic and archival standards as, say, a legitimate newspaper, or Getty Images, or the official the BRF press offices.

oh dear. I am pointing out that there are explicit efforts made by someone acting on behalf of William and Kate to make us all believe, purport, put forth, assert what have you, that this picture was taken in the last 2 months and 10 days. I am not saying that it's true.