Kate's New Picture

[Anonymous]

The whole situation is odd, but I doubt it’s as nefarious as we think.

[Anonymous]

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.

Would she be smiling? I can’t imagine she’s paralyzed - seems a stretch. Kids would be distressed too

Her eyes are definitely not smiling.

Children that young who are cared for by a team of caregivers, probably don’t feel the “distress” like a normal child would.

[Anonymous]

I think the photo just has a somewhat overall odd look because she's wearing a black turtleneck. It makes her head pop out and then her torso disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how long ago the photo was taken? Pre- surgery?

I’ve been thinking these conspiracy theories are a little wackadoodle, but considering how puffy her face looked just a few days ago in the photo in the car with her mom, I don’t buy that this is a recent photo of Kate.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/04/entertainment/kate-middleton-spotted-for-first-time-since-surgery-conspiracy-theories-photos/amp/

That wasn’t her, it was her sister

The sister who was in a bikini 2 weeks prior in st barts?

That woman inthe car looked overweight and puffy…

Pippa was not the person pictured in the car.

[Anonymous]

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.

Would she be smiling? I can’t imagine she’s paralyzed - seems a stretch. Kids would be distressed too

Kate looks sad, but obliging the camera. The kids are laughing. Someone said or did something funny. Even in our darkest hours we can laugh at something funny, especially children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole situation is odd, but I doubt it’s as nefarious as we think.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it significant that we only see her from the neck down?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68526972

Any conspiracy theories here?

The neck down? Are you insane? We see her head too.

I read that and thought it was totally weird. Very relieved to see it was neck up! And that appears to be how the website cropped it for the top, because there is a whole body picture below.

[Anonymous]

She did look puffier in the car pic but it was a long lens and distorted anyway. A friend lives about 30 mins from Windsor and photos she’s shared lately have shown signs of spring.

I do agree that their PR team handled this so poorly. I wonder if this is all William’s intention though. People have said that he wants to go back to the old style of monarchy where they’re only seen on big occasions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole situation is odd, but I doubt it’s as nefarious as we think.

+1. My guess is she really had abdominal surgery and is tired of always having to be on display so she’s insisting on privacy during this time. The truth always seems to come out, so I guess we’ll know one day.

[Anonymous]

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.

Would she be smiling? I can’t imagine she’s paralyzed - seems a stretch. Kids would be distressed too

Her eyes are definitely not smiling.

Children that young who are cared for by a team of caregivers, probably don’t feel the “distress” like a normal child would.

I agree - that is a forced smile. Look at the kids smiles and you can see the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole situation is odd, but I doubt it’s as nefarious as we think.

I think she probably looks puffy from whatever she’s had to take after surgery and doesn’t want to be photographed looking less than perfect. Which is perfectly okay. She doesn’t owe pictures to anyone.

[Anonymous]

I think they used a picture taken in autumn. Their clothing looks like fall styles, not spring. Even though it’s still chilly in GB, royals would definitely be wearing clothing/colors appropriate for March vs. October or November.

That, and the tree in the background are giveaways.

[Anonymous]

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.

Would she be smiling? I can’t imagine she’s paralyzed - seems a stretch. Kids would be distressed too

Her eyes are definitely not smiling.

Children that young who are cared for by a team of caregivers, probably don’t feel the “distress” like a normal child would.

I agree - that is a forced smile. Look at the kids smiles and you can see the difference.

Charlotte, too. She is stoic in general, but she looks like she’s laughing because everyone else is and it is expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they used a picture taken in autumn. Their clothing looks like fall styles, not spring. Even though it’s still chilly in GB, royals would definitely be wearing clothing/colors appropriate for March vs. October or November.

That, and the tree in the background are giveaways.

This. And as for the missing tooth, how easily that can be edited.

[Anonymous]

There is no way that is a current photo unless it's a staged background or they have traveled to a significantly warmer locale.