Kate's New Picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's Razor. Responding to some prior comments:

1) Kate is recovering from a serious abdominal surgery. KP wouldn't have announced such unglamorous news were it not the case. If they wanted an excuse for Kate being out of the public eye, they could've concocted something else.

2) Kate's condition may or may not be related to an ED. But there's no evidence that she's ever had a drinking problem!

3) Years ago, I believed the rumors that William had an affair with Rose. But after Pippa named her daughter Rose, this seems doubtful.

4) KP is not "soft launching" Rose. The reason The Independent ran the feature on Rose is because people are curious about her given the explosion of interest in William and Kate's marriage. Even if William and Rose were having an affair, I seriously doubt they would think now, while Kate is ill, is a good time to gin up some favorable press in William's mistress.

5) The photo of William and Kate in the car was exactly that. After the fiasco over the altered photo, do you really think KP would pull a stunt by having Pippa sit in for Kate in the "proof of life" photo?! Kate is almost certainly looking away from the camera because she is unwell and doesn't want to be photographed, which we already know.

6) KP said from the beginning that Kate would be off until sometime after Easter. So this is not unexpected.

7) The part that is peculiar is KP has not released any credible recent photos of Kate during her recovery, such as the obligatory "looking at well-wishers' cards" photo. This obviously indicates that Kate is feeling quite unwell, likely both physically and mentally.

8) But it does not suggest that Kate was in a coma! Just because Kate has a Spanish nanny doesn't mean that the Spanish reporter is correct. (Hey, I have British family and that doesn't make me an insider.) That reporter has written that Michael Jackson and Princess Diana were murdered...

TL;DR - We haven't seen Kate because she's feeling unwell, likely both mentally and physically. But some of the conspiracy theories are nutty.

Do you have a cite for that? I thought that was actually quite a recent development.

Yes. Official KP statement from Jan. 17. (I follow this stuff.)
https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2024-01-17/a-statement-from-kensington-palace

Cool. I am actually reassured by that. It's less haphazard a progression than I thought.

It; 's a very good and clear statement. I just don't know where Or why it went off the rails. Like really off the rails, and it happened well before the picture gate.

Like how did this happen?

It happened because KP started responding to gossip (the coma thing). I really don’t understand why they did that.

I don’t understand that, either. But it definitely got everybody’s spidey senses tingling, and then they went on to release the fake photo, and it’s snowballed from there.

For me it was when William gave "personal matter" as a reason why he missed his godfathers memorial service. It had been just over a month since Kate's surgery and people were like "What? What's going on? Is Kate Okay?" If he had said something like due to flu he had to cancel last minutes, people wouldn't have reacted that much. There was a thread here at that time too.

+1

It was also weird that they felt the need to preemptively say he wasn’t missing the service because of the Kingston suicide. Nobody asked? I don’t think Kingston’s death has anything to do with whatever Kate is dealing with, but it added to the weirdness.

yup completely agree

It's not weird when you know that William was close with Kingston and that that was the assumption being made ins some parts.

And if that was the reason for missing it, Kingston's FIL and MIL being at the service would be even weirder. Had he cancelled with a bit more notice would have been no big deal.

The death announcement and his withdraw were announced close in time. Likely unconnected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the fast engagement and marriage could just as well be due to getting pregnant by the man she married, right? What am I missing? Is there some reason the speed of it would have to lead to William as the father?

Rose first had twin sons with her husband. They were born soon after the marriage. The daughter came a few years later, and is William’s.

And you know this how? DNA results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the fast engagement and marriage could just as well be due to getting pregnant by the man she married, right? What am I missing? Is there some reason the speed of it would have to lead to William as the father?

Rose first had twin sons with her husband. They were born soon after the marriage. The daughter came a few years later, and is William’s.

Oh, so you (or another PP) was posting a correction. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Prince-William-Attends-Thomas-Kingston-Funeral-Without-Kate-Middleton.jpg?w=900&quality=86&strip=all" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

This is William at Kingstons funeral from a “traumatic head wound” from “suicide” that happened the same time as “personal matter”

Another low info poster making up facts. Kingston died on Sunday. The memorial for William's godfather was on Wed. Kingston's former ILs both attended. Kingston's death was publicly announced on Wed but was known to the family days earlier.

you’re the one that’s low info. Kingston died on Sunday Feb 25th. His godfathers memorial was Feb 27th which was a Tuesday not Wednesday.

He was supposed to give the eulogy for his godfather but cancelled at the last minute.

Kingstons death was not announced until Tuesday, Feb 27th the same day William pulled out from the memorial service due to a “personal matter” And Kp had to state the “personal matter” is not related to Kingston. Who asked?

It was several days later.

The announcements were close in time so denying a connection is logical. Also, his former MIL and FIL were in attendance at the memorial, so looked better to clarify that William was not missing it due to his suicide. The family had known for days, obviously. Due to the timing of the announcements one could have thought William just found out and the withdrawal was a reaction, no on both counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The podcast Royally Obsessed (which is a very pro-royals American podcast that is very supportive of Kate and Meghan) had Ellie Hall on this week (the interviewee in that Nieman Labs article that has made the rounds). Very interesting.

One theory she shared (based on her own experience covering the royal beat) is that she thinks the palace promised the mothers Day photo to get UK publications to agree not to publish the photo of Carole Middleton with someone who looks kind of like Kate (I think it's Pippa). This makes some sense to me as that might be why the palace felt pressure to produce a "recent" photo. And it tracks with the decision to plan that paparazzi photo on Monday (when it became clear the MD photo was not a recent photo).

But the part that doesn't make sense to me is why they'd be so desperate to keep that photo with Carole out of UK papers, especially when it was published by tons of non-UK pubs. I just don't get why that would be worth doctoring a photo and lying about it.

I think there is an agreement in general not to post such "candid" photos so they can go about their day to day lives, out with the kids, etc. So, they did not want to break that line but rather control the content and timing as per usual. Don't think it is super complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can one of the royal watchers explain to me why Charles is making succession plans? I thought that was all totally spelled out already

To kick Harry out of it

Harry is four people away. Who cares about him in succession?

I know absolutely nothing about royals - but what if something happened to William before George comes of age?

According to the Regents Act, Harry would step in as regent until George turns 18. However, the Act also says that the regent must be domiciled in the U.K., so Harry couldn’t phone it in from California.

This is incorrect. Charles has updated it to Anne and Edward, removing Harry and Andrew.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-prince-andrew-regency-act-king-b2225284.html

DP: Anne and Edward were recently added to the list of Counsellors of State for Charles. Andrew and Harry were not removed from this list. It was generally assumed that the list was enlarged to ensure that Andrew and Harry would not be called to serve as CoS. That’s different from officially appointing a Regent for Charles. It’s also really different from appointing a Regent for George — should he become King while he’s still a minor. At this point, as the PPP stated, the people in line for a Regency are the adults in the line of succession. William, then Harry, then Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, and Anne. Prince Harry is now — still — first in line to be the Regent for Prince George.
If this has changed, any such change would be quite recent. It also isn’t up to Charles to single-handedly change the order of succession for a Regency.

An issue, according to the Regency act of 1937 , would be whether or not Harry is “domiciled” in the UK. If Harry were to choose not to be domiciled in the UK — and it will be interesting to see how that gets defined — Andrew is next in line.
I’ll welcome any corrections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Meghan (and Harry) issued a formal statement on the issue? Are they worried about Kate?

Why would they do that? They’ve made a clear stance against the monarchy by leaving it.

Harry went to London to see his father and didn’t see William. And, what would they even say if they did? “The photo was butchered and we don’t know where Kate is either.”

[Anonymous]

They’re going to have to swallow their pride and ask Harry and Meg to come back. All of the Queens kids are old and they can’t continue doing engagements the way they are right now.

Will and Kate are probably over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palace is dumb for putting Easter as her comeback date but now walking back that Kate will be there on June 8th for the Trooping the Colour event.

If she’s not going to be back by June; what gives? It’s either divorce or she’s really ill

The said “after” Easter, that could mean anytime after the end of March.

Yep. Could be August. That would be after Easter. So would Christmas time…..the year 2025….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re going to have to swallow their pride and ask Harry and Meg to come back. All of the Queens kids are old and they can’t continue doing engagements the way they are right now.

Will and Kate are probably over

Only in your dreams

[Anonymous]

My thought is they aren't getting divorced. It;s not beneficial to him to get divorced. I had always thought if William were to divorce Kate it would be when the kids were older and before he became king, so as not to recreate the drama of his childhood. However it seems he mightbecome king a little sooner than expected so no divorce.

I actually don't think Harry will divorce Meghan either same situation as will. I do think unlike Kate Meghan would divorce Harry if she began to see him as more of a liability.

I think both brothers are desperate to avoid being compared to their father in terms of relationships.


What I think is happening with Kate is it's something medical, and something they aren't comfortable discussing publically now if ever, that might be for the protection of the children so as not to worry them. I think whatever it is has a long recovery, but I also think there have been some hiccups along the way that is prolonging recovery.

I also suspect Charles may be a bit worse than has been said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My thought is they aren't getting divorced. It;s not beneficial to him to get divorced. I had always thought if William were to divorce Kate it would be when the kids were older and before he became king, so as not to recreate the drama of his childhood. However it seems he mightbecome king a little sooner than expected so no divorce.

I actually don't think Harry will divorce Meghan either same situation as will. I do think unlike Kate Meghan would divorce Harry if she began to see him as more of a liability.

I think both brothers are desperate to avoid being compared to their father in terms of relationships.


What I think is happening with Kate is it's something medical, and something they aren't comfortable discussing publically now if ever, that might be for the protection of the children so as not to worry them. I think whatever it is has a long recovery, but I also think there have been some hiccups along the way that is prolonging recovery.

I also suspect Charles may be a bit worse than has been said.

I’ve said the same thing multiple times on this thread and no one cares. Crazies are crazy. Poor Charles, I do think it’s worse that they’re letting on.

I’m much more interested in talking about what will happen next, and how Camilla is holding on to power with a dead tight grip.

[Anonymous]

Question for the bowel surgery believers - wouldn’t she need a second surgery to remove the colostomy bag?if per the first announcements the plan was to be healed before or around Easter, that would require an additional surgery no? So she would then be back out of commission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The podcast Royally Obsessed (which is a very pro-royals American podcast that is very supportive of Kate and Meghan) had Ellie Hall on this week (the interviewee in that Nieman Labs article that has made the rounds). Very interesting.

One theory she shared (based on her own experience covering the royal beat) is that she thinks the palace promised the mothers Day photo to get UK publications to agree not to publish the photo of Carole Middleton with someone who looks kind of like Kate (I think it's Pippa). This makes some sense to me as that might be why the palace felt pressure to produce a "recent" photo. And it tracks with the decision to plan that paparazzi photo on Monday (when it became clear the MD photo was not a recent photo).

But the part that doesn't make sense to me is why they'd be so desperate to keep that photo with Carole out of UK papers, especially when it was published by tons of non-UK pubs. I just don't get why that would be worth doctoring a photo and lying about it.

Because it’s possible that whomever took the photo knows the actual location of where they are going or coming from and releasing that information would be a tell on something like a divorce and separated living.

If the children are moved and attending school from a different residence than the usual, the paps know and releasing that photo blows the cover on the imho impending divorce.

If she’s day to day living at the parents home and that where the paps see her and the mom or kids entering and exiting, it proves the Windsor photo was setup with her head looking out the window.

That photo opens up more trouble once the location is tracked down to where they were truly coming or going from basically!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The podcast Royally Obsessed (which is a very pro-royals American podcast that is very supportive of Kate and Meghan) had Ellie Hall on this week (the interviewee in that Nieman Labs article that has made the rounds). Very interesting.

One theory she shared (based on her own experience covering the royal beat) is that she thinks the palace promised the mothers Day photo to get UK publications to agree not to publish the photo of Carole Middleton with someone who looks kind of like Kate (I think it's Pippa). This makes some sense to me as that might be why the palace felt pressure to produce a "recent" photo. And it tracks with the decision to plan that paparazzi photo on Monday (when it became clear the MD photo was not a recent photo).

But the part that doesn't make sense to me is why they'd be so desperate to keep that photo with Carole out of UK papers, especially when it was published by tons of non-UK pubs. I just don't get why that would be worth doctoring a photo and lying about it.

Because it’s possible that whomever took the photo knows the actual location of where they are going or coming from and releasing that information would be a tell on something like a divorce and separated living.

If the children are moved and attending school from a different residence than the usual, the paps know and releasing that photo blows the cover on the imho impending divorce.

If she’s day to day living at the parents home and that where the paps see her and the mom or kids entering and exiting, it proves the Windsor photo was setup with her head looking out the window.

That photo opens up more trouble once the location is tracked down to where they were truly coming or going from basically!

I’ll add that also could open a can of worms if it was to/from a visit to ED clinic with Pippa to visit Kate, etc