Kate's New Picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Newsweek was once a reputable organization but it died and someone bought the brand to use it for ill. This isn’t “Newsweek” as we know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Chris Bouzy is not credible/a troll.

Good of you to identify yourself as a troll here. Thanks for the heads up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Chris Bouzy is not credible/a troll.

It’s Newsweek, nimrod

Newsweek went downhill awhile ago. It’s not what it used to be and is junk news now.

[Anonymous]

I think this would be 5, maybe 10% as bad had they not released that photo. Especially if, as seems likely, they lied about when it was taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Newsweek was once a reputable organization but it died and someone bought the brand to use it for ill. This isn’t “Newsweek” as we know it.

A guy who likes to "hang with the Sussex Squad" is surely an objective source on palace intrigue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Chris Bouzy is not credible/a troll.

It’s Newsweek, nimrod

The name calling, as usual.

Said the lady who called Bouzy a troll for posting a story from NEWSWEEK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Newsweek was once a reputable organization but it died and someone bought the brand to use it for ill. This isn’t “Newsweek” as we know it.

A guy who likes to "hang with the Sussex Squad" is surely an objective source on palace intrigue!

Bouzy wasn’t the source. At least TRY to be less dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Chris Bouzy is not credible/a troll.

It’s Newsweek, nimrod

The name calling, as usual.

Said the lady who called Bouzy a troll for posting a story from NEWSWEEK.

If the shoe fits.... and that wasn't me by the way. But a Sussex Squad fan girl is really invested in this for some reason. Wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perforated bowel with ileostomy sounds possible…particularly if she’s suffered with ulcerative colitis or related issues.

This can also happen with appendicitis, which is somewhat common. Not the perforated bowel, but appendicitis. Perforated bowel would be a complication, but it definitely happens, or other damage if her appendix has burst or even slow leaked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter] https://x.com/cbouzy/status/1768997615142666694?s=46[/twitter]

Not just a couple of DCUMers ….

Newsweek was once a reputable organization but it died and someone bought the brand to use it for ill. This isn’t “Newsweek” as we know it.

A guy who likes to "hang with the Sussex Squad" is surely an objective source on palace intrigue!

Bouzy wasn’t the source. At least TRY to be less dumb.

Look at his recent posts. Why would this guy have any interest in this story? Get real. Newsweek isn't the celebrated news source you seem to think it is.

[Anonymous]

NEWSWEEK article suggests KP release a video of Kate. Point being that this thing is spreading, not contained. Even if a couple DCUMers what to believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe a lot of the more salacious rumors, but I am intrigued that so many commenters find it absolutely impossible that William and Kate would be anything less than almost perfect. When did princes become the paradigm of virtue, or princess become immune to things like eating disorders? Princes are stereotypically rogues because they can get away with whatever they want. Yes because it's England they have to pretend to be perfect but a ton of men pretend to be perfect while having affairs and even illegitimate children. A ton of people are crappy spouses and lots of people have eating disorders. They have to pretend like they aren't regular people, but they are. And commenters are acting like speculating that the royals have done regular-people things is some kind of massive toxicity.

This is all straw man argumentation. I and others have been accused of “princess worship” despite being an actual Republican as it is used in the sane world- I am deeply anti-monarchist. Anti-titles on all levels but especially for any deference to that in the US. The issue is that the salacious theories (DV, illegitimate babies) were presented as fact repeatedly with no basis, while the medical crisis plus stupid-bad photoshop opinion was treated as hopelessly naive. It’s a bad faith argument you got up there, but feel free to hug it tight.

The stuff on this page of the thread about hyperemesis in pregnancy reminds me of reading about that in Atul Gawande’s first book. He made clear how much HG wrecked one of his patients, but I never thought of how serious that could be over multiple pregnancies.

My argument is that the theories that there is an illegitimate child or DV or something are highly unlikely to be untrue since there is zero evidence for them, they are theoretically possible and it’s weird to say it’s some sort of attack against the BRF. What is bad faith about that? And if you didn’t say that those speculations are attacks then don’t worry, this isn’t about you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He looks so much like his father. Ick.

He looks fine. I'm not even partial to white men, and William looks perfectly fine. He's tall, fit, well dressed, and has some low key BDE. Harry is the one who looks ick.

This is the worst take in the history of Earth. Literally.

You should be laughed out of town.

Lol. Yeah…he absolutely does not have BDE. He has “I’m going to be king someday” energy. They are not the same.

They are most definitely not the same. If so, Charles has it, too.

That PP should never live down such a clown take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NEWSWEEK article suggests KP release a video of Kate. Point being that this thing is spreading, not contained. Even if a couple DCUMers what to believe that.

Spreading? I think the fervor has died down quite a bit. People are moving on, bored already.

[Anonymous]

DM headline:
If The Royal Family Is Not At Its 11th Hour … It Is Perilously Close