Sue Smith
Because arrogant knobhead Andrew insisted on it of course!Why were they ever given the Princess title? It doesn't really make sense to me. Prince William and Harry yes. Sons of a future monarch. That's why Williams children have the title but not Harry's. But why were Andrews children given it?
just to say... you really do need need to come down off that fence you are sitting on and give everyone your true and frank opinionRight, I am going to be controversial. I love being here and am utterly on board with HFEW being shady, narcissistic, venal, hypocritical, a liar and all together incredibly unpleasant. We have plenty to discuss, however, the ongoing obsession with many here on moon bumps, surrogacy, etc, is just playing into the woman’s hands when she bleats on about her victim hood. Especially as many of the posters have been otherwise superbly erudite and articulate in putting forward other opinions on the gruesome pair. The ongoing obsession on whether she’s actually pregnant or not is just silly and I don’t think it’s adding anything to ‘our truth’ that this woman and her traitorous c**t of a husband are vile, greedy grifters who are actually both as thick as mince. Banging on about this baseless theory that she can’t carry a child really does seem a bit crass and it’s beginning to detract from all the genuinely crappy things she does and need calling out and makes everyone here just look ... mad.
Oh, the reason she didn’t look pregnant anywhere else in that papped photo last week? She paid for the full ‘sell your soul’ package and had it retouched. Zoom in and look at her ankles, legs, etc. She’s had loads of stuff thinned and lengthened. You can even see her hair’s been messed with.
So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying "Don't discuss things that I have no interest in and don't want to talk about" Have I got that right? Apologies if not. Free speech is yours. Deciding on which way a discussion should be going, not so much.Right, I am going to be controversial. I love being here and am utterly on board with HFEW being shady, narcissistic, venal, hypocritical, a liar and all together incredibly unpleasant. We have plenty to discuss, however, the ongoing obsession with many here on moon bumps, surrogacy, etc, is just playing into the woman’s hands when she bleats on about her victim hood. Especially as many of the posters have been otherwise superbly erudite and articulate in putting forward other opinions on the gruesome pair. The ongoing obsession on whether she’s actually pregnant or not is just silly and I don’t think it’s adding anything to ‘our truth’ that this woman and her traitorous c**t of a husband are vile, greedy grifters who are actually both as thick as mince. Banging on about this baseless theory that she can’t carry a child really does seem a bit crass and it’s beginning to detract from all the genuinely crappy things she does and need calling out and makes everyone here just look ... mad.
Oh, the reason she didn’t look pregnant anywhere else in that papped photo last week? She paid for the full ‘sell your soul’ package and had it retouched. Zoom in and look at her ankles, legs, etc. She’s had loads of stuff thinned and lengthened. You can even see her hair’s been messed with.
Is that a full head wig? Something way off there.Apologies if this has been asked before, but.... WTF is going on with the truffle hound’s left nostril?
Because the Queen caved in to Andrew's demands. This is one of the things that gave rise to the rumours that Andrew was the Queen's favourite.Why were they ever given the Princess title? It doesn't really make sense to me. Prince William and Harry yes. Sons of a future monarch. That's why Williams children have the title but not Harry's. But why were Andrews children given it?
I think we have to remember that they were always entitled to those titles, it's only an issue because Princess Anne didn't want Peter and Zara to have them.Why were they ever given the Princess title? It doesn't really make sense to me. Prince William and Harry yes. Sons of a future monarch. That's why Williams children have the title but not Harry's. But why were Andrews children given it?
Totally agree , she will just take this speculation and run with it and use it to be even more of a bloody victim than she already pretends to be .Right, I am going to be controversial. I love being here and am utterly on board with HFEW being shady, narcissistic, venal, hypocritical, a liar and all together incredibly unpleasant. We have plenty to discuss, however, the ongoing obsession with many here on moon bumps, surrogacy, etc, is just playing into the woman’s hands when she bleats on about her victim hood. Especially as many of the posters have been otherwise superbly erudite and articulate in putting forward other opinions on the gruesome pair. The ongoing obsession on whether she’s actually pregnant or not is just silly and I don’t think it’s adding anything to ‘our truth’ that this woman and her traitorous c**t of a husband are vile, greedy grifters who are actually both as thick as mince. Banging on about this baseless theory that she can’t carry a child really does seem a bit crass and it’s beginning to detract from all the genuinely crappy things she does and need calling out and makes everyone here just look ... mad.
Oh, the reason she didn’t look pregnant anywhere else in that papped photo last week? She paid for the full ‘sell your soul’ package and had it retouched. Zoom in and look at her ankles, legs, etc. She’s had loads of stuff thinned and lengthened. You can even see her hair’s been messed with.
I definitely don’t subscribe to the moon bump/surrogacy theory. Most arguments are pretty weak (when I was pregnant I couldn’t wear heels/kneel/carry my child... the “changing” bump is pretty much a combination of clothes, angles and maybe a belly band/bump holding shape wear). And if she is so vain she surely wouldn’t go out and take lactation medication. She looked really uncomfortable with her weight gain. That was definitely not by choice.
The boy looks like a mix of his maternal grandfather and his father.
I also don’t believe for a second the RF wouldn’t know what’s going on.
The Queen hasn’t been present for the christening of Prince Louis either. I wouldn’t read to much into it. Even though the tabloids saw it as a big sign of a rift between HMTQ and the Cambridges at the time.
H&M stated in the interview they were told Archie would not be made a Prince when PC becomes king. Now, I am not sure if the BRF can just decide at whim or if that is actually automatically and would needed to be actively changed. Either way, it’s a good idea to limit this titles and the same will be true for the children of the Yorks, Sussexes, Wessexes and the younger Cambridge siblings. H may very well keep his titles. They will stop with him.
All in all it went better than feared. The interview was a hard but short impact. They look petty and desperate. The BRF has started to ignore them publicly and they have already aired out all they got. It will be a hard awakening after the hype of the new baby is over.
But W&K truly need to seize the moment. They had a long time for their family. All children are in daycare, they need to step up and be more visible. They love pretending to be so relatable. Well, that’s the reality for the overwhelming majority of people. They could be the real winners in the whole situation.
Erm, certainly not what I was getting at. Wow. Free speech. Okay, I was rather hoping to open a narrative that while the discussion falls further and further towards what might be fanciful, is likely inconsequential and will almost certainly be impossible to ‘prove’ we slip further away from agreeing that a narcissist hell bent on the destruction of good people should be brought to account for the crap she pulls in full sight. Every. Single. Day. Still, if you’d rather have a barney because you feel I’m stealing your truth I’m here for it. Nah, actually. I’m not. Too weird.So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying "Don't discuss things that I have no interest in and don't want to talk about" Have I got that right? Apologies if not. Free speech is yours. Deciding on which way a discussion should be going, not so much.
I read it as saying that conspiracy theories are just playing into her hands , let’s focus on the facts which are literally right there because Harkle is literally losing her grip on reality more and more each day ... she literally can’t help herself.So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying "Don't discuss things that I have no interest in and don't want to talk about" Have I got that right? Apologies if not. Free speech is yours. Deciding on which way a discussion should be going, not so much.
I'm assuming @ginandlt is, like me, referring to fleeing similar threads on MN!I'm curious where you are from although I understand you might not want to say.
How can it be right in any country for someone to get away with lying based on the fact that they are 'of colour' and therefore cannot be questioned? That's outrageous.
Well yes of course it has but they get nothing from tax-payers nor have they been given positions representing the royals officially unlike their father who obviously benefitted and has proven he can't be trusted. If they were required to carry out a Royal engagement they would be refunded any costs. They pay rent for their accommodations too. Andrew funds their security, should they need it.Because arrogant knobhead Andrew insisted on it of course!
I've not got anything against his daughters but lets not pretend that they aren't very privileged. Look at the jobs they do.... I'm sure the royal connection has helped them both!
But Prince Edwards kids aren't Prince and Princess eitherI think we have to remember that they were always entitled to those titles, it's only an issue because Princess Anne didn't want Peter and Zara to have them.
Peter and Zara are female line grandchildren so wouldn't have been entitled to them. Mark Phillips was offered an earldom which they declinedI think we have to remember that they were always entitled to those titles, it's only an issue because Princess Anne didn't want Peter and Zara to have them.
Technically yes they are and entitled to assume that style when they come of age, much had changed between the births of the yorks and the wessex wedding so they styled as the children of an earlBut Prince Edwards kids aren't Prince and Princess either
Because Prince Andrew kicked up a fuss and HMTQ caved in . Anne didn't want titles for her children, then she's a wise lady. Edward lets his children have the titles of children of a Duke.Why were they ever given the Princess title? It doesn't really make sense to me. Prince William and Harry yes. Sons of a future monarch. That's why Williams children have the title but not Harry's. But why were Andrews children given it?
because they are grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line (1917 Letters Patent) and because Prince Andrew is a snobbish twitWhy were they ever given the Princess title? It doesn't really make sense to me. Prince William and Harry yes. Sons of a future monarch. That's why Williams children have the title but not Harry's. But why were Andrews children given it?