|
Post by Admin on Apr 30, 2022 3:23:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2024 14:58:16 GMT
Aside: Looking into some old emails/archives, etc, and finding a whole slew of items. I thought I would share.
This was written to Tatler about 3 1/2 years ago.
I am writing in regards to the recent Tatler feature by Anna Pasternak www.tatler.com/article/the-duchess-of-cambridge-is-the-julyaugust-cover and first wanted to express my appreciation that at least some of the information and opinions expressed about Kate Middleton, Prince William, and the Middleton family are finally being expressed. As a royal watcher for probably decades now, I find it refreshing that now some are managing to write articles that are not extremely cloying and that don't ring completely false. There is more going on behind the scenes, though, that a lot of journalists either are forbidden to cover, or may not be aware of. One huge example, is the apparent hypocrisy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in claiming "This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations". I state that as it has been discussed by many royal watchers, on Twitter, discussion boards, etc, that they allegedly have lied about and grossly deceived the public about the births of their children. That the children were apparently born to surrogates - royal heirs in line to the Throne who may not have any royal blood or real claim. Now this may not be a topic many would discuss freely or may be forbidden to, but the rumours and talk have been going on for years. As any geneticist or biologist may be able to explain, one doesn't get dark-brown eyed children when one's parents have light blue and green eyes. It would be genetically impossible. The children allegedly don't have any real Windsor features as well. If the surrogacy matter is true, then this is a gross and revolting betrayal of trust. I would encourage anybody who is skeptical to look into this matter and determine for themselves if something is not quite right. I would like to bring up the matter, too, of the Middleton family professing to be from humble, middle-class stock, and that Kate Middleton just randomly popped at St.Andrews and a nice, decent relationship developed. The internet is overrun by cheap, rather tawdry photos of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with both looking very drunk plus with Kate in various stages of undress. Humble, decent and middle-class families or rather good mothers don't encourage their daughters to run around like self-loathing "beck and call" girls. It's been noted that had William not been who he was, that Carole wouldn't have encouraged her daughter to chase after him. The story of William allegedly looking to Carole Middleton as a real mother figure is highly insulting to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I have copies of messages allegedly written on the Daily Mail by James and/or Carole Middleton that are highly insulting to a poor woman who cannot defend herself. Does a good mother figure and her son write that somebody's dead mother was "crazy", "spoiled", "entitled", and "should have kept her legs closed and not broken up so many marriages" (I am paraphrasing a bit here). When I and other disgusted royal watchers respond back to these and other abusive posts, we are the ones banned or strangely find our comments removed. It seems like James Middleton, at least, has many aliases on the Daily Mail (ie: "JimmyAllenby, or various forms of it). There are also suspected astroturfer accounts that seem to slam any contrary opinion. "Jimmy Allenby" is to be found on almost any article on the Duchess of Cambridge, guaranteed. The opinions of Carole Middleton seem to be spot on from those who have come in contract with her - she is allegedly quite high-handed, over-bearing and just plain cruel, allegedly. Her cries of victimhood and innocence ring very hollow. From the comments section on the Daily Mail, to allegedly having forums and articles that were not quite complimentary to her daughter banned or removed. she has made her rather mercenary and self-centred motives clear. I belonged to a certain highly popular royal gossip site that had lively discussion about royal and other matters (including a section about the alleged surrogacies). It was taken down not very long ago - some of us suspect by the Middleton influence. Again, this is alleged but too many things have added up over the years. Carole Middleton's apparent strong hold over her son-in-law seems to be allowing her and her family free reign to ride roughshod over the dignity, rights, and welfare of the public at large. The taxpayer and public is on the hook, one may say, because one weak prince doesn't have the character or heart to stop the alleged manipulations and deceptions of his in-laws. In closing, I would just like to request that you would keep the sentiments, information and opinions I have expressed just amongst members of your Editorial team. I do not wish this to be published, but I would encourage anybody who is questioning the information they do have to perhaps even dig a little further. There is a lot more to the story.
|
|