Sunday, July 07, 2019

Blind Items Revealed #4

June 27, 2019

The woman with the very tough title to pronounce is getting divorced. Apparently she is still seeing the royal.

Rose Hanbury, Marchioness of Cholmondeley/Prince William


66 comments:

  1. Get that Royal Jizz, girl. If his wife was takin care of the dick instead of picking out clothes, he wouldnt need to cram it in you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prince Willy looked like he had one of Rosie's tampons up his arse yesterday.

    Waity Kaity looks like she's getting ready to make a run for it. Nice to see Diana's sisters. Both handsome ladies.

    I think Sussex's should go hang in Africa for a while, I think everyone would be a lot happier. Including them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. After seeing everything his mother went through with the media and with Charles and Horseface, he still can't resist fucking up his marriage to his beautiful (albeit boring as hell) wife with his own Horseface. Why do Windsor men cheat on their wives with fug women?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spoiler alert: we just won.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just googled Rose. Yikes, Cheesegrater, she really is a horseface. Yeesh. She either has magical lady parts or he's just diddling whatever requires the least amount of effort. I would think he could find someone way better to cheat with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Sandy, I'm spending far too much time here because I don't follow sports and knew exactly what you are talking about. haha

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where's Chelsea Davy when you need her?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ugly broads are more willing to go the extra mile to please. God bless low self esteem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm interested in knowing what you all think of the *VERY REAL* looking baby?
    I know several have insisted there wasn't a baby...
    Jeesh. I hope this isn't awkward for u

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kate ain't going no where, she got her claws in Wills 2nd year of Uni and hasn't let go, this ain't the first time he screwed around.

    Wills just looked like he was trying to keep a straight face, get over it.

    Yes, the baby is real, stop believing stupid racist on the DM.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a replicant, Rosie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Will why?!?!? Or is this just MeAgains leaks to make the Cambridge’s look worse than the Sussexes?

    ReplyDelete
  13. and speaking of complaining about MM's clothes, what the hell was Kate's horrendous outfit? That ugly, too small pink dress with a red braided headband instead of a hat (ugly) and red stilettos? She got dressed in the dark.

    Regardless, I still don't believe this blind. And stupid Wills looked like a slapped arse yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hope this isn't true. But if it is .. What is with Wills and his father going for ugs? This woman Wills is supposedly rallying with is horrid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course there was always a baby.

    He looks like them both.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I liked Kate's dress. The hat was a little strange, and the shoes didn't seem to match the dress. Maybe it didn't photograph well.

    Meghan looks good in white or ivory. She wears it a lot lately. Is she making that her signature look?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The pic of the family at the Christening? Something is up. Charles and Camilla have on the exact same clothes (and jewelry) that they wore for Louis's christening. There is no reflection in front of the mirror. Kate and William have different clothes on than what they walked in with. If they were going to photo-shop the whole thing why didn't they photo-shop the Queen in?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kate wore white to the babies' christenings too. I guess white looks good with that christening gown. Plus it draws your eye in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Camilla's dress is different from Louis's christening, as is Charles's tie.

    Is there anything you nutcases can't start a conspiracy theory over?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh I forgot it’s the wife’s fault when a husband cheats ⚠️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If ya take the lead out of a pencil, it aint gonna write.

      Delete
  21. So, either Kate is the best actress in the world. Or this is another BS blind.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah, she's definitely ugly, with a strange overbite.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lots of men continue to have sex with their wives and still cheat. Crazy, I know. Cheating husbands are entirely the fault of the cheating husband.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think with some group photos they have been photographing people separately and putting them together later for a while now. Don't the Kardashians do that too, for their Christmas cards? It doesn't necessarily mean much. It can be tricky to get a good group photo, especially with kids in it.

    I didn't notice that anyone else wore white at the christening. Diana was in blue with Harry's christening. They reran some of those photos with Archie's.

    It's a good look for Meghan.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What if the Prince is a platonic pal helping Lady Chumley through her divorce from a dirtbag?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Agreed Krab. Have no time for the responsibility being deflected onto someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The photos were photoshopped and probably done awhile ago unless MM managed to lose 20 lbs. in 2 days. She’s pictured at Wimbledon and is much heavier, especially her face (unless that was photoshopped as well.) She also had a very orangey looking tan at W, and in the Christening photos does not. The baby in the group photo is not the same as the baby in the b/w photo. Totally different head shapes. Baby on MM’s lap is much older than 2 months; probably closer to 4. Christening gown is not the same one that the Cambridge kids wore. It’s a knock off. You can tell by the lace down the front, the length, and the hem.

    I think Kate looked great, but yes, that is not the outfit that she arrived in. And supposedly they were only there for one hour. So change clothes, ceremony, and photo op in one hour? Doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Meredith: RE: Kate’s recent style: Most of the more Bohemian looks I’ve seen her wear were at her ‘garden’, which makes sense to me. She was dressing for the occasion & tying into the theme.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Donna: Agree that they should go to Africa for awhile. Never seen such a tone-deaf couple. The dress that she wore @ the Christening cost $12,000. This on the heals of the public complaining about the cost of renovating Frogmore, where they don’t even seem to reside.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ha ha. What a laugh. I read somewhere that not only is William still seeing Rose but CATHERINE IS STILL SEEING HER AS WELL! Someone from the small town where Rose lives reported seeing the three of them in a car together. and, the reason that this rumour was started was that someone online was asking people about the goings on around the homes of the two families, presumably to gather some dirt.

    ReplyDelete
  31. >The baby in the group photo is not the same as the baby in the b/w photo. Totally different head shapes. Baby on MM’s lap is much older than 2 months; probably closer to 4. Christening gown is not the same one that the Cambridge kids wore. It’s a knock off. You can tell by the lace down the front, the length, and the hem.

    hahahahahaha you are hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The christening gown is not the original antique one and hasn't been since...I think Prince Harry's christening? They've used a copy or 'knockoff' since then, so in that sense, it is.

    Was there film of the christening? Or did they just release stills? No press, right?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here's what I think because I'm a psycho and follow this like Nutty_Flavor - closely!

    Look at the group shot - why does (proportionately) Kate look ... larger than Prince Harry??? Wait - and William too? She looks like Jolly Pink Kate and I want to see Giant Kate memes with a superimposed ginormous Kate in a bunch of royal images.

    They were not wearing those clothes when Prince William & Kate arrived on the grounds. They were there less than an hour. So. They... changed? K

    Baby - cross-eyed - JUST LIKE BABY MEGSY - there is now speculation it could be her own baby pic photos (face) for compilation images.

    MANY women have argued babies cannot hold up their head until 3-4 mos and the child is "two" months old - child is holding its head up.

    Meghan not only doesn't (maternally, naturally) support her baby's head, she is gazing at Harry, NOT the baby, in the promo shot. Big mistake.

    Also Harry's head is photoshopped with way more hair in these pics, it's funny - I did that for an ex's profile photo once.

    WHAT ELSE - there might be a baby now? They may have secured one? The palace has adopted using the © symbol when re-posting any Harkle images. This means once the palace has jettisoned Meghan (in theory) they can dis-avow themselves from the whole mess by saying "that's theirs, see the ©?? Not ours."

    Also people are saying her fedora is some sort of yachting availability flag. Um.

    Can anyone tell me what woman gains weight (in her face/ass/thighs) AFTER giving birth but at zero point before??

    ReplyDelete
  34. As for Wills's choice of Miss Chumley, who else could he trust to appreciate the importance of genuine discretion? Perhaps Kate is a far better actress than we give her credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here is a Q though -

    IF you were going to create a fake pic - is that really the one you will include of Prince William?

    Because that is some epic troll level face he is serving.

    Some have suggested Lord Geidt actually made this and is letting her hang herself. It is so hard to know what to think.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why would there not be a baby? What would be the point? For the photo call for its first day of kindergarten are they going to put a lifesize doll on wheels?

    About the weight. This sounds crazy. BUT since half of the comments are grasping at logic and pulling the shorter straws...(joking)

    What if a surrogate carried this baby but toward the due date, Meghan unexpectedly turned up preggers the natural way? Completely unexpectedly?

    So that now her puffy face and thicker middle are because she really is pregnant?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I did think she looked much slimmer in the christening photo. If it was taken a while ago and the baby photoshopped in...

    Being actually pregnant now could explain a lot of things. The extended due date, the sudden weight gain after "giving birth," the reclusiveness, and all the other things people have named.

    Imagine you plan your first child through a surrogate and then wind up expectant near its due date? But you can't tell the world you used a surrogate?

    It's just a wild thought as long as we are all (some) talking about dolls and hat signals.

    (Why does CAPTCHA hate me?)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Samantha, along with many chortles - Flashy Vic has taught me one needn't press on the Captchas.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hmm. I'll have to figure out how to finesse that, GB.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Checked your profile to see if it was maybe newer members who still needed captcha. Once you're here a while it won't necessary. Keep checking.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Samantha: The Christening gown is a knock-off of the new one. As I stated in my post, it is NOT the same one that the Cambridge children wore.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Hunter: There is a very disturbing clip (can’t remember where I saw it) of MM at Wimbledon with Lindsay Roth and her other friend. At one point, Lindsay is pinching MM’s arm, as though she’s trying to control her. Then one of them tells her to ‘put her hat on’ and she does. Quite odd. Even odder is that one of Diana’s sisters is wearing a Panama hat in the Christening photo—WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Most of us agree that there always was a baby. We vehemently disagree, however, that MM was ever pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I understood the post Aquagirl - I was trying to disagree with it while remaining polite. I don't know what difference it makes what the kid wore.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Christening gown is not the same one that the Cambridge kids wore. It’s a knock off. You can tell by the lace down the front, the length, and the hem."

    I haven't done a side by side, minute comparison of the lace in the christening gowns. I see no reason to as it doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I just gotta know why she's gained weight AFTER birth. That's NOT how it works!!!

    ReplyDelete
  47. I read in a french rag that she was only 3 weeks at Eugeneies wedding when they announced. Very shortly after she miscarried and there was a mad dash of ivf and fake bumps to get her preg again. She gave birth a couple weeks early days before the "turn around" pic. Could explain her near tears, how she looked preg at the first Archie pic and how she is way heavier now than before. But why not just tell the world they miscarried, would have humanized her. Some people just cant admit when things dont go as planed I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I do wonder where this story of William allegedly sleeping around started. It isn't like he's going to do any better than Catherine.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The christening gown is indeed the same one the Cambridges wore.

    As for the idea that a two month old can't hold up its head: HAHAHAHAHA have you idiots ever been around an actual human baby before?

    Newsflash: of course a two month old can hold up its head. Furthermore, babies in the early weeks change their looks day by day. If those of you who are questioning this child had ever had a child of your own, you'd know that.

    Get your crazy ass conspiracy theory heads out of your asses.

    A couple in their thirties had a baby. AMAZING

    ReplyDelete
  50. Not quite, the William having an affair BS is another of SMegma Markle’s disinfo scams to not only hurt Kate, but to discredit William and advance the prospects of the ginger whinger Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Markle has run out of PR funds, so Enty is re-running this dribble.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Seems like the various points of view have been well covered above, so I won't jump in.

    I do think it's fun to see people we never see contribute on any other post suddenly turn up as eager, repeat posters when it comes time to promote Meghan Markle.

    Totally organic, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point, Nutty.

      Love your blog, by the way! Spot on and written well.

      Delete
  53. I don't think it's a physical affair with Lady Chumley but if Wills thinks Megs is behind the rumors I can see why he'd glower at her photo op.

    I think it's PH and Megs' baby. I don't think it's a doll or a stunt baby. I don't know what the point would be there.

    I agree that if they had any issues around fertility or anything, it would only endear them to the public to be open about it. They want to be modern and do things differently. Start there.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Samantha: so you laugh at tin hat theories and then create one, lol

    ReplyDelete
  55. I didn't laugh at anybody's comment wiez. I think you have me confused w/someone else.

    I had someone insisting that the lace gown was new like it mattered...I tried side stepping but they wouldn't let me.

    ReplyDelete
  56. BTW what is "tin hat" about fertility issues? That's a thing.

    Nothing wrong or shameful in it or in using a surrogate.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Nice alt btw...never saw you on here before and suddenly you are @ing me directly. k

    ReplyDelete
  58. Catherine has smashing gams! And much like Eugenie upstaged Meghan's wedding dress and tiara, Catherine's legs steal the whole christening pic show. Also, Megs totally copied Catherine's christening look. Imitation being the highest form of flattery.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The baby at the post-birth photo call had the same skin color as Meghan, but is now whiter than white. One would think that being out of the body would allow for melatonin to take effect, but apparently the baby has undergone a rigorous skin-bleaching regimen since being born.

    ReplyDelete