It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did Duchess Kate fake her pregnancy and use a surrogate mother for the royal baby?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2015 @ 03:46 PM

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Loopdaloop
You may choose to see Middleton as your supreme ruler but I do not recognise her status anymore than I do Mrs Windsor.

At what point in my post did I say anything about "supreme ruler"?
I just commented that people were using an out-of-date surname.
You are, perhaps, familiar with the old custom that women frequently change their surnames when they get married?
Her surname is no longer "Middleton".

I don't know about England, but in France a woman never really loses her original last name. On all official papers and ID the maiden name is used. A woman does not lose her original identity or familial origin when she marries.I assumed that must be similar in England, is it not?

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: Bluesma

Nope - woman usually take the surname of the man they are marrying. Although some choose to keep their maiden name this is not that common.

Ironically, I believe this custom came over with the Normans from France...
edit on 4/5/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:09 PM

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Bluesma

Nope - woman usually take the surname of the man they are marrying. Although some choose to keep their maiden name this is not that common.

Ironically, I believe this custom came over with the Normans from France...

Oh the married name is commonly used, just not considered totally official. Previous records (health, financial, etc.) remain in the maiden name.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: Loopdaloop

I've had 4, and the 2nd slipped out so easily, I was up & strolling down to the nursery, on my own two feet, not 1 hour later. He was my easiest delivery, and over 7 lbs., for a 98 lb., 4'10" woman, like myself. We went home the very next day. The other 3 I was not so lucky with. I see no mystery here. Baby looks like an adorable little lady.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:32 PM
a reply to: Bluesma

Not in the UK - the wife usually changes her name on all documentation to that of her husbands. It isn't compulsory, it is just traditional.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: stumason

Or they go double like Charles Hindle-Jones.
Or Betty Boncenberry-Smythe.
It is fun to come up with funny ones

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:41 AM

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know about England, but in France a woman never really loses her original last name. On all official papers and ID the maiden name is used. A woman does not lose her original identity or familial origin when she marries.I assumed that must be similar in England, is it not?

No, in England change of surname has been the standard custom.
The theory was that husband and wife were now "one person", so they took the same name.
This used to apply even to Christian names, legally speaking.
When Susan Brown married John Smith, she became Mrs John Smith, and the couple were addressed as "Mr and Mrs John Smith".
One of the more notorious members of the Royal Family is Princess Michael of Kent, a name which she took after marrying Prince Michael of Kent. When Prince Charles married Diana, there was speculation that her official title would have to follow the same pattern; "Princess Charles". I remember the newsreader breathing a sigh of relief as he announced that this would not be the case.
The gradual abandonment of "loss of Christian name" has been a late twentieth-century development.
Loss of surname continues to be the norm, except that feminists make a point of objecting to it.
That's why the former Kate Middleton is no longer Kate Middleton. and newspaper headline writers are just being lazy and inaccurate when they use that name.
Presumably they will stop doing it when "Princess Kate" or "Queen Kate" become available.

edit on 5-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:17 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI

Okay. That is how it is in my country too, in the US.

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 08:42 AM
a reply to: cass1dy09

If faking the picture was the major hurdle .. Pretty woman poster

My thought outside of illuminati garbage for using a surrogate is that 1.) pregnancies can be dangerous, why risk complications 2.) she is in a very public very scrutinized position, why risk bad press from possible unflattering pics in tabloids.
edit on 16-5-2015 by HemphillxxOrphans because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:30 PM
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Okay...I have to admit that I posted a rather sarcastic comment in this thread previously. And while I still don't necessarily believe that KM used a surrogate with her first child, I do have to say that the pictures taken of her this weekend do raise an eyebrow.

Everyone is different. Kate's body type is very similar to my own. She is athletic and naturally thin. When I had my first child, I gained 12 lbs total throughout the entire pregnancy. It was very uncomfortable because my stomach muscles did not want to stretch. I never actually made it into "maternity clothes." At 4 weeks out after birth, I was back to looking slender as my body bounced back quickly. Then I became pregnant for my 2nd child. The age gap is very similar to Kate's children. During the 2nd pregnancy, my body acted a bit differently. I gained about 25 lbs through the 2nd pregnancy. Afterwards, I jumped right back into my fitness routines just like before but it still took 3-4 months for my body to "bounce back" after the 2nd pregnancy.

Now...I realize that there are many different factors that guide Kate's regime & genetics and her "post-pregnancy" body. But I have to say that the picture taken of her at the Polo match w/George this weekend, a mere 6 weeks after her 2nd pregnancy, does give one pause to wonder how she manages to look like she was never pregnant at all...

Below is a photo diary taken by a woman (not me) which shows the natural reversion of a woman's body post pregnancy. Of course, I don't know this woman so I have no idea if she used a fitness regime, healthy diet, etc... But it's still a good comparison.

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: CosmicCitizen

Absolutely agree that she faked it, for innumerable reasons...main reason being, both of them were never tensed or anxious or showed any signs of tiredness before or after impending delivery... though it was late pregnancy for Kate, how can it be so smooth sailing delivery? another women in that position may have had birth complications or some deformity to the child too! the first child was made to appear on full moon day, cheating the world. And both of them looked so fresh and so confident till the end??

If the whole world knows about this, no one from that family of Kate including herself can become king/queen let alone hold any official positions anywhere. This truth shd come out soon.

Why was William so dishonest to public? He misused and looted tax payers money.. He shd have been forthright and disclosed the truth to the whole world about surrogacy and not crave for throne. Didn't expect this from him atleast!

Above all, the nurse 'Jacintha' who died immediately shd have raised red flag in whole of UK and the world! She was murdered and it wasn't suicide at all. Poor nurse who stayed within the hospital premises fell victim to this royal crap! She was slit in the wrist and suffocated to death and the royal beasts staged it like a suicide...She was murdered because she knew all the truth surrounding these fake royal idiots. How come the whole world didn't suspect anything fishy and remained mum? By now, they would have finished off the surrogate mother who gave birth too. they were bloody desperate to keep a lid on Britain’s dirty secrets; they would happily murder many innocent persons to prevent the truth emerging about their sordid scams. Royal murderers!

Kate's face didn't look pregnant at all.. no signs of swollen skin anywhere..She didn't overall look like a new mother at all. She is just 'power hungry' fake human with a plastic smile I have ever come across. She has put up with 'fake belly' and cheated public for 2 pregnancies for 2 years! Even the most open minded supporter would be hard pressed to think that a woman who has given a full natural birth to a nine pound child could so quickly begin wearing 'form fitting' skinny jeans.. besides that, it takes a long time for women to recuperate from the pain of having given birth. To lose weight quickly and go back to her natural weight in a short period of time is nearly and completely impossible. Strained muscles, sagging skin, and stretch marks were never evident one bit! She is a 'Very good Royal actress' from the palace!

Royal Gynaecologist, Doc Farthing, had no choice but to play along with the scam and knew all about the VIP paedophile ring linked to the BBC and Royals and was probably coerced by intel services... according to royal protocol the heir shd be born ‘of the body’ of a legitimate wife, and also requires the presence of Home Secretary as an official witness on behalf of the royal family. this is done to prevent any challenge to the legitimacy of the heir, for example, questionable parentage. But the birth happened within days of the Home Secretary’s absence. What does this say and what more proof is required of this sham??

So, all the powerful people on this earth shd come together to unravel, investigate and expose this royal sham to the whole world. Will shd be prevented from ascending the throne. Kate shd be kicked out for betraying the whole world..

If only there was ONE honest soul in the entire royal family, he/she shd spill the truth soon.

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

it was not morning sickness but 'after effects' of fertility treatments

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:33 AM
a reply to: royalhater

You seriously need a hobby.

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:43 AM

originally posted by: CosmicCitizen
If you look at the Duchess of Cornwall (Kate Middleton) when she and Prince William presented their son to the media you will notice that a) she still appears to be fully pregnant (faux prego belly?), b) she did not appear to gain weight in her pregnancy and c) in the presentation of the baby Prince William implied (24 hrs post birth) that this was the first time that they really got to see the baby and that they had some "catching up" to do. IF this is true that they faked the pregnancy to cover for a surrogate mother then the question is WHY? First, one of the parents could be sterile, Second, since Kate was a commoner they may have wanted the mother to be of royal (and/or illuminati blood), Third, the birth date (7/22) was important and would have probably required a C Section to be exact (1:30 probability if it was +/- 2 weeks from the due date...assuming conception date at the correct time for a 7/22 birth date) and the Duchess of Cornwall may have not consented to that plan. The 7/22 date is important for several reasons and may have been requested by the Illuminati. A) Full Moon, B) Sun entering Leo, C) Mars-Jupiter Conjunction (war planet - king planet). In addition there is some numerology with the birth date (7/22) and the wedding date (4/29). Adding the months: 4 + 7 = 11, A Master Number (double 1). Adding the days: 2 + 9 = 11 and add that to 22 (a master number so no further reduction) = 33, the highest degree in Masonry.

If this is true then perhaps we should revisit the alleged suicide by the ob-gyn nurse last December (the one that was distraught after getting caught up in a hoax phone call to the ward). Could the nurse have known something and threatened to talk and thus was silenced? This is a "conspiracy site" so your comments are welcome.

Here is a video that makes some of the physical observations:

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Where do you people come up with this drivel?

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 03:14 AM
a reply to: Bluesma

My wife is slim but after each pregnancy her body showed the fat needed to make milk for the baby. I do agree that Kate reminds me of Posh who never looked pregnant - funny how it seems to be the nouveau riche that don't show signs of pregnancy and especially its after effects when they have public lives to lead.

Personally I can't stand the royals and see them purely as a group living off others they let slip occasionally they despise and doing precious little except have a jolly good time, especially when you compare them to some of the people who work hard and do a lot of things for charity that don't hit the headlines. One of the biggest investments by the queen was her PR Office used purely to sell her leaching family. Once she jogs on I suspect their popularity will totally hinge on William who the public see as a echo of Diana which will be their only saving grace. Other countries don't have royalty and its well time we didn't IMHO.

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 03:18 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI

Another time women keep their maiden names is when they have professional qualifications so keep their professional name for work etc.

I am glad for women though that the days of being a Mrs Peter Smith are gone because it was a slight against her identity - a christian thing that people become one person through marriage, which we all know doesn't happen even in the happiest of marriages when one could cheerfully pop a dummy into beloved's mouth for some peace.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in