It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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I just commented that people were using an out-of-date surname.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".
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...
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?
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: