|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 23, 2024 20:08:02 GMT
Oh ffs now you're shilling your own conspiracy theory that multiple respected news outlets colluded to issue kill orders on that photo to somehow enrich themselves? Good lord. Not a conspiracy theory, so many other edited photos from so many famous people, yet they chose this one at this time and make an example of it with a big "kill notice" (which is a fact not a conspiracy) When else has this happened? And you think they didn't take advantage of a situation like this? Of course they did. Or are you saying that photographer take photos of famous people out of the goodness of their hearts and not want to get paid? |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 23, 2024 20:11:19 GMT
Another thing that made normal people really take note, take more of an interest in this situation, is that after hearing whispers of her not having been seen they released a photo that was then pulled by 4 very reputable news agencies No, not "the public" just the gullible ones. I never believed any of it and neither did lots of posters here, don't lump everyone in into your basket.Who took this photo? William did. Who edited it? Catherine did. Who takes the large majority of photos of the children that get published in the media? Catherine does. Who DOESN'T get to take these photos and make money from them anymore? Photographers & their various media outlets. So who has a vested interest in discrediting these photos, and making out like they are "fake" and that they can't be trusted? It's not really hard to think this through and work out who is taking advantage of this situation to feed the conspiracy theories because they are pissed off that they aren't making any money, and by picking apart minor details in the photos they aimed to erode the more gullible public's trust. And it obviously worked on some of you. Not all of us though. I was also one of the posters that never believed it, and I believe I have only ever commented on the PR strategy, in defense of Kate and William I might add. You are painting everyone with the same brush when it comes to who was confused about the planned surgery and felt duped saying that if they were normal it wasn’t an issue and the photo issue being suspicious. And I could not disagree with you more about why the photos were killed as I do not for one second think that AP or Reuters or Getty Images *** killed the photos because they can’t make money off of them anymore. The photo violated their well established standards. Standards they set for everyone. Perhaps you’re not familiar with them, I don’t know their reach, but these are not gossip magazines or papers. These are very reputable news sources, and to not kill them once they realized they violated their published standards puts their credibility and reputation on the line. To me thatsounds like a conspiracy theory, like you are trying to discredit these very well respected news/photo sources because they killed a shot of The Royal Family who (whom?) you obviously have very strong feelings about. *** I can’t speak to AFP because I’m not nearly as familiar with them. I am curious about them because the director of global (something) made the comment that it was exceedingly rare to kill a photo and listed recent photos that their publication had killed as coming from the Iranian and North Korean regimes. And that because of this situation anything KP put out would be further scrutinized than it has been. Again, not familiar with the news source so I didn’t know how much weight to give it. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 23, 2024 20:14:31 GMT
Standards they set for everyoneBullshit, why are the Kardashians always prettier and thinner in photos than in real life? Why does Harry always have a full head of bright red hair when he's almost bald? What happened to those standards then? |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 23, 2024 20:23:11 GMT
Oh ffs now you're shilling your own conspiracy theory that multiple respected news outlets colluded to issue kill orders on that photo to somehow enrich themselves? Good lord. Not a conspiracy theory, so many other edited photos from so many famous people, yet they chose this one at this time and make an example of it with a big "kill notice" (which is a fact not a conspiracy) When else has this happened? And you think they didn't take advantage of a situation like this? Of course they did. Or are you saying that photographer take photos of famous people out of the goodness of their hearts and not want to get paid? The guidelines are based on the type of editing that was done. They are very specific, some types are allowed, like with lighting and removing stray hairs and some is not. And I applaud that. How can we trust our news sources if they publish manipulated photos? I don’t remember the many places I saw it, so I can’t speak to the veracity, but this photo seemed to fail the manipulation aspect of their guidelines. And I’ll say again, at least with one of these kills, the publication reached out to KP for clarification and the original photo so they could make a judgement and KP did not respond. That puts the edits that were done in a different light and yes, makes them appear more suspicious. Photographers are not who choose to kill a photo, it was the publication. They’re not losing sleep over the impact to their bank vaults for not being able to publish one photo, no matter the subject of the photo. When else has it happened? As I said above, with photos provided by the Iranian and North Korean regimes of AFP is to be trusted. I think the fact that it doesn’t happen often shows what a big deal this is and why perfectly normal people found it suspicious. This isn’t some big conspiracy against The Royal Family. KP submitted a photo that didn’t meet the standards of 4 major news/photo agencies and when it was discovered by the agencies (and they didn’t respond to inquiries from at least one of them) the news agencies removed it. Just like they would have with other subjects in the same circumstances. Eta: Because they photoshop the hell out of their photos. But none of us know how their photos for these particular news organizations were edited. Perhaps they met the set standards for allowed edits, perhaps they provided the original photo with the manipulated one and therefore the publication felt comfortable with the edits and moved forward, and knowing their desire for exposure you can be sure if they were contacted for clarification they responded. Neither of us have any idea how these photos were edited so we can’t say for certain why the last KP one was killed and others were not. But we can acknowledge that the much more likely scenario is that this wasn’t personal, that the AP, Reuters and Getty Images don’t have it out for The Royal Family. That it is much more likely that The Royal Family/KP submitted a photo that did not meet the publications’ stated guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Mar 23, 2024 20:32:08 GMT
KP submitted a photo that didn’t meet the standards of 4 major news/photo agencies and when it was discovered by the agencies (and they didn’t respond to inquiries from at least one of them) the news agencies removed it. Just like they would have with other subjects in the same circumstances. Except now it comes to light that the photo of Queen Elizabeth and all the younger grandchildren was also edited - almost a year after it was published around the world by multiple agencies. So that argument doesn't really hold water. Interestingly, that photo was also taken by Catherine. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 23, 2024 20:39:22 GMT
KP submitted a photo that didn’t meet the standards of 4 major news/photo agencies and when it was discovered by the agencies (and they didn’t respond to inquiries from at least one of them) the news agencies removed it. Just like they would have with other subjects in the same circumstances. Except now it comes to light that the photo of Queen Elizabeth and all the younger grandchildren was also edited - almost a year after it was published around the world by multiple agencies. So that argument doesn't really hold water. Interestingly, that photo was also taken by Catherine. Or, it means that the edits on that photo weren’t as obvious so the photo wasn’t as closely scrutinized. Which is the fault of all who published it to be sure, and we can be certain that they will be much more closely scrutinized in the future. It’s the British Royal Family, I’m sure they were considered a trusted source. But the edits to this latest photo were glaring to the naked eye. It’s also possible, I’d say likely, that they provided the original photo of the Queen with her grandchildren so the publications could feel comfortable that it met their standards. With KP not responding to at least one publication, it’s possible they didn’t respond to any. Or they did, and the photo still didn’t meet the qualifications. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 23, 2024 20:50:54 GMT
When else has it happened? As I said above, with photos provided by the Iranian and North Korean regimes Well that's blatantly obvious, I meant in similar circumstances, other royal photos have been edited and so has almost every single celebrity photo except when the paps are trying to get ugly shots on purpose. Yet we get a kill notice in the midst of this fiasco, they need to be thoroughly embarrassed about their actions in feeding this as well. Never mind though, the answer is also obvious and it's clear you are just making up excuses...and all your "normal people" stuff is rubbish, because the only people who bought into this whole Catherine conspiracy are the nutters, not the normal people. The people I spoke to at work who definitely aren't royal followers just rolled their eyes and basically said who doesn't edit a photo these days? |
|
|
|
Post by happymom on Mar 23, 2024 23:00:25 GMT
The farm market scene didn’t seem real to me. I was shocked that she could walk at that pace 8 weeks post -op
have had 6 open surgeries to my abdomen area. None laproscopic
3 cut me from sternum to pubic bone.
At 8 weeks, I would have never been able to walk that fast or carry bags
It hurt to laugh and I couldn’t throw my shoulders back and stand straight. I was in my mid 30’s
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurie on Mar 23, 2024 23:49:38 GMT
The farm market scene didn’t seem real to me. I was shocked that she could walk at that pace 8 weeks post -op have had 6 open surgeries to my abdomen area. None laproscopic 3 cut me from sternum to pubic bone. At 8 weeks, I would have never been able to walk that fast or carry bags It hurt to laugh and I couldn’t throw my shoulders back and stand straight. I was in my mid 30’s At about the age of 38 I went back to work 1 week after gallbladder surgery. At the age of 27 and 36 I was back to work 4 weeks after giving birth to my children. As far as the photoshopped pic incident I would much rather see slight changes like that picture compared to the photoshop pics Kim K posts altering her waist. Young girls think that is achievable so who the hell cares is Charlotte and Louis’s hands were altered. Young girls aren’t going to have eating disorders trying to achieve the look of Charlotte’s shirt cuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Mar 24, 2024 0:18:39 GMT
The farm market scene didn’t seem real to me. I was shocked that she could walk at that pace 8 weeks post -op have had 6 open surgeries to my abdomen area. None laproscopic 3 cut me from sternum to pubic bone. At 8 weeks, I would have never been able to walk that fast or carry bags It hurt to laugh and I couldn’t throw my shoulders back and stand straight. I was in my mid 30’s I think everyone just heals differently. I had my surgery on a Tuesday morning and was home on Thursday. For the first two days, I walked laps around my house every hour. After that I started around the block. By my 2 week check-up, I was walking a mile, albeit slowly, through my neighborhood. I was able to end my medical leave a few weeks early because I felt so good. I was extremely lucky. I healed easily and had no severe pain. Others I know had a terrible time with the same surgery. Kate may have been fortunate enough to have an easy recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by KiwiJo on Mar 24, 2024 2:35:34 GMT
Because the chances of that happening are so slim as to be almost non existent. Harry has more chance of getting to the throne. We will cross that bridge when and if we need to. oh so slim chance makes a rapist ok to have divine right to rule - Explain again why we think you’re bonkers I’ve seen you mention a ‘divine right to rule’ several times - perhaps you’re unaware that this has not been a thing for hundreds of years. While the divine right of kings was widely believed worldwide in much earlier times, it was completely disestablished in England by the revolution in 1688. I have not seen any reference to any British monarch since then believing they still have a divine right to rule - if you have seen such evidence, would you mind sharing it please? |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 24, 2024 4:26:52 GMT
So just straight up nepotism now? I again ask why you’re allowing a rapist to be in your line government?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkingpea on Mar 24, 2024 4:43:53 GMT
So just straight up nepotism now? I again ask why you’re allowing a rapist to be in your line government? I am not British, but it isn’t like the King and Queen actually rule. And Andrew is pretty far down the line. Why don’t you save the ire for when he is actually crowned King. Which is never going to happen. And if you are a US citizen, you do realize the American people actually elected a rapist as President, right? |
|
lesley
Drama Llama
My best friend Turriff, desperately missed.
Posts: 7,339 
Location: Scotland, Scotland, Scotland
|
Post by lesley on Mar 24, 2024 4:47:27 GMT
The Royal Family is not the government. They have no say in how the country is run. Yes the King will have a certain degree of influence but it is far less than one might imagine. But I think it’s hysterical you should comment on this when your country actually elects some seriously shady people. And looks like it will continue to do so. It’s one thing to have a family member with no influence whatsoever be believed to be a rapist, and quite another to choose such people to actually govern, despite their criminal histories and tendencies being widely known. Who exactly is more bonkers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Mar 24, 2024 5:05:08 GMT
The Royal Family is not the government. They have no say in how the country is run. Yes the King will have a certain degree of influence but it is far less than one might imagine. But I think it’s hysterical you should comment on this when your country actually elects some seriously shady people. And looks like it will continue to do so. It’s one thing to have a family member with no influence whatsoever be believed to be a rapist, and quite another to choose such people to actually govern, despite their criminal histories and tendencies being widely known. Who exactly is more bonkers? Excellent point. There is no actual guilty verdict for Prince Andrew and if for some reason every other royal heir in his way dropped dead tomorrow, which would be a considerable number, he'd still not be actually "ruling" the country. And yes, Trump is likely just as guilty, but again no trial or guilty verdict. I hope poor Kate can get some rest and stop having to worry about the conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Mar 24, 2024 5:16:42 GMT
The Royal Family is not the government. They have no say in how the country is run. Yes the King will have a certain degree of influence but it is far less than one might imagine. But I think it’s hysterical you should comment on this when your country actually elects some seriously shady people. And looks like it will continue to do so. It’s one thing to have a family member with no influence whatsoever be believed to be a rapist, and quite another to choose such people to actually govern, despite their criminal histories and tendencies being widely known. Who exactly is more bonkers? If you are talking about Trump, he was found guilty in a civil case of battery, not a criminal case. He does have criminal cases pending, but not for rape. And Trump did not win the 2016 Presidential race based on the popular vote. He won because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. So, based on that, at least half of us here in the U.S. are not "bonkers". I am one of those who don't understand how people can ignore Trump's past. But that is for a different thread. I hope things calm down now for the royal family. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkingpea on Mar 24, 2024 5:32:21 GMT
The Royal Family is not the government. They have no say in how the country is run. Yes the King will have a certain degree of influence but it is far less than one might imagine. But I think it’s hysterical you should comment on this when your country actually elects some seriously shady people. And looks like it will continue to do so. It’s one thing to have a family member with no influence whatsoever be believed to be a rapist, and quite another to choose such people to actually govern, despite their criminal histories and tendencies being widely known. Who exactly is more bonkers? If you are talking about Trump, he was found guilty in a civil case of battery, not a criminal case. He does have criminal cases pending, but not for rape. And Trump did not win the 2016 Presidential race based on the popular vote. He won because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. So, based on that, at least half of us here in the U.S. are not "bonkers". I am one of those who don't understand how people can ignore Trump's past. But that is for a different thread. I hope things calm down now for the royal family. Andrew hasn’t been found guilty in any case, civil or otherwise. We have no idea of what percentage of British citizens would vote for Andrew if in some imaginary land he was running for anything, so saying that less than half of us voted for Trump isn’t any sort of argument. And yes, the electoral college is flawed, but the simple fact is that Trump was elected President. Trump actually governed our country. In his own pathetic self serving way. The fact is that Andrew has not, nor likely ever will, govern the British people. Read my post history, I hate Trump with the passion of a 1000 suns. He is a megalomaniac and disgusts me. But Darcy Collins going on and on about how bonkers it is that the British people are going to allow Andrew to rule is ridiculous and embarrassing. |
|
lesley
Drama Llama
My best friend Turriff, desperately missed.
Posts: 7,339
Location: Scotland, Scotland, Scotland
|
Post by lesley on Mar 24, 2024 5:35:29 GMT
katlady, I know Trump does not have a criminal conviction for rape. I’m pretty sure everyone knows however that there have been many, many credible accusations. And so many people don’t care in the slightest. And I used the word bonkers because Darcy used it on the previous page to describe the British people as bonkers because we haven’t cast out Prince Andrew. I don’t actually believe the majority of the American people are bonkers. (A sizeable minority? Well… 😉)
|
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Mar 24, 2024 6:41:56 GMT
The farm market scene didn’t seem real to me. I was shocked that she could walk at that pace 8 weeks post -op have had 6 open surgeries to my abdomen area. None laproscopic 3 cut me from sternum to pubic bone. At 8 weeks, I would have never been able to walk that fast or carry bags It hurt to laugh and I couldn’t throw my shoulders back and stand straight. I was in my mid 30’s At age 30 I had a C-section. Two weeks later I was back on horseback and working in the stable two hours each day. |
|
|
|
Post by happymom on Mar 24, 2024 13:15:36 GMT
The farm market scene didn’t seem real to me. I was shocked that she could walk at that pace 8 weeks post -op have had 6 open surgeries to my abdomen area. None laproscopic 3 cut me from sternum to pubic bone. At 8 weeks, I would have never been able to walk that fast or carry bags It hurt to laugh and I couldn’t throw my shoulders back and stand straight. I was in my mid 30’s At age 30 I had a C-section. Two weeks later I was back on horseback and working in the stable two hours each day. That’s awesome. So any weight restrictions were lifted quickly? And maybe no drains? there are not very many surgeries these days that need a long hospital stay I used the information of a two week hospital stay and compared it to my bowel surgery with two weeks in the hospital. Also, if a person is really sick and desperate for surgery , it is harder to heal |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 24, 2024 13:38:19 GMT
Dear God people. Give it up. It was Kate at the farmers market. And she had surgery. For all we know there was nothing heavy in her bag that she was carrying. It’s not like we saw her pole vaulting. It was a quick trip. She didn’t partake in a shopping marathon for hours on end. For all we know she did that outing and then went home to bed for 2 days to recover from the outing.
Edited: I am apparently cranky. So I apologize for the rude post. But really.....it's time to let that go.
|
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Mar 24, 2024 15:16:12 GMT
The Royal Family is not the government. They have no say in how the country is run. Yes the King will have a certain degree of influence but it is far less than one might imagine. But I think it’s hysterical you should comment on this when your country actually elects some seriously shady people. And looks like it will continue to do so. It’s one thing to have a family member with no influence whatsoever be believed to be a rapist, and quite another to choose such people to actually govern, despite their criminal histories and tendencies being widely known. Who exactly is more bonkers? If you are talking about Trump, he was found guilty in a civil case of battery, not a criminal case. He does have criminal cases pending, but not for rape. And Trump did not win the 2016 Presidential race based on the popular vote. He won because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. So, based on that, at least half of us here in the U.S. are not "bonkers". I am one of those who don't understand how people can ignore Trump's past. But that is for a different thread. I hope things calm down now for the royal family. You don’t get found “guilty” in a civil trial. |
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Mar 24, 2024 15:23:18 GMT
At age 30 I had a C-section. Two weeks later I was back on horseback and working in the stable two hours each day. That’s awesome. So any weight restrictions were lifted quickly? And maybe no drains? there are not very many surgeries these days that need a long hospital stay I used the information of a two week hospital stay and compared it to my bowel surgery with two weeks in the hospital. Also, if a person is really sick and desperate for surgery , it is harder to heal They told me I shouldn’t lift anything heavier than my child for six weeks, but as any equestrian will tell you, what the doctors say should only be regarded as a suggestion. They didn’t say anything about getting back on horseback (honestly I don’t think it even crossed their minds😂), and I didn’t say a word about my horses. |
|
zippythebird
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by zippythebird on Mar 24, 2024 18:31:33 GMT
I’m kinda confused Darcy, what dollars are you personally sending to the UK? And by what mechanism is anyone in the US sending money to the BRM? I'm not a royalist by any means, but I honestly don’t understand why this enrages you so much. 🤷♀️ And you explain to to me why Andrew is in line to the throne - go ahead - explain to me why this doesn't enrage you. It does not enrage Me because Andrew has been frozen out of EVERYTHING He gets nothing from The King . He gets nothing from the public purse etc It would also take an act of parliment to remove Him and tbh The UK has a lot more serious stuff to deal with |
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Mar 25, 2024 12:28:29 GMT
So just straight up nepotism now? I again ask why you’re allowing a rapist to be in your line government? Are you British? If not, then why do you care so much about one member of the royal family (who aren't even "the government")? a somewhat minor member now. Better to focus that outrage right here in the USA where an actual rapist, among other evil traits, was actually elected, and who might very well be elected again. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 26, 2024 17:28:18 GMT
well here's a half assed non apology...
Again, someone not taking any personal accountability for blowing this up - she didn't "disappear" all of a sudden with no notice - we knew full well where she was, recovering from surgery.
Even if she ultimately didn't have a cancer diagnosis, humiliating a public figure while they are recovering from surgery with "jokes" about their partner having an (unsubstantiated) affair is suddenly OK? Since When?
Disgusting
|
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Mar 26, 2024 18:19:46 GMT
You are quite right, Mr Colbert, they don’t need your pathetic, insincere joke (because you DO tell jokes apparently, huh?) apology. As for your “standards”? What are they then?
|
|
|
|
Post by cakediva on Mar 26, 2024 19:01:52 GMT
I can't find the image to put here - but it was on TikTok and a screen shot of a tweet that basically said
All these news outlets giving sad little apologies for all the conspiracy stuff also need to start calling her Catherine, Princess of Wales. Kate Middleton does not exist any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 26, 2024 19:02:58 GMT
All these news outlets giving sad little apologies for all the conspiracy stuff also need to start calling her Catherine, Princess of Wales. Kate Middleton does not exist any more. If only! I'll believe it when I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 27, 2024 2:34:41 GMT
I can't find the image to put here - but it was on TikTok and a screen shot of a tweet that basically said All these news outlets giving sad little apologies for all the conspiracy stuff also need to start calling her Catherine, Princess of Wales. Kate Middleton does not exist any more. I watched a bit of The View on YouTube where they were uncomfortably 'apologizing' as well, and someone called her Princess Kate Middleton. All The View ladies (except for Whoopi) blamed the Palace PR for making then go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. Oh yes, they peddled bullshit conspiracy theories and speculated that she was dead etc...but it was all someone else's fault...it wasn't theirs! |
|
Refupea #402
