Wednesday, 10 June 2015 01:54

Kate Middleton's photo of Charlotte telegraphs the truthers

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

kate-babyThe disinformation campaign has started!

If you go by The Telegraph, it involves the pretty baby and “the ugly truth.”


An extra month has now officially been added on to Princess Charlotte of Cambridge’s current age. Or is it her alleged age?
Although she was allegedly born on May 2, 2015, and last time I looked, “today” was only June 9, 2015, photos ostensibly taken “in mid-May” by Charlotte’s mother, Kate Middleton, are now said to portray a baby who is “two months” old.

How can that be?

And how old does little Princess Charlotte look to you?

If Princess Charlotte, offspring of Kate Middleton and Prince William, was born on May 2, 2015, and the photos were taken “in mid-May,” just days after Kate and William had flown the Kensington Palace coop for the well-policed lodgings of Anmer Hall, then would not little baby girl Princess Charlotte appear to be be, oh, well, now, about two weeks old in Kate’s photographs?

Not two months. Two weeks. Allegedly.

And babies that are two MONTHS old look a LOT different from babies that are two WEEKS old!

Here is a photo of a newborn Prince Harry and his mother, who was then morphing into Marilyn Monroe: Harry is clearly only a few weeks old, and has his newborn “little old man” face on.

Here is a photo of Prince William, taken at nearly the same age:

Here is the two-week-old baby of Hilary Duff, a celebrity, photographed by Duff herself:

Here are professional photographs taken of a two-week-old newborn baby:

Here is a video of a two-month-old baby:

Here’s another, with a two-month-old smiler:

Is the disinformation supposed to make us think that Princess Charlotte is older, or younger, than her photographs? Maybe someone is just hoping we won’t pay attention.

When The Telegraph told us to “imagine the ugly truth” that was hiding “behind Kate Middleton’s photos” of Prince George and Princess Charlotte, we half-assumed that The Telegraph was going to finally say that, hey, Kate Middleton’s pregnancy was another elaborate public ruse to conceal fertility problems, and the “babies” presented by Kate Middleton and Prince William to the public were both fake baby dollies.

I mean, what else does “imagine” mean?

And I don’t even want to go to what “imagine the ugly truth” might mean!

Who writes like that?

Someone at The Telegraph who’s asking for trouble, that’s who!

But we had to do what The Telegraph told us to do, so we “imagined the ugly truth.”

And what we couldn’t quite imagine, those pesky Birth Truthers filled in for us!

Birth Truthers imagine that the whole Middleton fertility thing is faked, from start to finish. Birth Truthers “imagine” The Matrix, a movie where reality is that people live, unconscious and nurtured by machines, in glass jars while, in their imagination, they inhabit a real world. Real babies do eventually show up, Birth Truthers acknowledge, but Kate did not carry them. And she didn’t leave the hospital with one the last time, they say. Instead, Birth Truthers insist, she’s just staging photo ops with fake baby dollies. This, to Birth Truthers, is “the ugly truth.”

And she’s using the Royal Family to help her carry out her nefarious, fakie plans!

Kate, we are all reminded, was a college art history major and took some splendid photographs of trees encased in fog a while back in Borneo jungles, so that must make her an authority on something. The Middleton “spin” for years has always been that Kate, like sister Pippa, is a professional-quality “photographer” who took photos of paper plates, plastic spoons and pinatas for “Party Pieces” before Prince William dragged her away from all her great success to be his royal bride. Therefore, the Birth Truthers’ claims that Kate gave Prince George a fake baby dolly to hold and stare at bafflingly while she pushed the shutter all by herself makes some sense.

Just look at how life-like the fake baby dolllies are!

And why have Kate Middleton be the royal photographer?

Is it for the money? Or is it all about having “control?”

Maybe it’s about having no witnesses.

Other than Carole Middleton, who sees and knows ALL!

Such royal photographs are all bought and paid for, as we know from the time when Kate’s father, Michael Middleton (supposedly, with his wife Carole, a self-made “Party Pieces” millionaire), took the only blurry snap (full of sun glare) of newborn Prince George, who was unidentifiably wound up in a towel cocoon, and kept all the money. These photographs cost quite a bundle, and newspapers and magazines from all over the world pay hundreds of thousands in royalties and fees.

Now, maybe Gampy Michael Middleton put all the money he made from Prince George’s photo into a college fund for his grandson, or an Eton fund, or whatever. Or maybe there’s a Middldton savings plan so that someday, Prince George can buy his own helicopter, and not burden the overburdened taxpayers. Or a family tiara fund, since all the Middletons now have a coat of arms and signet rings, and Pippa will need one because Kate will have one. Or a charity of some kind– preferably, one that can be led by Pippa, so that when she visits, a little girl will present her with a posey– just like Kate!

It’s all pretty secret squirrel about where the “first-baby photo” money went, so we don’t really know. But I would bet that Gampy kept the cash.

Because who doesn’t like having a lot of cash?

Has Kate Middleton been similarly paid for her photographs?

Will Kate now be continuing in that great male Royal Family tradition of being a society photographer? Princess Margaret’s husband, Tony Snowdon, made a fortune at it, and he was fairly all kinds of ways.; He kept Princess Margaret happy until he suddenly didn’t, but before it all went wrong, he took one of the sexiest, most glamorous and truly beautiful photographs of any woman in the world– Princess Margaret at her absolute personal best:

Of course, nothing explains the early photograph he took of Princess Diana (and he took many better ones): Yikes! Talk about having a bad eyeliner day!

And Patrick Lichfield, a true royal who was simply one of the best photographers, ever.,_5th_Earl_of_Lichfield. Want to see a baby picture? Now, THIS is a baby picture! Just click here to get the full sweep of his talent, plus some extraordinary, close-up photos of royals that could only be snapped by one of their own.

Most likely, any money coming to Kate Middleton from the snaps of her children would be ostensibly “donated” to a charity. But which one or ones? And strangely, no announcement’s been made yet.

But Birth Truthers claim the real reason that Kate Middleton took her own babies’ baby pictures: The “no witnesses” reason.

If you are trying to pose Prince George with a fake baby dolly and have to instruct him to look and act as though he’s cuddling a real baby, well, you don’t want too many people in the room, do you?

Not if you want it to stay a secret.

Even a “loyal royal” photographer who is actually a Royal Family member might still be tempted to blab that Kate made Prince George pose with a fake dolly baby.

I am pretty sure that Patrick Lichfield would have told the Queen all about the fake dolly baby, straightaway!

As in, Kate is using yet another fake baby dolly to “sit in” for the real Princess Charlotte, wherever she may be.

And Kate could never risk that!

If Princess Diana’s interview with BBC’s “Panorama” taught us anything, it’s that you have to give all your staff– cooks, butlers, dressers, hair-blow-driers, and the like– the day or evening off when you want to do something that involves “the ugly truth.”

You have to Greta-Garbo it up and say, “I vahnt too bee alone.” Then, all the pesky staff who are keeping diaries and writing books with full intention of violating the “no disclosure” contracts of employment they earlier signed will have not a clue.

And isn’t that why the work-shy royals known as Willy and Waity supposedly fled to Anmer Hall from perfectly nice digs in Kensington Palace? Weren’t they just so fearful that disloyal staff would spill their secrets, that people would ring their doorbells and offer to trim their hedges or wash the cars or try to deliver pizzas, or get them to do things like work? Or else run to their million-dollar kitchen to fill up a cup of sugar for a pesky neighbor who’s trying to follow a Pippa pudding recipe?

Whereas, way out by Anmer, apparently the SWAT teams will gun down anyone who runs out of petrol or tries to deliver a pizza or borrow a cup of sugar or something if they are unlucky enough to be on “the perimeter.”

No witnesses are wanted at Anmer. Nobody’s allowed in except for Ma Middleton. But the royal lifestyle has always been shared with the public that pays for it via photographs. Prince Charles and Princess Diana used their early baby photos as their personal Christmas cards, but it was nice that the masses also got to see the photographs. This is how real royals connect with their subjects! This is how they avert revolutions!

But what do you do if you can’t get your hands on the real baby right away?

What if the surrogate is late, or changed her mind, or her husband wants more money, or something dreadful happened, like an unexpected stillbirth?

Why, you do what you must!

Cue the fake dolly baby!

Therefore, if the Birth Truthers are right, and the surrogates are just a little slow to actually deliver the real live surrogate baby(ies) to Anmer, or perhaps the age of the baby is in doubt, why not just stick a fake dolly baby in place? The fakies are so good that nobody will every know the difference, right?

Even the Daily Mirror admits that the fakies are “breathtakingly realistic.” So who would know?

Except maybe Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth, who may have been shown the fake dolly baby sleeping in its white crib with the white sheets in the white nursery, and told to “not wake the fakie, I mean, the baby! The baby! The real, live baby. Look, when I push on its side, it will make a kind of convulsion. Shhh!”

Maybe the reason that the Middletons looked so nervous, and the Royals so furious, when they drove over to Kensington Palace that day to visit newborn Princess Charlotte is that the Royals can easily tell a fake baby dolly from a real baby. I mean, these are people who shoot their own horses, all by themselves! If they can tell a horse is incurably lame by just LOOKING at it, do you think that they wouldn’t be able to tell a real baby from a fake dolly baby? Sure they can! But what could they possible say about it publicly that would not ruin the whole succession for Prince William?

Maybe this is why Countess Cam smiles so much.

Prince Charles might say that he needs to sit for a couple of hours and whip out a watercolor or two of the new baby, but then the wisely-smiling Countess Cam will gently lead him away with an all-knowing, “Come along, dear! The fakie needs its rest.” And the Queen will suddenly remember that she’s got to get back to Buckingham Palace and feed her thirteen corgis– which takes oodles of time. Prince Harry delayed his visit to the newborn because he had a flower show to go to and was still jet-lagged from his Australia jaunt, and now it looks like he will miss the upcoming christening because he’ll be safely far away in Africa.

Far, far away.,,20395222_20928994,00.html.

Prince Harry may just be the Royals’ best hope for the future! So why screw it up by making him part of the Middleton Dynasty of Fakie I and Fakie II? It will all be ferreted out sooner or later.

Or maybe not, depending upon how long the “no witnesses” strategy can last.

The Queen, Prince Charles and Countess Cam probably high-tailed it back to Buckingham Palace and downed a few stiff ones, I bet! I’d say cold ones, but being British, they likely don’t dilute their gin or scotch or whatever with ice.

And especially not if they have a good reason for drinking it straight up.

And even the christening itself is taking place far, far away from the usual London-based venues. No Buckingham Palace Music Room; no St. James’s Chapel Royal. Instead, Princess Charlotte will reportedly be baptized at the same remote church in Sandringham where the late Princess Diana was baptized.,,20395222_20928994,00.html;

Which is a good place if you want to control and minimize all photographs and news coverage, and keep out those pesky royalist bystanders and sneaky Birth Truthers looking for clues!

The Cambridges don’t want privacy, Birth Truthers scoff. They want secrecy and control. And no witnesses.


Because the Cambridges’ babies are fakies!

That’s what the Birth Truthers sincerely believe.

And no, they don’t all live in Russia! Many of them live right in the United Kingdom.

This is why, Birth Truthers claim, Carole Middleton rules Anmer Hall’s roost. She’s there to scare the witnesses away, and make sure that all the batteries powering up the fake dolly babies are fully charged, so that they can breathe convincingly, and even have detectable heartbeats.;;

Each eyelash is applied by hand; even the fake baby-sized fingernails are impossible to tell from the real thing.

You can even “pose” them! Their tiny legs and fingers can be bent and shifted around, just like in Kate’s photos of Princess Charlotte! They make genuine baby-sounding noises!

You can even feed them! They even come with tongues!

And you can get your real, live children to pose with them! Uhm...maybe...

Real girl children tend to interact with the fake dolly babies better than real boy children.

And if the real kids won’t cooperate and think that you are a total creepshow for making them hold a fake dolly baby, you can just go get some other, more cooperative, fake dolly children, who will “bond” with one another.

Birth Truthers claim the reason that Kate Middleton’s white-out baby photos look so posed and unnatural is that the actual arrival of the real baby Princess Charlotte has been delayed, for reasons unknown, and that, because things went so well when Kate wrapped up Fakie II in a white blankie and skipped down the hospital steps in her high heels, she used yet another, but different, fake dolly baby to pose in photos with a bemused Prince George, whose puzzled facial expressions are saying, to Birth Truthers, “Why are you making me pose with this fake baby dolly?”

And what Kate and Prince William can’t fake out, they white out.;

Kate used an almost all-white background, presumably a sofa, and then dressed Prince George in a pale white and pale-blue “Little Lord Fauntleroy” outfit with black shoes that either have never been worn before, or maybe they just heavily scotchguarded everything. The fake baby dolly was then squeezed into white knitted leggings, some kind of white shirtie thingy, and a knitted sweater.

Wearing all the hand-knitted-this and hand-knitted-that, Charlotte looks like she must be hot! As in, over-dressed.

Maybe they turned up the AC. But it was ...May (when the photos were allegedly taken). Or July, in the future, if you believe The Telegraph.


Either way, it’s warm outside.

When my son was born, it was late January, but still, with the furnace boiling away, it was hard to put him in anything other than a diaper and onesie without him getting prickly heat. Sometimes, I didn’t even bother with the onesie, unless we were going out in the stroller.

But fake baby dollies never get hot! Not really. They never get hives! You can pretend it’s the dead of winter so that you can dress them up in blinding white hand-knitted-this and hand-knitted-that. You can go crochet-crazy!

Is the ever-present white in Kate’s photos meant to reduce our view of the details? Is it meant to just blank-out our eyes, so we don’t look too closely? Are we supposed to suddenly go snow-blind? Does all-white-everywhere-white make details– like how the baby is a fake baby dolly– just melt away?

Is this why Kate ordered almost everyone to where white, or whitish-things, to Prince George’s christening a while back? How can she sleep at night when her interiors are all so white-on-white-on-white? White walls, white ceiling, white curtains, white carpet, white upholstery, and the whitest clothing around? What stops the glare? Is there some theory behind all this whiteness?,,20395222_20748891,00.html;

Call it “instant airbrush.”

Some journalists, like the Daily Mail’s Peter McKay, speculate that it is all part of Kate and William’s steely determination not to be exploited by the photographers their mother supposedly hated so much. But Princess Diana gleefully posed for very attractive photos of herself and her family throughout her life. It was only much, much later, after she had all but exiled herself from the Royal Family and dispensed with her protection officers, that she began to behave towards photographers with such deranged fury that the snappers started calling her “the Loon,” and warned each other, when Diana took to screaming, cursing and lunging at them, and even chasing them down in her car: “Loon attack coming in at2 o’clock!” And, “Loon attack! Twelve o’clock high!”

If Prince William and Kate Middleton genuinely believe that they are under some kind of state of siege from the Fourth Estate, they are mistaken. People are just laughing at the amateurish photographs they release, wondering when anyone at Buckingham Palace will say anything about the obviously fake dolly babies, and longing for the good old days of Tony Snowdon and Patrick Lichfield when royal baby photos were glorious and impressive and not looking like something you fixed up at a Walmart photo center.

But there’s growing speculation that there may be more than one fake baby dolly in the mix.

And is the eldest son of the last loon behind it?

Sarah Whalen

sarahw2Sarah Whalen is a university journalism instructor, attorney and author.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1