Has anyone else noticed that Kate Middleton has flat feet? (See photo below)
Is this condition hereditary? Does it mean that any sprogs they might have will be barred from the Services?
How is she "ours"? She's British as the the rag you linked to.
1. Flat feet dont disqualify you from the army unless you have already have problems with your feet,hips or legs.
2. With the amount of inbreeding in that family, a kid with flat feet is probably the least of their worries.
3. Do you really care?
I thought this thread was going to be about her topless shots!
Do you have a foot fetish?
I have a Duchess of Cambridge foot fetish.
Not sure. I'd like to see her wearing turned down wellingtons (with bit cut out for the obvious bunion) before I head for an analyst. Will keep you informed
she's flat-footed; he's a soon to be baldy coot
i suspect they wont be having babies, as such but incubating eggs. Fowl?
anyhow it's her flat t!ts she should be concerned with, not to mention the deriere that would be rude. Did I mention the uninspiring face? No, ****ing hell just short of getting my bits out for the rags. right royal behaviour :/
If I were to follow some woman around and take of photos of her while she didn't realise would I not be committing some sort of crime?
then you'd be the dirty mac
Honesty It's a jungle out there. With long lenses, leering from the thicket which makes us all subjects long before citizens anyhow. So she was subject to a little covert celebrity snappage; yknow someone once forewarned the kitchen was hot n if you're be famous for achieving not much to nothing in particular and in no particular field you must be at least pictured in order to be forced on people's concionsces
It had been said that Kate didn't need to dress to look good. Perhaps she was just testing the water. Rosanne takes a different viewpoint. How come these two icons have such different thoughts on their published lack of clothing?
Well you see this is where it gets interesting. If the woman you follow isn't well known or in the public eye then what you are doing is called stalking and you could end up in jail.
But if they are famous then it is no longer considered stalking in eyes of the media; instead you are a paparrazzi and instead of going to jail you'll be getting paid about a million quid for the pictures.
It is just plain media hypocrisy but it sells newspapers and magazines so they won't be letting a bit of hypocrisy get in the way of profit.
Though I suppose it should all come down to what is genuinely in the public interest. I had to laugh at Max Mosely on Sky News just there talking about how Kate's privacy was invaded just like his was.
Well I'm sorry Max but if you're the son of the former leader of the British Union of Fascists who likes dressing up in Nazi uniforms then it is most certainly in the public interest to know what kind of an individual you are, regardless of whether the pictures were taken in private.
her sister portrayed herself as a bit of a slapper, just months prior over there masquerading at that hedonistic eurotrash party so maybe they took her sibling for granted? And princely harry didn't seem to give a toss, naked with his knackers out trying to force himself like a randy orangutan on someone in a sitting room full of otherwise clothed dignitaries so what gives.. why the posh facade? the feigned mortification, the gasps aghast