[arista]

http://www.barstoolu.com/#random-tho...s-hit-the-web/

may Not be Legal to post
Remove if not

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

http://www.barstoolu.com/#random-tho...s-hit-the-web/

may Not be Legal to post
Remove if not

she's definitely "cross-eyed" lol

i'm just joking, she's beautiful. I'm sure most women would kill to have her body. She's got nothing to be ashamed of.

[Roy Mars III]

[the truth]

Originally Posted by arista

Why Bother Posting on this Thread?


Any News Ch today has this story.
This is TIBB.

Not the Fecking
Truth Speaks

because I want everyone to know how pathetically shallow we as a society as , how controlled and manipulated , like mindless heartless sheep. it is beyond pitiful. we care more about some photo of one of the richest people in the world, over the abusive deaths of our fellow country men. this drivel dhouldnt even be in the news. we need to repiroritise whats most important in this country. celebrity photos is not one of them. the abusive death killings in our hospitals should , as any sane person would agree, be given greater priority and attention

[arista]

Originally Posted by the truth

because I want everyone to know how pathetically shallow we as a society as , how controlled and manipulated , like mindless heartless sheep. it is beyond pitiful. we care more about some photo of one of the richest people in the world, over the abusive deaths of our fellow country men. this drivel dhouldnt even be in the news. we need to repiroritise whats most important in this country. celebrity photos is not one of them. the abusive death killings in our hospitals should , as any sane person would agree, be given greater priority and attention

Yes but we all know its Shallow.
But its still the Main News item on every news.


and other nations are printing her tits.


"this drivel shouldnt even be in the news."
Sure - but it is on Every News
now a legal battle.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

no difference!
royals with their bits on display,
kate is to blame,

Exactly

The Duchess of Cambridge should never have given them something to photograph.

It is her that should be severely reprimanded for her breach of protocol. She should never have been allowed to to get close to his Royal Highness. She should have been told right in no uncertain terms at the beginning to keep away from His Royal Highness.

As for Arista's point, love should never be allowed to supplant duty. Love should be sent packing if it ever comes close to conflicting with duty.

Remember how Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret dispensed with a man she loved because he was a commoner. She rightly chose duty over love.

His Royal Highness should have been made to ditch Miss Middleton and made to marry a royal from one of the European royal households as was his duty.

As fortunately there is yet no issue, maybe the courtesans at the palace may be able to rectify this terrible mistake, in light of this evidence of her unsuitability to be a royal. A quickie divorce with a statement of how things are not working out, followed by a low key royal wedding of his royal highness to a proper royal princess would be more in order.

[arista]

"made to ditch Miss Middleton "


No Sticks
you are in a Time Warp.

The Public like her
except , you of course.

[Sticks]

If we are to have a royal family, then it must be done according to the well established rules which have stood the test of time through the centuries.

[arista]

Yes
you can wish for that.

But its Big Money for Photos
And the UK can not order other nations about

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Sticks

If we are to have a royal family, then it must be done according to the well established rules which have stood the test of time through the centuries.

The very first commoner to marry a British monarch was Elizabeth Woodville, the widow of Sir John Grey of Groby, who married King Edward IV in 1464. Woodville was also the first Englishwoman to be crowned Queen, which happened on Ascension Day at Westminster Abbey on May 26, 1465.

She already had two sons from her marriage, but bore the King ten more children. This was the start of the House of York.

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...s-future-king/

[lostalex]

I feel bad for Wallace Simpson, she was so horribly abused by the royals

[lostalex]

When has the British Royal Family EVER had to account for their wrong doings throughout history?

Never. But they have the AUDACITY to take legal action?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

Gutter press for scum .....

No doubt the rest of "press" will jump on the bandwagon now .....

Apparently, Richard Desmond of Northern & Shell may be pulling the financial plug on the Irish edition of the Star .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

When has the British Royal Family EVER had to account for their wrong doings throughout history?

See English Civil War .....

[King Gizzard]

Spoiler:

[MTVN]

Well played Omah

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

When has the British Royal Family EVER had to account for their wrong doings throughout history?

21 Nov 2002

Princess Anne is being prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act after her pet bull terrier savagely attacked a couple in Windsor Great Park.

The Princess Royal and her husband, Commodore Tim Laurence, have both been summonsed to appear before East Berkshire magistrates in ten days' time where they each face a fine of up to Ł5,000 and up to six months' imprisonment.

Magistrates can also order the destruction of the animal and have the power under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act to disqualify the Princess and her husband from keeping a dog.

It is the first time such a senior member of the Royal Family has been summonsed to appear before a criminal court for an offence other than exceeding the speed limit.

Princess Anne is also no stranger to court summonses - she has four speeding convictions. In November 1972 she was given a written warning after being clocked at up to 90mph on the M1. Police did not prosecute.

In January 1977, the Princess, then 26, was fined Ł40 in Alfreton, Derbyshire, for doing 96mph on the M1. And in October 1990 she was fined Ł150 and banned for one month by magistrates in Stowonthe-Wold, near Gatcombe Park, after admitting two separate speeding offences.

Her latest brush with the speed camera came in August 2000, when she was clocked doing 93mph in her Bentley on the A417 Brockworth by-pass near Gatcombe.

As a result she was fined Ł400, ordered to pay Ł30 costs and her licence was endorsed with five penalty points by Cheltenham magistrates

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26Z9jf4y4

The Princess was fined Ł500 by Berkshire Magistrates' Court and ordered to give Dotty more training.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Sticks

If we are to have a royal family, then it must be done according to the well established rules which have stood the test of time through the centuries.

Prince Charles was divorced and is now married to a divorcee and is still heir to the throne... Prince Michael of Kent is married to a catholic... Prince William married a commoner. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[arista]

Topless, so what? Kate gets the giggles as she is greeted by bare-chested tribal women in Solomon Islands on Royal tour

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26jMc1oHG

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

Topless, so what? Kate gets the giggles as she is greeted by bare-chested tribal women in Solomon Islands on Royal tour

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26jMc1oHG

she's probably just preparing to pull her hair back and over the necklace. you can't tell if she's giggling or not.

[arista]

"you can't tell if she's giggling or not."

She fell into giggling

Tits meets Tits

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

"you can't tell if she's giggling or not."

She fell into giggling

Tits meets Tits

what are you talking about? you can't even see her face.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

what are you talking about? you can't even see her face.

The TV Cameras did

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

The TV Cameras did

but that picture is tryna make it look like she is covering her eyes because she doesn't want to see the breasts, and i seriously doubt that's what she's doing. she's clearly putting her hands up to pull her hair up and over the necklace that was just placed around her..

I can't believe people don't see that immediately. We saw hundreds of women doing the same thing at the olympics, when they put the medal around their necks, they pull their hair back and over the medal that was put around their necks.

[arista]

She stopped after a while


The locals