posted July 23, 2013 07:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LiesLilithsaidtouranus:
Just please stop with the conspiracies.
The birth time is correct. There is no need I lying to the rest of the world. If they so believed in astrology, then they would love to search up what the astrological world had to say about their little bundle of joy.

---

Exactly. Thank you.

posted July 23, 2013 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by stillatlarge:
Surely you're being funny.
The belly would not still be THAT big. She never showed much to begin with but it's as big as it ever was. Something's not right here.

---

Have you ever been pregnant before, ever had a child? Never seen a slim figured, 1st time, new mother post-childbirth before?

seriously?

Get Real

The body is still going through a lot of changes. First time mother's show and experience these differently than future pregnancies.

If that's the best you got, you're the only one being deceived and it's purely ignorance on your own part.

FYI - she's not even "THAT big", not before and not now, so I have no idea what you are talking about, your idea of what is "big" seems to be the real problem, not her postpartum figure.

posted July 23, 2013 08:02 PM            

quote:

---

Of course it's fake their all reptilians, they lay egg sacks.

---

posted July 23, 2013 09:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LiesLilithsaidtouranus:
I don't think Diana died of an accident either.
Either way none of this can be proven, so we should just taking things at face value.

---

posted July 23, 2013 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by stillatlarge:
PLEEEASE STOP WITH TELLING ME WHAT TO POST OR NOT POST. I will put my two cents in here whether you like it or not. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't buy it. Nor do I believe his or her or its grandmother died of an accident. You probably do though.

---

No, you know what - there's a place for conspiracies here and it isn't in Astro 2.0 -
so far none of your contributions to the topic have contained anything astrologically significant nor relevant, therefore, they do not belong here.

If you'd like to argue about conspiracies regarding the royal family - do so in the appropriate forum. (Spider Line)

If you want to contribute to the original topic, than go right ahead, just remember the original topic of conversation is astrological analysis.

posted July 23, 2013 10:23 PM            

we don't need birth time to analyze the chart.

having one is great, but not absolutely required...

this is still an astrological forum, an astrological thread, and we are astrologers or astrology enthusiasts who would like to discuss this chart.

it's great if you have some belief(s) of your own - really, that's fine... have at it (in the appropriate forum of course).

But, why should your belief/disbelief stop us from participating in a study on any chart here? Would it bother you if it was marked as an "anonymous birth chart"? Because, the way it looks to me (and I'm probably not alone), is that your only problem, your gripe, is that we are looking at a chart that is being attributed to a British royal.

So, in that case... how about, you turn the other way, and let us analyze it as a "chart for anonymous child of unspecified gender born xx/xx/xxxx @ xx:xx"... hmmm... deal?

Then, we can all be happy. Unless your need for happiness, opinions, and enjoyment in these forums is more important than any of ours. (?)

So what if it isn't the right birth time... there was still a child born somewhere at this exact same time~ <3

and, I'd like to get to know them (all) a lil' better.

posted July 23, 2013 10:53 PM            

But I really don't care either way.

posted July 24, 2013 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by stillatlarge:
What moron would put a real birth time out there for the world? It's like publishing a social security number to anyone who knows astrology and they DO. That's over your head like everything else. You can have your idiotic fantasies and your thread. I'm not going to waste time arguing with such superior logic and intellects as those here.

---

The only reason would be to keep anyone from saying anything negative, they like their privacy. If the real time isn't made public, then they can laugh in private about any dire predictions knowing the info they gave was intentionally misleading. I can see their point and the chart itself is heavy on the secrecy theme. So who knows? Maybe it's just too fatalistic sounding?

posted July 24, 2013 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by miranda:
Not to be pro or con whether it is the correct birth time, but in his case, the correct time is actually important to analyze the chart, even if we forego houses and angles, since just around 40mins later make him a different Sun and just under 3h a different Moon sign.

---

Very much so.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 24, 2013 04:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LiesLilithsaidtouranus:
His name was announced y'all!

---

Hurrah! /dance

I didn't make bets... but, I totally wish I had.

My intuition was in favour of Alexander George Philip

- two out of 3 ain't bad. (good guess anyway)

/cheers to baby George Alexander Louis

very handsome name~ ^^

His forename goes perfectly with the reading of the stars in his chart. Alexander Louis fare perfectly with his given Mercury-Sirius, and Mars-Jupiter (Cancer). <3

posted July 24, 2013 04:41 PM              

What an average name...

Why not Cedar or Dashboard?

posted July 24, 2013 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerosene:
George....... -_-

What an average name...

Why not Cedar or Dashboard?

Celebrities have the power to name their kids anything they want...

---