Kate middleton photos

Blackbra32

I don't feel sorry at all for kate middleton, Its bad enough that she was outside topless but she was also wearing thong bikini bottoms. What normal person wears thong bikini bottoms ?

Ella

If she didn't want to be photographed topless she shouldn't have gone topless. She let the palace down, not the mag that published the pics.

baby and crumble

I disagree entirely. She was on private property, with friends and her husband. Why on earth shouldn't she be able to expect privacy in such a situation?

RacoonQueen

She was on private property..

Balmed Out

I disagree, she was in a private villa and had a right to privacy. If she were on a public beach or something then it would be fair game. As for what she was wearing, ive not seen it but surely shes allowed to wear whatever she wants in private, who is anyone to pass judgement? Its not as if she went to the shop in her pyjamas.

Eve_Dublin

Blackbra32 wrote: »

I don't feel sorry at all for kate middleton, Its bad enough that she was outside topless but she was also wearing thong bikini bottoms. What normal person wears thong bikini bottoms ?

People who want to get a tan on their bum cheeks perhaps?


She was on private property. It was an invasion of her privacy. The average person would be arrested for this but the paparazzis get rewarded. I haven't seen the photos. To be honest, if you want an example of misogyny, well here you go. I feel very sorry for her.

Princess Peach

It wasn't even a g-string type thong.

Sunbathing, on private property, with her husband. I don't see the scandal really. Any other woman on the planet, it would be no big deal. Royals aren't allowed do this?

Ella

Ooops I didn't know it was private property

say_who_now?

Kate Middleton more than most, would be fully aware and should at least have been conscious of the fact that there's no such thing as privacy or personal space when you are a figure in the public eye.

I'm not too sure when these were taken as I've neither read the story nor seen the pictures, but surely she would've been conscious of her brother in law's similarly being snapped in a compromising situation only weeks earlier.

Me personally I think this is nothing more than the media whipping up a storm in a C-cup with their faking "aghast horror" for the disrespect shown to the royal family by other publications. It's certainly one way to skirt around Britain's privacy laws- "Look at these pictures published in a French magazine of Middleton's midriff, we didn't publish them ourselves, because we're nice like that!". They are in their...

And speaking of àrses, it's not so long ago Ms. Middleton's rear was splashed all over the media as something for women to aspire to or to be envious of. I never saw the fascination myself, but there was not a peep from the palace about having respect for a member of the royal family then. so a tit pic was surely only the next logical step.

FloatingVoter

say_who_now? wrote: »

...

And speaking of àrses, it's not so long ago Ms. Middleton's rear was splashed all over the media as something for women to aspire to or to be envious of. I never saw the fascination myself, but there was not a peep from the palace about having respect for a member of the royal family then. so a tit pic was surely only the next logical step.

That was her sister, Pippa.
It was invasion of privacy and they will win the case under French law which is pretty tough on paparazzi.
She has a right to a private life of some kind - enough people are already on babywatch without this crap.
On the related topic of Harry, he had it coming - getting naked in Vegas in a roomful of strangers and discreetly sunbathing in a friends house are worlds apart.

Princess Peach

Here is the circumstances under which the photos were taken last week.

krudler

I love the irony of the British tabloid media being disgusted at other media publishing invasive pics, paparazzi are scumbags.

I dont think she can be blamed for going topless on private land when someone was a half a mile away with a camera.

Its a non story, woman sunbathing with her husband takes top off, you see it on every beach in the world, because she's married to a royal its apparently front page news.

Blackbra32

If she doesn't want her breasts or arse cheeks in the newspapers she should keep them covered up outside, simple as that.

WindSock

As much as I agree that her privacy has been grossly invaded, I would have loads of respect for her if she came out and said in a interview 'they're just me tits ffs, what's with the obsession' (or something more diplomatic).
Then uncross her legs and recross them, Basic Instinct style.

krudler

Blackbra32 wrote: »

If she doesn't want her breasts or arse cheeks in the newspapers she should keep them covered up outside, simple as that.

Its not like she was strolling down the street with them out, she was in a private villa with her husband. Its the paparazzi at fault here not her. And they're boobs, she's a woman, she has them, big whoop.

angeline

Kate Middleton did nothing wrong. She is fully entitled to sunbathe topless in what she believed to be the privacy of her surroundings. Like a lot of women, I guess she wanted an all over tan. She was on private property, not a public beach.

PizzamanIRL

It's like walking around topless in your own house. You do it because you know you're in the privacy of your own home.

Jose1

I'm told she's not much to look at, but I'd like to judge for myself, anyone with a link to the pic:)

krudler

Jose1 wrote: »

I'm told she's not much to look at, but I'd like to judge for myself, anyone with a link to the pic:)

google? also you're on the internet, there are like, a thousand boobs on here.

srm23

i reckon she should do playboy now & give us a proper look

mfceiling

krudler wrote: »

I love the irony of the British tabloid media being disgusted at other media publishing invasive pics, paparazzi are scumbags.

I dont think she can be blamed for going topless on private land when someone was a half a mile away with a camera.

Its a non story, woman sunbathing with her husband takes top off, you see it on every beach in the world, because she's married to a royal its apparently front page news.

British Press 2012 - outrage at pictures of kate topless being printed

British Press 2011 - constant pictures of kate's sisters arse

rainbowtrout

Blackbra32 wrote: »

If she doesn't want her breasts or arse cheeks in the newspapers she should keep them covered up outside, simple as that.

Going by the photo above, the pictures were taken from about a mile away. Surely if a person is in a private home which is well away from public roads (and normal viewing range, not long range telescopic cameras) they should expect that they will not have their photos taken and splashed across the front page of a newspaper/magazine?

What next? Kate naked coming out of the shower because the blinds in her bathroom were open and a photographer climbed a tree a mile down the road and had a long range lens so he could look in her window? Should she wear a bikini in the shower because she can expect to have photos of her naked to be published if she does not.

In my view, if your on private property, clearly away from the public eye and can't be seen without the aid of a camera/telescopic lens etc, i.e. with the naked eye, then it's an invasion of privacy if your photo is taken in that situation.

As for the photos themselves, I don't get the fuss. They're just breasts.

Atlantic Dawn

fgg

Elysian

Jose1 wrote: »

I'm told she's not much to look at, but I'd like to judge for myself, anyone with a link to the pic:)

Here's one of her topless pics:

Bishop_Donal

For those interested in this stuff they'd be far better off taking a look at Rosanna Davison. At least she was willing (and while I havn't seen Kates I reckon Rosanna also has a hell of a lot more to see).

krudler

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

For those interested in this stuff they'd be far better off taking a look at Rosanna Davison. At least she was willing (and while I havn't seen Kates I reckon Rosanna also has a hell of a lot more to see).

fake though, and who cares? a woman posing willingly for playboy isnt the same thing as sunbathing and having someone with a camera take pics against her will.

Quorum

It would be nice to think that Kate could do as she pleases on private property. It would also be naive to think that, sadly. They are intensely scrutinised, for whatever reason. I think they should just have played it cool, saying that in the country they were in, there is no wrong with sunbathing topless, it's normal. It's not like she posed nude or anything.

They'll win their case though.

Lucyfur

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

For those interested in this stuff they'd be far better off taking a look at Rosanna Davison. At least she was willing (and while I havn't seen Kates I reckon Rosanna also has a hell of a lot more to see).

Who cares if they're big or small

Jeez, she went topless on holidays, just like a huge amount of women do.

bazza1

Paparrazzi, unfortunately, are a fact of public life. A topless photo of Jane Doe doesnt sell a paper but a celeb or a royal getting her baps out apparently is big news. Princess Diana was haunted by papps, even after the divorce. This is the life she has married into.Not fair,maybe but a fact of public life.

Wibbs

Thread closed. And there was me thinking, nay hoping that we might get a measured discussion on public/private space etc, but no. BTW travelledpengy come out with that about another user on this website again and you'll be getting a ban. If you have an issue with a post, please report it in future.