All things Prince William & Kate Middleton

[cluciano63]

Just to give you an idea...

Not really as private as I expected, somehow...

 

[Donjeta]

I think if I was in her position I'd probably feel a little paranoid when appearing topless in the shower.

 

[STANDREID]

She should be proud of her body.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Cambridge-giggles-greets-topless-women.html

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

 

[tarabull]

Ingrid Seward, in Daily Mail:

This magazine is ghastly - but I can't believe Kate was so daft: Royal
observer asks how future Queen could have allowed paparazzi to get so close

Found this story via the link provided above:

Deja vu: Fergie, her toe-sucking Texan and a naked Charles were target for French magazines just like Kate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-target-French-magazines.html#ixzz26ktoWESS

 

[brighidin]

She should be proud of her body.

Lots of people who are proud of their bodies don't want images of said body on the covers of magazines and online.

 

[Donjeta]

Probably a good idea to keep the top on then.

 

[TrackerSam]

Probably a good idea to keep the top on then.

You've got to expect this kind of thing when you're a celebrity IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

There's no way she wasn't given the Paparazzi 101 course when she joined the royal entourage.

 

[Cazzie]

Still...it would be nice to be able to go topless, in private locations, and not be photograghed without permission.

Hard to spend another minute on it tho...she's probably eating fresh-caught dove and tiny baby carrots flown in from some other country...and has an unlimited shopping budget...

I'm not sure why "we" worry about the dilemnas of celebrities and royalty...other than basic human compassion...

 

[Gracenote]

I wonder if they were tipped off by a member of the household? I would not have spent time watching the balcony in expectation of seeing someone nekkid. Regardless of someone's financial status be it destitute or filthy rich, they have a right to privacy.

 

[TrackerSam]

I wonder if they were tipped off by a member of the household? I would not have spent time watching the balcony in expectation of seeing someone nekkid. Regardless of someone's financial status be it destitute or filthy rich, they have a right to privacy.

A right sure, but no expectation. For a million pounds a year to do little, I'd trade.

 

[Sonya610]

After looking at where the photographer was standing, and the fact she appears to be standing on a roof balcony, I have to wonder what she was thinking. I thought maybe she was in a courtyard and really expected privacy.

No doubt she could see MILES of open trees when she stripped on the hillside, if SHE can see all that then common sense says SOMEONE could see her! She has probably done this plenty of times before and this time she got caught. Would have been a better idea to just keep some sort of top on.

 

[brit1981]

I think the british media are being very hypocritical about this. yes she has a right to privacy, but then so does everyone.
A couple of years back some guy went to the british press claiming to have found a camera with photos of a pretty girl in a bikini posing in a house. despite the fact they had neither consent from the girl or the owner the british media took great delight (akin to a dirty old man) in printing the pictures (then got nasty when it turned out it might be a publicity stunt for a website and they had not in fact humiliated a teenage girl in the national papers like they had thought). The same thing when people take photos of people at parties and put it on facebook, and the papers then decide to try to humiliate young women who got caught trying to take a pee outside at a party or falling asleep in a bath, or getting their skirt tucked into their knickers etc. They do not mind when magazines ask readers to send in phone pictures of naked and semi dressed women and girls so they can print them in their magazines (mainstream and topshelf). Why is that OK, they make it clear they do not care if the women consented to the photos, knew what they were for, knew they were being taken or gave legal consent (i.e was not drunk)? In fact it has happened that the magazines have printed topless pictures of minors claiming it is not their fault if no-one told them it was a child!
If the UK is going to be OK with this objectification and humiliation of young women, then why make an exception for the Duchess of Cambridge who at least knew she would be followed by the media who had long reach lens on their cameras even if she thought they woudl nto see her from the road.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I for one feel sorry for anyone who loses something that no money can buy--one's individual freedom associated with anonymity.

Kate is a lovely girl but is getting very thin and the look of strain is already showing. How she can endure the pangs of having to smile and look proper for every shot the cameras take is beyond me! She has to go and travel to places that I for one would never want to visit (sorry, but true) and throughout it all smile as if it's Christmas day and she's about to open presents! Some might think that she's got a great life with everything money can buy....but seriously, as we get older we see what is really important--> daily quality of life without having to answer to anyone *and* the ability to tell anyone to go "eff off" if we'd like to. Kate lost that.

Leave the couple alone 'lest we repeat the Diana tragedy.

 

[NancyA]

Way to blame the victim from some here. She should have expected it? She sleeps on 3000 thread sheets so it goes with the territory? She should keep her clothes on at all times even alone with her husband inside a private house in the middle of nowhere?

Wow, just wow.

 

[not_my_kids]

Saw on HLN that the French paper will be fined heavily and not allowed any further publishing rights to the photos in print or online. No link, cuz it was HLN.

 

[Sonya610]

She should keep her clothes on at all times even alone with her husband inside a private house in the middle of nowhere?

But she wasn't inside! She was parading around on outside balcony with a clear view for miles around! Why would anyone do that when they KNOW the paparazzi is constantly after them?

And yes, when people have that much money they can easily find suitable places to go naked outdoors if they feel they must. They can hire villas with courtyards OR have screens put up.

The Prince should have known better too.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Way to blame the victim from some here. She should have expected it? She sleeps on 3000 thread sheets so it goes with the territory? She should keep her clothes on at all times even alone with her husband inside a private house in the middle of nowhere?

Wow, just wow.

BBM: Very well said, NancyA.

 

[NancyA]

But she wasn't inside! She was parading around on outside balcony with a clear view for miles around! Why would anyone do that when they KNOW the paparazzi is constantly after them?

And yes, when people have that much money they can easily find suitable places to go naked outdoors if they feel they must. They can hire villas with courtyards OR have screens put up.

The Prince should have known better too.

Sorry, my mistake, she was outside on a balcony at a private house with a clear view for miles around - but that would be still be miles around in the middle of nowhere where there's no way anyone could 'accidentally' see anything or even see anything on purpose unless they happened to have a half-mile range telephoto lens that is. And I absolutely disagree that people with money should have to do any more than persons without money have to do to protect their privacy, it's that kind of attitude that gives these paps their license to operate in such a sleazebag manner. JMO.