To think Kate Middleton should have kept her tits in

[moogster1a]

Surely she can't be unaware that she's one of the most photographed women in the world and there are paparazzi everywhere.
I know in an ideal lovely world she should be able to skinny dip in privacy, but in the real world I think she is being a bit naiive to go topless and then be so upset when the pictures are published

Why?

What happens if someone sees a breast? Do their eyes bleed?

You know - I kinda agree... she should be able to do what she wants but she also should know that the paps will go all out to get some salacious pics of her.

Why? Why should she? Is the sight of her bare tit going to end the world?

YABU.

How do we know she is 'so upset' anyway?

Actually it's the paparazzi who should keep their lenses in rather than her having to change her behaviour in private.

What I don't understand is why it's legal to post revealing photos of someone who did not pose for them or know they were being taken, just because they're famous?

That's twice this summer. Okay, Harry was being an idiot and Kate possibly a little indiscreet. But why are their bodies and private actions 'public interest' just because they're royal.

I think it's appalling.

FFS let her be. She has to be so careful for the majority of the time with what she wears. Try not to show too much leg, too much cleavage, nothing too clingy (will compound rumours of being too thin) not too loose (will start rumours of pregnancy), wear the "right" colours for whichever country she is visiting. So if she decides, on a private holiday,in private grounds, to strip down naked and lie on the sand spreadeagled then ffs just let her.

I disagree completely. It's not as if she was going topless in st James's park. She was in private garden/estate.

This is a hideous paparazzi intrusion and very very scummy behaviour by the French rag.

I don't think you can compare the situations between Harry and Kate. Prince Harry made a very public show of himself whilst drunk.

The Duchess of Cambridge was in a private house on private grounds on holiday with her husband.

I am not a fan but think this is pretty crappy all round.

i also think its really crappy, I agree if she's in public, but she was on private land, and frankly should be able to do that without pictures of her naked breasts being beamed around the world - that is NOT what she signed up for.

She can do what she likes but shouldn't be surprised if she whips her top off that it ends up in the paper.

But she "whipped her top off" in the middle of a private estate, so far from the public that the photos taken with a long lense camera are still blurred (apparently)

Perhaps it's about time these idiots thoughts before they snap!

valium She can be if she has whipped her top off in a private place. Where does it end? If the photographers are allowed to publish photos of her on private land, then the boundaries get pushed back further and further. Will it end with photographers taking photos of her in her lounge? gym? bedroom? I'm all for photos being taken when out in public, but in private? really?

I look forward to the day when the press realise that 'Woman Has Tits' isn't really much of a story.

I am pleased that none of the pictures have been published in the uk whether it's moral or legality, I genuinely think the British public want her privacy protected. Had they been published I would have felt sad we had not learned from the press intrusion Diana recieved.

I hope she remembered to put sun cream on her nipples.

She knows the score, she knows she is one of the most photographed women in the world.

She knows what happened to Fergie.

I reckon everyone else should keep their necks in but so many wind them right out there to gawp at a pair of breasts.

YABU

Boobs are boobs, royal or otherwise. The papperazi need to get over themselves. It's hardly a revelation that she has a pair now is it?

PlentyOfPubeGardens Fri 14-Sep-12 07:50:56

I look forward to the day when the press realise that 'Woman Has Tits' isn't really much of a story

This. That's all.

YABU. Personally, I hope she gives not a fuck. BUt if someone used a long lens to get a pic of me naked in my own private environment, I think I'd feel hideously violated and fragile. It's a vile invasion of privacy.

YABU.... this was a private holiday FGS, if she had been on an official visit then she would have been in the wrong to have been in a situation where she could have been photographed like that, but behind closed doors or estate gates is it really any of our business?????????

Yes they are public figures and tbh with the usual need for some amount of privacy to enjoy their personal time together.

But we have had this soooo many times before with younger royals in the past. How on earth can she be ''surprised and disappointed''?

If you're going to marry the heir to the throne you are signing up to the end of a normal private life. Rightly or wrongly that is how it is at the moment.

If you're going to get your 'tits that are one day going to be the queen's tits' out outdoors there is bound to be some photographer lurking somewhere throwing his flask down and joyfully grabbing his camera.

Balls to that. She should be able to dress up as a chicken and spank Will's arse with a spatula if she wished, in private, on holiday without some pap bloody intruding

YABU.

Exactly what manicinsomniac said... If a voyeur (is that the right word)/creepy man with a long lens camera managed to get a photo of me in the nude in the privacy of my home or garden and published them for the world to see, surely that's illegal, surely... Someone tell me it is!

So why is it 'acceptable' for the Duchess and not illegal, why is it just an 'invasion of privacy'.