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

I know that legal is different from moral. As you saw, I agreed that I'm not a legal expert. (The Palace has now consulted lawyers, anyway, so if they decide to continue down that route I suppose we'll find out anyway.)

The facts of what happened do remain.

I think she's absolutely stupid to have tits tbh.

And an arse, legs and fanny.

What is she thinking of?

Going around in the posssession of arse tits and fanny and expecting to be treated as a human being?

Madniss.

'After what happened to William's mother you would have thought the paparazzi would have learned a lesson. '

..you are kidding? Diana's death was a dream come true for these low-life?how many millions and millions of papers do you think they sold off the back of it and all the spin-off conspiracy theories?

Kate will be the queen consort to King William and more importantyly the mother of a future monarch and head of the church of England Being seen sunbathing topless undermines the dignity of the Royal family and is an embarassment to the state.She is a woman of 30 not a naive young girl.Also being seen with a fag hanging from her mouth isn't great either.
Wheras Will and Harry had this life thrust upon them , she went into it with open eyes.

YABU
So she's got a pair of tits. Who cares?
Some people need to grow up.

Poor thing. How awful. Urgh at invasion of privacy.

If it was a famous person who had achieved their fame through their own hard work, then yes, I think their privacy should be respected.

The 'royal' family on the other hand, are parasites, giving up their privacy in exchange for a very large public purse. They will only get our money as long as they continue to amuse us or titillate us. They have no other justification for their position as in modern society we believe no one is superior by birth, but only by achievements.

A lot of people can carry out wreath laying and talking to children in hospital. That does not warrant the millions they earn from us. If they don't like the golden cage, they can give up the royal title and public funding and live like the rest of us, with freedom from scrutiny, but the constraints of normal life.

An embarrassment to the state? Tosh. Utter piddle.

I am not a particular fan of the royal family and a great believer in freedom of the press etc.

However, there is no Public Interest justification for these photos, she was on a private holiday on private land and she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Its not in anyway her fault and I am appalled at the behaviour of the photographer, the magazine and anyone who buys that rag.

Time and again elements of the press seem to mistake Public Interest with what certain elements of the public are interested in: they are not the same thing.

FGS, she's on holiday in what is supposed to be a private place, why on earth can't she sunbathe topless.

Big deal.

Who cares.

Bless here, it's not as if they'd be very noticable anyway

her of course

Dog I very much doubt they're alleging voyeurism. It'll simply be a privacy thing.

catwoo she won't be anything to do with the Church. Has she really been photographed with a fag hanging out of her mouth? Didn't know she smoked. She's gone ever so goody-goody recently though, she'll probably have to give up.

AWww, i should imagine one doesn't give a flying fark!

I am just wondering though, are we to have a naturist monarchy now? should we all be following their example and getting our bits out? Only winter is coming and its getting a bit parky.

What i think is this - if she wants to get her tits out, then lucky old kate to have nice boobs and the confidence to get them out.

I don't think its news really "kate middleton has breasts" yeah, well done

If however you are so much in the public eye, you really shoudlnt be surprised if someone is going to take a picture and publish it so should probably not moan about it - im not sure if she is?

I can't be doing with royalty, but that is another issue, but i think it makes her sound quite cool and normal, although ive never been brave enough to flash my flesh in public because i don't have kate middletons figure

Has she never heard of aviation.I don't think the paps were flying in this instance ,but they could have been!

I don't remember signing a contract as a taxpayer that said I was entitled to nuddie photos in exchange for the Civil List.

In fact, are Prince William and Catherine actually on the Civil List yet?

Whats the Civil List? Im a tax payer - do i get a copy?

The Civil List is the list of Royals that get an allowance from the state. The Queen and Prince Philip are on it. Prince Harry isn't, IIRC.

Prince William may also not be on it.

I agree with Fastidia.

Paps make enough money taking normal pictures. This is not only a disgusting violation of privacy, its just greed.

If any one else took naked pictures of someone at work they'd be sacked.

There are plenty of opportunities for Paps to pap, let the woman have some privacy.

It's embarrassing but I think the majority of people are full of righteous indignation on her behalf. "Those ghastly French with their horrible paps!" sort of thing. I do think this will prove as a short, sharp shock to her though, that as her profile is so high at the moment lines will be crossed. It's not right, but that's the way it is.

Haven't the British press refused to print them? Hope that continues, this show of restraint and respect for their privacy is quite impressive.

No, she didn´t make them available.
She didn´t parade around in public.
She was on secluded private property. - Didl

If I got my baps out in the garden I'm visable to anyone who can see... and any plane.

Of course everyone is entitled to their privacy, but you've also got to have common sense. If you get out your tits and your famous, your tits are going to be published. I can't see why any person would want to risk getting their tits burnt/ expose them to the risk of skin cancer, let alone expose them to the possibility of sharing with them with the world.

If she thought she could get her tits out, even in a secluded space and have her privacy respected she's deluded.

The average joe in the street with a big belly gets exposed on the news any time there is a thing about obesity. So if your famous and the trashy mags bought by trashy women feature you regularly... get your tits out and they will be in a mag.

From wiki: The total cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer varies depending on the calculations used of the cost for the monarchy.

Official costs according to formal reports filed by the Royal Household state that total annual expenditure as of March 2012 was £32.1 million.

However it has been estimated by the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic that when additional costs including security, lost revenue and palace grounds maintenance among others are included the cost is between £134 and £184 million per year

Note, this family has not made their fortune through actual innovation or hard work, only through a dubious 'divine' right of kings and the exploitation opportunities that presented.

Now under a democracy, they have to justify their 'royal' status to us tax-payers, and since we all know the superior by blood stuff is a farce, we tolerate them as long as they amuse us.

I actually think the fuss caused over this is more likely to get people googling "Kate Topless" rather than if it was ignored.

She should definitely have kept her tits in. I can't believe someone in her position would take them out anywhere other than her bedroom. Ah well, lesson learnt..maybe!

Kate gets no money from the government. Her clothes are paid for privately and yet she has gone out of her way to represent you and everyone else in the country diplomatically fostering world relations for our country. Despite numerous catty comments about her for years she has carried herself with dignity.

Why do some of you think that gives you a right to sneak onto private property and hide in bushes and take photos of her? If you buy the type of supermarket checkout magazines that have these types of photos of celebrities you have paid for stalking to be done on your behalf.

It's time that paparazzi were outlawed, as they are in Monaco etc. or at lest heavily regulated. Carry a camera should not be a blanket excuse for being a perverted stalker.

As for people complaining about her being topless. Big deal. The Duquesa de Alba was photographed topless 50 years ago and she has more titles than any one else in the world and I'm pretty sure Princess Margaret enjoyed her time on Mustique. I bet Linley is wishing he had not sold that place to buy the place in France now.