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

Couldn't give a toss about her breasts really. However I can't help thinking the 'shock' must be a little over-played. I wouldn't go topless anywhere at all if my life was going to be massively damaged by anyone seeing or hearing about it, and I'm just a normal not-famous person whose breasts are of zero interest. You'd think a Harry in the family would have been a salutory lesson to all of them that quite often if you are royal, there might be cameras around that you don't know about.

the press and photographers ARE heavily regulated - it's just that some people don't obey the rules.

They shouldn't have been taking photos of her. It was totally shit. She deserves her privacy and not to have a long lens camera trained on her when she's at a private villa.
But then I cringed when I read the satement they gave saying they were "hugely saddened" by the whole thing. I though they were 'saddened' when people died. It's just a grainy shot of tits not mass murder. They should've said "Yeah she's got breasts get over it". The paps would probably give up if it wasn't such a big thing.

I'm all for this new brand of naked royalty.

What's next? Prince Phillip on the balcony of buck house in an elephant posing pouch?

I logged on having just heard about this on Radio 2. It really pisses me off. If I were at a friend's house and sunbathed topless with my husband, I would assume I had the right to do so without somebody taking photos through a long-range lens. If I discovered that it had happened, I would assume that the photographer was a pervert and needed a good slap . Why is this guy any different?

Beyond that, it just depresses me that this is what makes the headlines. Not any of the other events of the trip where they are representing the queen-- just the tits.

Just because she is a public figure, doesn't mean she is public property. They are entitled to their privacy.

comparisons to yourselves sunbathing topless in your gardens are pointless - and a little dense - this is a totally different situation.

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

I don´t think that she´s deluded.

more that it shows to what lows the gutterpress will stoop to snoop in the hope of a scoop.

A princess shouldn't have them out away from her own bedroom...simple.

But she isn't a princess?

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

Have you seen any of the papers today? It's on all of them, a couple of pixels here and there does not mean they are showing restraint.

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

Especially in light of the French privacy laws. She's entitled to her privacy.

Disregarding the rest of the tripe in your statement, badgeroncaffeine, she's not a princess, she's a duchess

Yes. Princesses should only be allowed to wear cleavage covering full length pink ball gowns. She has clearly not been watching enough Disney.

That's what I read on BBC first thing, said they'd refused to run them but the French Closer mag was. So probably what has happened is that the British tabloids were given first refusal, didn't take them but have run the pixalated images now they're seen to be "in the public domain", i.e., on the internet.

privacy laws are privacy laws. Doesn't matter who you are. Can't imagine any of you would like if you appeared with your baps out in the papers without knowledge.

Well I for one look forward to the day when a clever pap follows her into a toilet and manages to get a snap of her urinating - or better still - defecating. Because it is definitely in the public interest for me to see that, and there is nothing remotely sick or immoral about taking those pics at all. After all she's in the public eye so she is a bit dim to think she can wee or poo in private.

It mut be extra nice for Prince William, knowing that his own mother died trying to escape frenzied paps on kawasakis in France, that they have now turned their attentions to his wife. Very nice indeed. Well done paps! Well done OP for telling it how it is.

I wouldn't even have known about this had I not read MN today.

1. No one should be saying anything against catherine for heaving her breasts out as they are just breasts no different to William being topless. The puritanitcal view that breasts should be hidden is puerile.

1. Nobody should be able to publish and profit photographs of you without your written permission and the fine should be the higher of a sensible minima, soy 30k to 2 to 3 times the market value of the photographs. Which is this case would be quite a few millions if Catherine offered a topless photo shoot she would be offered millions so they fine should be astronomical and editors and publishers should be held personally responsible so if they publish in error their house should be on the line.

Diana died because her driver was drunk, she wasn't wearing her seatbelt and her security team let her down.

Yes she has the right to privacy. No, there's nothing scandalous about naked breasts. No I don't really care, blah blah.... BUT - if I were a princess, I would be naked only in the shower and my bedroom (with the curtains drawn). It's really not such a huge sacrifice is it? To keep your boobs covered outdoors if you're liable to be upset by someone taking pictures of them? I'm pretty sure I'm never naked other than in those two places and I don't feel my personal freedom is compromised by it. Plus, the paps aren't falling over themselves to take pictures of mine. She was naive.

I'm not sure Diana even had a security team at that point!

Yes. Princesses should only be allowed to wear cleavage covering full length pink ball gowns. She has clearly not been watching enough Disney

Interesting question, how should a princess or duchess or any other 'royal' behave? They are supposed to be 'superior' to us by birth, so do a different set of rules apply?

We instinctively know what is appropriate behaviour for a CEO or a movie star or a politician. But what exactly is the role and rules of office for a royal? Do we as their funders make the rules, or they as our 'superiors' make the rules?

Are these rules of behaviour meant to reinforce the 'royal' superiority to common people, or are the 'royals' supposed to behave in a way that wins our approval?

Also, are royals ever off duty? Are they like nuns, where it is a lifetime vocation (e.g. A nun cannot in her downtime go into town for a drink and a dance ) or are they like a factory worker who has holidays and retirement to do whatever they want to do?

While being chased by photogrophers on motorbikes Nancy66. Please don't be willfully obtuse.

she was being pursued by photogrpahers and they were behaving badly - but they didn't kill her. A speeding drunk driver did.

she was pursued by photographers wherever she went. Often they were there because she had tipped them off herself.