Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Kate Middleton should have kept her tits in

745 replies

moogster1a · 14/09/2012 07:34

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

OP posts:
Pixieonthemoor · 14/09/2012 18:28

JumpingThroughMoreHoops - you are spot on.

Perriwinkle why on earth shouldn't she avoid tan lines?? Zara Phillips rocked up to her brothers wedding as a bridesmaid a few years ago and the press vilified her for her "tacky strap marks" (as they described them). If Zara can't get away with them then sure as hell Kate cant.

Vile vile invasion of privacy - I don't care who she is. She was on private property on a private holiday. The paps need to be reigned in (and our appetite for what constitutes 'news'). FFS look what happened to her mother in law!

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 18:32

Even private estates have roads and paths that have public right of ways.

The monarchy is an outdated concept which has no place in democracy. So yeah, in my mind the only justification for funding and protecting these inbred parasites is to have them entertain and amuse us. Certainly 'royal jewels' are more interesting than the dim-wits having tea to 'promote' British interests .

Am amused that the entitled pair felt 'violated'. They use the media when it suits them, so no issues with the media using them for profit either.

mamataurus · 14/09/2012 18:32

YABU next they will be trying to get pictures of them shagging, and if Kate ever gets pregnant the press will be like heres the photos of the conception.

Nancy66 · 14/09/2012 18:36

there were pics of charles and di shagging....

MyNeighbourIsStrange · 14/09/2012 18:48

Really?

ChazsGoldAttitude · 14/09/2012 18:49

Nancy
I would have paid a lot of money not to see those Confused

GoldShip · 14/09/2012 18:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Moominsarescary · 14/09/2012 18:53

Me too chaz Hmm

Nancy66 · 14/09/2012 18:55

they were taken early on in their marriage on a ski trip - they're inside a chalet but with curtains open so pics taken through window on long lens.

diddl · 14/09/2012 18:58

Well I don´t know the place, but from pics I´ve seen, I can´t see that there´s a road close enough for someone to just happen by & take a pic-and for anyone to be identifiable.

Let alone to see whether or not they were topless!

MyNeighbourIsStrange · 14/09/2012 18:58

I was too young, I do remember tampongate though. Were Charles and Di shagging pics published?

Perriwinkle · 14/09/2012 19:02

NoWayNoHow

What a stupid post.

If they are groomed for these roles, as they are, it frankly beggars belief that they would not be forewarned to expect gross invasions of privacy at every opportunity, or switched on enough to realise that they will happen given the level of worldwide interest in them. Like it or not it is a fact of THEIR lives. They have to be more guarded and circumspect in their behaviour, like it or not. It comes with the territory and I'm sure the Queen will be telling them that soon. To be fair to the Queen, she knows what's what and how to do the job properly.

Expecting this sort of thing not to happen is like expecting life not to be unfair, or for the world's wealth to be equitably distributed. So I think you're the one who's deluded NoWayNoHow - along with Kate and Wills by the looks of it.

And Pixieonthemoor Kate won't get tan lines if she wears a strapless bandeau-style bikini top. Sorry but she's a member of the Royal Family and whether she likes it or not, protocol dictates she has to act with decorum in terms of flashing her bits anywhere outside of the confines of her own home.

If she's had a bikini on the photos wouldn't have carried any value as the world saw photos of her in her bikini a couple of weeks back. That's how she invited it. She upped the stakes for the paps and acted in an unguarded manner. These people are never really off duty and they should know that. Again, it might seem unfair tothe likes of us but they should know it comes with the territory.

If we insist on continuing to embrace something as anachronistic as an hereditary monarchy in this country that's the way it has to be. Kate made her choice, something William was not able to do, and went into it with her eyes wide open.

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 19:02

Gold, the inbred part is a factual statement. Most continental royals are inbred, as they married within a very small gene pool to consolidate power. I think Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are second and third cousins, as well as husband and wife.

Ok, calling them parasites and dim-wit is a judgement call. But Kate has never really worked, so not sure what she has achieved to be representing Britain. Don't understand why we should be paying for their jaunts around the world or why we pay for security when they are on private holiday.

And they do seem dim-witted. This recent episode reinforces that belief, I am afraid.

nailak · 14/09/2012 19:03

if someone took pics of me in my garden or through the gaps in my curtains etc would that be legal?

GoldShip · 14/09/2012 19:06

Flatbred - lots of families have inbreeding down the line. That doesn't mean they're bad people.

'paying for their jaunts' do you know how much money the monarchy brings AND gives to our country? It's a lot more than what they take. Surely you know this since you seem to know so much about them.

It isn't dim witted to think that on private secluded property, a pap wouldn't manage to get to you. They barely didn't.

If this was any 'normal' person you'd be saying she's a victim of abuse.

'Kate has never really worked' is that your problem? Are you jealous because they have their lives and money handed on a plate?

Nancy66 · 14/09/2012 19:07

no, charles and Di pics not used.

MadgeHarvey · 14/09/2012 19:09

God some of the bile spewed on here is a real eye opener! This is a real person you're being so fucking vile about - you know? A real person with real feelings. As jumping posted - in different circumstances this could be YOUR daughters on F/B or any other public platform. Whether you agree with the monarchy or not could you not just pack it in with the hatred and loathing? You presumably kiss your kids with those vile gobs - shame on so many of the opinions on this thread.

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 19:10

Lol, Gold. Not jealous at all. Not outraged either about the photos. Saw them, had a laugh and then moved on.

I don't see them as bad or good people, just a part of an anachronistic institution, with all the baggage that comes with it. I guess you fawn over them?

GoldShip · 14/09/2012 19:11

No do I balls. They're here not there for me. I just find your irrational hatred for them peculiar.

PostBellumBugsy · 14/09/2012 19:11

If someone took a picture of me or my children when we were in our swimmers in someone's back garden & then stuck them in a national magazine or newspaper I would most certainly be horrified and would attempt to take legal action. Just because someone is a public figure, that does not mean they have waived their right to privacy.

Just imagine it was you - sitting in your back garden or a friends back garden. You on hols, it's a hot day, you are a bit sweaty & starting to get burnt. Your OH dabs on a bit of lotion & before your know it you are all over the papers - with everyone commenting on his bald patch, the size of your norks & whether or not you have cellulite - not to mention your mother, father & Outlaws seeing it!!!!
Doesn't matter who it is - it is wrong.

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 19:15

The whole point of monarchy is that people are NOT equal. So they have more privileges but less freedoms than the rest of us. Not such a big surprise, is it?

mumblecrumble · 14/09/2012 19:16

BiscuitBiscuit

Perriwinkle · 14/09/2012 19:18

MadgeHarvey Why are you flaming people and saying ridiculous things like "presumably you kiss your children with your vile gobs" when all they are doing is expressing their views - views they are perfectly entitled to hold and express in a free society.

JumpingThroughMoreHoops · 14/09/2012 19:19

Royal or not, they are people.

The statement issued tonight alluded to Diana being hounded by the press - you have a whole dynamic here of Diana dumping all her emotional shit on William, and the hear say of him being over protective of his wife, knowing they are public figures. I would imagine the whole tawdry episode is very emotional for him.

I suppose we can be grateful that Kate is young, attractive, not tatto'd like a sapphic trucker with a few stone of baby roll to lose and she has nothing to be embarrassed about per se. A little bit of dignity lost but she still retains more dignity than some posters have in their little fingers.

NoWayNoHow · 14/09/2012 19:19

Perriwhinkle you can call my posts "stupid" till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the simple, unavoidable fact that these photos were taken illegally - what this photographer did was illegal. A fact that many some posters seem intent on ignoring.

They were on private property, and they were in their own private environment - whether it was outdoors or indoors is COMPLETELY irrelevant. For those talking about the road - the photos are so blurry and so grained the the photographer must have been a helluva distance away from them, and the fact that s/he only managed to get that close in the first place is all you need to know about how secluded the holiday spot is.

I am finding the tone of the "she got what she deserved, entitled cow" posts so disturbing and vicious.

Another point that people are willfully ignoring is not WHO this is about, but WHAT it means legally for our own privacy as individuals. If this is now deemed acceptable behaviour, where's the next stop on the slippery slope? CCTV in department store changing rooms? No penalty for posting topless photos of people online without their consent?

I can't believe that people genuinely think this is okay just because they don't like the royal family.