Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
PretzelTime · 14/09/2012 20:14

What's up with all the threads whining about women's looks lately? There was one about her shoes too. And one about how all greyhaired women should cover up.

Who cares about this stuff?

GoldShip · 14/09/2012 20:16

Least mrsterry put her point across about the royals, but managed to detach it from the main issue here.

catgirl1976 · 14/09/2012 20:18

Biscuit Biscuit

MadgeHarvey · 14/09/2012 20:18

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange - and that, in my humble opinion, is precisely how this thread should have gone..........opinion without the personal hatred.

Northernlurkerisbackatwork · 14/09/2012 20:19

Prince William knows that his mother was followed by paparazzi as she was involved in a fatal car accident. He knows they took pictures of her in the wreckage. Can you imagine how terrible it must be to fear that the same danse macabre is now following your wife? Will follow her as she sits beside a swimming pool, as she carries their child, as she does the school run. It's terrifying. He knows how dangerous this obsession is. No wonder he looked bloody miserable today.

badgeroncaffeine · 14/09/2012 20:19

crazycanuck Fri 14-Sep-12 12:58:29
Disregarding the rest of the tripe in your statement, badgeroncaffeine, she's not a princess, she's a duchess

hahahahaha.......words cannot express how funny that reply is. As though it even makes a difference to anything being discussed!

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange · 14/09/2012 20:20

You can detest an institution and still defend the human rights of the people within it. They are still human.

Mintyy · 14/09/2012 20:23

Whether you loathe the royal family or not, it is still victim-blaming to suggest that KM somehow "deserved" to have these photos published.

PretzelTime · 14/09/2012 20:24

Yes MrsTerrys, if someone is anti-monarchy there are better ways to express it than whining about a woman's looks or breasts or whatever.

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 20:32

If you are part of an archaic institution, you have to live by archaic rules, I am afraid. You cannot detach the person from the institution, as without the institution, they would not be this level of public scrutiny.

If, for example, the pope decided to have a glass of wine and a vigorous massage of his private parts, I think there is nothing wrong with that. However, if he was indiscreet enough to do it on a balcony where someone took a photo, it would become a tabloid story.

Normally, there is nothing wrong with a man rubbing his privates, but put it in the context of the church and the most powerful representative of the institution, and it takes on a different dimension.

The problem with the monarchy and the church is that they are powerful institutions based on outdated norms, and as such, their reprentatives are held to the standards of their institution, not 'normal' society. If these people don't want to play by these onerous rules, then opt out of the institution.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange · 14/09/2012 20:37

I really hope Kate chooses to BF in public. Let people get thoroughly BORED of her norks.

I get that the Royals are expected to behave in a certain way. I even thought Prince Harry was a bit of a dingbat getting himself into the situation he did. However, Kate was in private, she hadn't invited strangers to strip with her. She was with her DH in a private area. If she had been on the toilet or in bed, the only difference would have been a pane of glass. 'Normal' would have been topless on a beach in the South of France or flashing her undercrakers getting out of a limo like Brittney does.

ImaginateMum · 14/09/2012 20:38

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange "You can detest an institution and still defend the human rights of the people within it. They are still human. "

I so totally agree with this.

TheBigJessie · 14/09/2012 21:08

The Queen was 29 in erm, 1956, wasn't she? They didn't have long lenses then!

Otherwise there would be lots of Wa-hey-hey pictures of Princess Margaret from that time period...

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 21:22

mrsTerry, I diagree. Kate Moss, for example, has a right to be topless on a private yacht and expect her privacy to be respected. All she represents is Kate Moss, an individual, and is subject to the same behavioural norms governing all of us.

But the monarchy is different. Whether you detest or adore the monarchy is irrelevant. Like I said before, a monarchy is not based on modern values, but very archaic, divine right of kings. The representatives of the institution do not have a private life outside, it is not a nine to five job. They have to act dignified all the time, whether in public or private, state function or holiday. We are supposed to revere them and accept their sperm and uterus is superior to ours and their children will automatically expect deference from ours. It is a very outdated yet powerful position. And to be revered and have authority based simply on their birth, not achievements, the royal family must keep their mystery and decorum at all times.

If they want to be treated like the rest of us, then well, that is fine. Just abolish the monarchy and Kate the ex royal can do whatever she likes, like Kate Moss or Victoria Beckham or anyone else.

Morloth · 14/09/2012 21:39

If William is really lucky, he might have a daughter they can tear to pieces as well.

I don't give a fuck about the British Monarchy, nor do I think there is anything noteworthy about boobs.

But she is a person and has chosen to keep her breasts private and it isn't right that someone can just override her personal choice like that.

NoWayNoHow · 14/09/2012 21:45

Well said, Morloth

Flatbread going on and on about how much you hate the monarchy and what it stands for and Kate should suck it up doesn't make these photos any less intrusive or illegal.

She wasn't on a yacht like Kate Moss (or indeed her late MIL) where other boats with paps on them can get close enough for pretty much any shot they want.

She was on private land, tucked away, where the best the paps could do was sneak onto a road half a mile away to get their pay dirt. She is entitled to do whatever the hell she wants in an environment she deems protected and safe.

PorkyandBess · 14/09/2012 21:48

I was quite impressed that she went topless as she seems so dull straight laced.

PretzelTime · 14/09/2012 21:49

Dull people are never nude, not even in the shower.

Flatbread · 14/09/2012 22:00

She wasn't on a yacht like Kate Moss (or indeed her late MIL) where other boats with paps on them can get close enough for pretty much any shot they want.

She was on private land, tucked away, where the best the paps could do was sneak onto a road half a mile away to get their pay dirt. She is entitled to do whatever the hell she wants in an environment she deems protected and safe.

Huh? You do know that anyone with average binoculars can see half a mile away? Heck, my neighbours are a bit further than that and they use their binos to see if we are home before dropping by Grin

NoWayNoHow · 14/09/2012 22:10

Have you actually seen the place they were staying? It's remote, completely surrounded by trees and walls, and the paparazzo responsible must have found literally the one chink in the armour.

Based there, they really would have expected complete privacy.

I wonder how much you'd be grinning if your neighbours used a telescopic lens to take photos of getting changed and put them on FB?

PretzelTime · 14/09/2012 22:13

Yes goddamn those photographers sure are creepy. Angry
it's not OK just because your victim is famous.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange · 14/09/2012 22:18

the royal family must keep their mystery and decorum at all times You know they shag, right? And, poo and wee. She was completely in what she considered to be private space. If someone managed to get a picture of her on the toilet, would that be OK? I bet she has had stomach flu and might get morning sickness. How does one throw up decorously?

As I say, I would abolish the monarchy. However, they are still people.

TheBigJessie · 14/09/2012 22:27

flatbread you may think that, but I do not believe there is legally one rule for the monarch's grandson's wife and for commoners. If Catherine Windsor loses her court case, that precedent would apply to commoners too.

The monarchy is an archaic institution, agreed, but we are not holding them to archaic rules at the moment. All the history books I have ever read tell me that the various Royals of Britain have been rather... Undignified. The royals of today are not failing to live up to ancient standards that their forbears met. Their forbears never faced this level of scrutiny!

prettybird · 14/09/2012 22:28

Did you not realise that both William and Harry are the products of immaculate conception?! Wink

germyrabbit · 14/09/2012 22:30

blimey she must have been pretty thick to not realise paprazzi would be in the bushes awaiting every opportunity
am getting a bit bored of the 'sad' line HQ seems to rolll out