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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Flatbread · 15/09/2012 09:05

Half a mile is no distance at all, and the dimwits should have known better.

I agree that individuals, whether rich or not, should have privacy. But in this case, am more outraged that I am paying for security for the do-nothings while they go on vacation after the onerous 'work' of watching the Olympics.

HandyCock · 15/09/2012 09:40

I have made a stupid joke about "storm in an A cup" - which I take back because you're right Frankel . I have a huge amount of sympathy for Kate & William in this situation. I am not an avid royalist but the reporting of this is starting to make me quite uncomfortable. It's littered with misogynistic overtones and republican schadenfreude. As if being a woman and in the royal family makes you fair game even when you believe yourself to be private.

Flatbread you opinions seem to be more about the fact they are Royals than about an invasion of privacy.

A lot of the attitudes about Kate's culpability are not that different to a woman's outfit / how drunk she was being analysed after she's been attacked.

No way these can be justified - this was a private situation and the pictures are not in the public interest, regardless of how far they were from a public road. It's simply an attempt to make money out of selling pictures they had no business to take - exploitation.

Flatbread · 15/09/2012 09:49

Oh, there are lots of issues regarding invasion of privacy that I am passionate about. Pictures of dead, mutilated people without their/family consent in newspapers, government 'surveillance' of the masses, increase in CCTV cameras, increased ability of governments to strip our freedoms and privacy with eavesdropping, stop and search without a reason etc.

'Royal' tits on display? Nah, can't get outraged about that. If it makes people realise that there is nothing reverential about the monarchy, at least something good will come out of it.

mum4041 · 15/09/2012 09:57

Does seem a bit foolish - were there not security men and staff there too? I wouldn't be going topless in that situation.

But do feel the paparazzi are out of order here. Nobody wants photos of them they haven't approved of plastered all over the news. Can't see how it's in the public interest and I hope they successfully sue them. Spying on people in their homes or holiday houses is just plain evil.

donnie · 15/09/2012 11:07

this thread is really rather fascinating; it has brought to the surface those posters who are so misogynistic and/or hate royalty that they are happy that Kate Middleton has been hounded and sexually harrassed . I stick by all of my previous posts.

Personally I am ambivalent when it comes to royalty and no great lover of blue blood, but I am totally committed to being opposed to the routine sexual hounding and degredation of women who may or not be in the public eye. Yes, I can hold those two views at the same time! amazing! maybe this is what Orwell meant by Doublethink!

And it is such an ugly irony that all of this is going on against the backdrop of the Leveson Enquiry in which the intrusiveness and prurience of the media has been scrutinised.

You women who are laughing and sneering - shame on you.

valiumredhead · 15/09/2012 11:21

Oh honestly, enough with the 'shame on you' nonsense, just because someone disagrees with you!

BonnyDay · 15/09/2012 11:22

i wondered this. why not just keep your top on. not that the pictures are right or anything.

diddl · 15/09/2012 11:30

Why should she have to keep her top on?

If the paps are so far away that they can´t be seen & are relying on special equipment, then shame on them.

How is it not voyeurism?

And why should she be made to feel that she has done something wrong by being topless in front of her husband?

NoWayNoHow · 15/09/2012 11:30

It doesn't matter that half a mile is "no distance"

Flatbread, you are being so deliberately obtuse and completely willfully missing the point in every single one of your posts, just because of your anti-monarchy sentiment. I'm not even British by birth, so the monarchy is an alien concept to me that doesn't mean much either way to me, before you accuse me of supporting the "archaic institution". It's starting to get a bit pointless to even address what you say, so when it comes to responding any more of your vicious, unpleasant, misogynistic sentiments, as the Dragon's would say, "I'm out".

If these photos had been taken of Kate at the same time, from the same place, and of the same place, but instead whilst she was fully clothed, doing a crossword puzzle, and drinking tea, they would still be completely illegal and completely immoral . They invade personal privacy when personal privacy was expected and the area deemed to be secure. The fact that she's topless is almost a side issue, although a big one (and what is making this so newsworthy, unfortunately, and what makes it even more of a violation)

It's still morally reprehensible. Others are right. If she loses this court case, then the precedent is set - we can all look forward to pictures and videos being taken of us in our private spaces without our knowledge and consent, and being made available to the public and we will have NO legal recourse.

Amazing how few people seem bothered by this.

anonacfr · 15/09/2012 11:50

Immoral or not, I have a strange feeling Kate is going to get a royal bollocking from the Palace.

diddl · 15/09/2012 11:56

"to get a royal bollocking from the Palace."

Really?

I think that all the sympathy she´s getting is great for them & if it was planned it couldn´t have gone better.

I think if anything William should get a bollocking for being in a sulk though when he was on official duties & it was nothing to do with the people/country he was visiting.

MyNeighbourIsStrange · 15/09/2012 12:01

Fergie married for love and ended up finding her husband and father of her kids in well... She went off and had her toe suckef she was ostracised by the Royals she was on a private holiday, no exposing herself. Difference is Kate is thrifty, William will be King and Kate's MIL's situation!

valiumredhead · 15/09/2012 12:02

I'm pretty sure she would've got a bollocking, and William too.

QuickLookBusy · 15/09/2012 12:05

I expect Kate will be getting supportive messages of sympathy from the Palace.

I agree with nowaynohow. It doesn't matter what Kate was doing on her private holiday. The point is she has been photographed illegally. I dont understand how someone can't see that.unless they are deliberately missing the point inorder to provoke

Anyway, they are almost guaranteed to win their legal action on Monday because what the photographer did is illegal in France

Blu · 15/09/2012 12:10

So the laws of our country - and in this case France - should apply in the protection of everyone else except in the case of men who wish to break those laws in the violation of images of women who excercise the freedoms supposedly protected by those laws?.

God, how women undermine each other with prim morality.

Imagine that argument applied to rape. yes, yes, there is a law against rape, bt some women should be reaistic and just not go out at night and if they get raped they should not be so naive...blah blah.

The law is the law. Everyone has a right to be protected by it. It is not the victims fault whover she is.

MyNeighbourIsStrange · 15/09/2012 12:13

I liked Kate, the more this goes on, the more she is annoying me. This exposing herself knowing the press took pictures and published them on her private honeymoon and her BIL's hotel, then behaving like a victim crap and smiling in public when she is furious shows how very fake she is. I get they were representing QEII, why the smiles like normal, we all know no need to pretend, at least William and Di were not fake. I am put off her now after this nonsence. Yes the press were wrong, this is a six of one half a dozen of the other situation.

Blu · 15/09/2012 12:14

fwiw I am a republican. I do not think we should have royalty.

The law is the law. It should be upheld to do it's job. You can't pick and choose when to apply a law and when not. "Oh - yes, tomdickandharry is murderer, but it doesn't matter because we don't like who he murdered". It's the act of murder that counts.

Flatbread · 15/09/2012 12:14

Our privacy rights are violated every day, but Kate and willyboy could care fuck all about it. But somehow the royal groupies here are all protective...this impacts all of us, they wail.

No, we are under surveillance every day, and you can do something about it by getting involved not in Katie's booby non-story, but with Big Brother watch and similar organisations that work to actually protect us.

The Chief Surveillance Commissioner's annual report shows that the level of covert surveillance in this country is shocking. These operations are now part of our nation's everyday life.

This surveillance isn't just being run by MI5 or the police, and it's not just mounted to detect serious crime or terrorism. Very real concerns about covert surveillance by local councils are dismissed by the commissioner with two cursory paragraphs, with the suggestion that the problem lies with the way that the media reports such surveillance. This really is a grave abrogation of his responsibilities. Big Brother Watch research shows that local councils approved and conducted over 8,500 separate covert surveillance operations in the last two years.

Surveillance has been used for everything from allegations of benefit fraud and fly-tipping to dog fouling and allegations of lying about which school catchment area you live in. For this, councils up and down the country empower their employees to watch and record us for days or sometimes weeks.

Not only has the media been reporting on a genuine concern, it is far more common and far more serious than the commissioner can bring himself to admit. He should be a champion of accountability in surveillance, not an apologist for it. After all, this is the body we depend on to bring responsibility to this area ? if he won't take such abuses seriously, who will?

Worst of all, the commissioner has revealed that after four years of his expensive endeavours the number of operations conducted in the past year that were unauthorised has gone up: there has been an increase in operations that broke the important and serious rules on covert surveillance and should never have happened. In last year's report he stated that he was happy that the appropriate disciplinary measures had been meted out in each such case. He gives no such assurance this year

These unauthorised operations were not only intrusive, but also often extensive - the longest lasted for 24 days. That's over three weeks of illegal surveillance by the state, of people against whom nothing at all has been proven, and have not even been charged, without any apparent repercussions for those who did it. Because the commissioner refuses to release any details of these unlawful operations, the victims of this outrageous intrusion will never know that they and their families were watched. In such circumstances it is not scaremongering but simply stating the obvious to say that it could have happened to you.

donnie · 15/09/2012 12:16

I have been saying exactly that, Blu, all thread. But is would seem that a number of MNers hol;d the view that because she is in the public eye, she should shut up and suck it up.

Is that your view, valiumredhead? or do you think KM has any rights to privacy at all?

MyNeighbourIsStrange · 15/09/2012 12:16

The claptrap from Kate the last two days makes me wonder about becoming a republican, she seems so fake, precious and odd.

BonnyDay · 15/09/2012 12:18

If you go topless then do with pride. Not all "ooh poor me".
If you are naked in public it's a risk.
Pictures still not right though

perceptionreality · 15/09/2012 12:19

I agree entirely with donnie's post above. I'm definitely not a royalist but agree with whoever else said that it was reasonable of her to expect that she was totally in private. Why shouldn't she expect that? It's not like she exposed herself in a nightclub.

Chubfuddler · 15/09/2012 12:19

Except she wasn't in public. She was in the garden of a very private chateau.

diddl · 15/09/2012 12:20

"she seems so fake, precious and odd."

And it´s only this that has made you think that??!!

Their job is to pretend that they like who they meet & are interested in everything said to them!!

motherinferior · 15/09/2012 12:20

Actually, Blu, I do have a slight thought that 'well, you are paid MASSES by us to swan around and be World Entertainment, and given that you are no use you might as well be ornament' but I do accept that this is because I am Unreasonable and Nasty.