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

Ah, so if your parents run a successful business & you work part-time for them - then you are fair game?

What an interesting way you have there with your twist of words.

Someone said Dutchess Do-Little never worked a day in her life, well she did work a few days, just putting the record straight.

You know, if I had a business & could afford for my kids to work part time, I probably would.

I wonder if Kate worked pt to be at the beck & call of William?

If so, I don´t like that idea.

But I do think she should have stepped up as soon as it was known they were to marry.

But maybe William wants her to do as little as possible?

A childless single healthy child in their twenties? I wouldn't. I would for one of my dd's once they were a Mother or if their health/DH health wasn't great.

Loving this argument that the less you do the more we should see of someone's private bits.

So, as Kate has no paid employment, to quote lovebunny " well, if she's being funded by the state, she's ours, so i think we should see it all. everything."

How do the long term unemployed fit into this? Do they too forfeit their right to prance around naked in private? What about people who do pay tax but receive more in benefits? Oops, now we seem to be saying only higher rate tax payers deserve privacy....

You're not serious Nancy: another holiday? Her indolence is way beyond a joke.

Two separate arguments here:

1. Do the royals deliver?
2. Privacy

With regard to the 2nd, I don't think it should matter if you are The Queen or on the dole, you should have a right to privacy. You should be able to go about normal activities in private locations - which for many people include topless sunbathing - without fearing that you will be photographed. There should be a robust legal system in place to ensure that everyone's right to privacy is respected and that you have legal recourse if that right is abused.

On the first, I don't know the answer! I work for a charity that has two royal patrons & I think that the royals do more than most people are aware of. Unfortunately, the press is more interested in catching royals topless than it is, in what someone further up termed the "inane", visits and work that is done promoting all the good things that people do on a local and national level for others. However, that is obviously only a part of the broader argument.

People on benefits have their privacy invaded. Who they sleep with, how often, what they do for their bf as in washing etc. Releasing medical records, asked hiw often they wash, very personal questions. CCTV everywhere. Those reported for benefit fraud are stalked, photo's video's taken of them.

Sorry the washy airy, misunderstood your posts

The fact that some posters are saying that Kate is a really vacuous and indolent being doesn't have to be linked to the privacy thing. Except that the infringement happened to occur while she was on yet another holiday. Which appears to be undeserved since she's barely worked a day in her life and she's now doing a lot of her lounging around at someone else's expense. The only saving grace of her being on all these endless holidays is that we're saved from her mindless comments on matters of global importance, such as the famine in Africa. So that's good I suppose. She really isn't equipped to handle a public role which requires any thought; perhaps she should quit being subsidized and simply keep out of the way at home. Damage limitation all round.

Fair point, MNIS, but there are data protection laws that control the handling of this information and penalties if these are breached. What happened to Kate M is not comparable.

Prince Philip did NOT support the Nazis, what a pathetically ludicrous attempt to discredit him. His mother put her life in terrible danger to hide many refugees from the Nazis during the war, and he fought in active duty against them himself. 'Vaguely recall' - what nonsense.

Lashings, I don't know about the data protection for normal people. It seems the standards and protections are being eroded by our government every day. Some stuff about this in the Guardian recently, where the number of unauthorised council surveillance of private lives have increased tremendously with little oversight

As an aside, wasn't there a case sometime back about a couple who had build a swimming pool in the backyard of their council house, or housing association property? I remember seeing in some newspaper, photos of the private backyard with the pool and some people (presumably the house occupants) in it in various stages of undress. The subtext being ' look how they live it up at the taxpayers expense'. I assume the journalists did not get permission from the house owners to snap them in the privacy of their backyard. How is this different?

Maybe that poster is mixing up Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Windsor?

Flatbread if the swimming pool case you mention involved the publication of close up identifiable pictures of people on their private property, then it was equally wrong.

No, myneighbour. I am not mixing the two. I think eons ago I saw read some interview of Philip and his Nazi background. He was explaining why his family found the Nazis appealing. Something to do with jealousy of Jews combined with admiration for efficient railways. Maybe Philip sympathises with this view or perhaps his beliefs changed during the war and the bombing of London, who knows.

But it is neither here nor there with regard to Kate's tits.

Here is the link btw www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3224655,00.html

flatbread - you are just making shit up now.

That is the article you are basing your views on? Bloody hell.

He is not a Nazi sympathiser.

I do see what the privacy issue is, after all none of us would want to see our tits on the front pages.
However, they are a perky pair, she looked very at ease with William (rather than the stunted and awkward images we would see of Charles and Di, these two looked loved up), and well, they have a media team and know that the first opportunity someone got they'd take these types of picture they would do just that.

I would have preferred Kate to respond in more of a modern woman way and say "yes, those are my boobs, I'm comfortable in my skin, how bored must you all be to want to slobber over them?" rather than this very old fashioned aghast response. As my partner said, he was angered as he'd been led to believe she had tits to even speak of, but she has the figure of a 12 year old boy!
At least it closes those "harbouring a baby" rumours. She needs to eat something!

FGS! Germany was full of people who found the Nazis appealling. They wouldn't have come to power if that hadn't been the case. Explaining that doesn't make you a sympathiser, specially not if you fought against them in the war.

Sorry to hear your partner was angered & he didn't get to oggle a really cracking pair of norks LazyGirlBlog.

NG if it was on this thread, had a link, he sent me a pm after I posted I wondered how many links it had in the short period it was up, his answered me by pm.

Maybe if this kind of 'photography' was treated in the courts as voyeurism and treated as a sexual offence on a par with being a peeping tom we'd take it all a bit more seriously.

Spying on a semi naked woman/man on private property and photographing them? If I did that to my neighbour I'd be seen as a 'low level' sex offender, wouldn't I?

And I'm a passionate anti monarchist and republican. But my response is a human one, not one based upon politically dogmatic beliefs.