Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Morloth · 14/09/2012 09:50

No, she shouldn't have to be more careful.

The photographer should have a bit of self respect.

No victim blaming.

rainonmyparade · 14/09/2012 09:53

You've got to feel for her. Private time, private estate, with her husband. But at the same time she has been bitten before, on honeymoon. She should have been a bit more careful.

Groovee · 14/09/2012 09:54

I disagree, she was on private property and the media should keep away or get what they deserve if they do manage to get photo's.

If she was going topless in Hyde Park then I think that would be out of order. I get why she's saddened as she is entitled to privacy.

OneMoreChap · 14/09/2012 09:54

YABU.

If it was a public beach or park, she'd be fair game.

Long lens on private ground? GTFO

DappyHays · 14/09/2012 09:55

Maybe the younger royals are all in a 2012 competition to out-pap each other. Harry was winning, now Kate is. Next week we'll see a picture of Zara Philips wanking a horse.

Athendof · 14/09/2012 09:56

I think it's no big deal, we are fortunate to live in a society where boobs are not taboo, where is ok to try to avoid getting swimming suit marks on your tan, and where we agree that anybody is ok to be naked in privacy.

I think the PR damage for them will take place in all those countries where the simple glimpse of a breast seems to be interpreted as a sign of lack of decency. And all the weaving of stupid stories about that.

Considering the private and recluse location, I think those that suggest that she should have kept covered are as unreasonable as if they were suggesting Kate should wear a swimming suit to have a shower.

DialMforMummy · 14/09/2012 09:58

BigJessie I am not sure what you mean.

donnie · 14/09/2012 10:00

it's not that many steps away from the 'AIBU to think if a woman goes out late at night in a short skirt and gets drunk she deserves what she gets' type question is it?

should KM be allowed to get her baps out on a private holiday ? YES!

Should sleazy paparrazi be allowed to stalk her and hide in trees and take photos of her in a state of undress like some ghastly sex offender? NO!!!

Is KM and her behaviour reasonable? YES!!!

Is the behaviour of those those long lense weilding profit driven stalkers reasonable? NO !!!!

FFS.

BupcakesandCunting · 14/09/2012 10:01

Take away the fact that she is a royal. Is it not a wee bit wrong and very creepy to take stealth pictures of a topless woman doing and publishing them without her consent or knowledge? It's fucking vile is what it is.

Add to the fact that there are probably about 3 people in the world that will be shocked/arsed about a woman, whether she is future queen or not, has boobs, then one can't really see the point in all this. Silly sausages.

valiumredhead · 14/09/2012 10:01

it's not that many steps away from the 'AIBU to think if a woman goes out late at night in a short skirt and gets drunk she deserves what she gets' type question is it?

Yes it is!

TheBigJessie · 14/09/2012 10:04

I mean, at what level of reclusiveness will any citizen be entitled to privacy in fifty years?

I mean, how and why would you be certain of winning a civil case against a newspaper in similar circumstances?

SoleSource · 14/09/2012 10:04

What are you a religous fantasist?

Morloth · 14/09/2012 10:05

No it isn't.

She shouldn't have to change her perfectly reasonable behavior in order to avoid being sexually exploited regardless of who she is.

Her actions have not caused the problem.

TheDogDidIt · 14/09/2012 10:06

Valium - no, it is exactly the same principle.

TheDogDidIt · 14/09/2012 10:09

Photographing someone topless on private property without their permission, and then publicising the photos for money, is an assault: arguably a sexual one. And people are saying that she should have been careful about the way she was dressed. That she should have known she was making herself fair game for these predators. Of course it's the same thing.

SamuelWestsMistress · 14/09/2012 10:11

I think that basically Royal tits are different to normal tits.

But just like with Harry the other week, I think most of us really don't give much in the way of fucks about nudity!

NotWilliamBoyd · 14/09/2012 10:12

"There has been a significant hardening of William and Kate's response to the publication of the topless photos." (from the palace response)

Is it really awful of me to have snurked at the choice of 'significant hardening' to be included in this response??? Sorry, juvenile moment there......

People saying that our taxes fund the royals - fine, I'm not a royalist. Do I expect them to work hard in receipt of our taxes to fulfil the role they've ended up in? Yes.

Do I feel that that means that they should expect to have no privacy at any point in their lives, even when they've tried to remove themselves from the public eye? No.

What next? Imagine the photos = William wipes arse after stinky curry dump shocker? They could do scratch and sniff photos?

DialMforMummy · 14/09/2012 10:12

Ok I think I get you Jessie.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying she was necessarily wrong, but she was naive. It is sad that now there is such a demand for sensational celeb news that actually it is pushing the boundaries of privacy (IYSWIM, sleep deprived, I am not sure I am very clear).
The bottom line is that there is a demand for that sort of things, people buy a shit load of celeb gossip magazines with "authorised" and papped photos in them. It does not make it ok but the reality is that if they did not sell, paparazzis would be out of work. As a society we are all responsible for this.
I really do hope I am making sense Hmm

BobbiFleckman · 14/09/2012 10:13

teh timing of publication while she's in a muslim country & going about covered from here to here is also quite calculated and unpleasant

CockBollocks · 14/09/2012 10:14

YABU!

EverybodysDoeEyed · 14/09/2012 10:19

So should everyone whose salary comes from the public purse have to Submit naked photos of themselves to the press

Ultimately the press publish these stories because people want to read them. The question is why are people so interested?

Chubfuddler · 14/09/2012 10:20

I hope she sues the arse off them. How anyone can think just because she married a prince she has signed up for this sort of treatment .... Shame on some of you.

TraineeBabyCatcher · 14/09/2012 10:22

If Kate had never married William these photos would be considered an invasion of privacy, (possibly defamation- I'm not sure photos fall under that legality) and probably stalker like behaviour from the photograph.

They should not be allowed to publish them. They're in no way 'in public interest'.

TheBigJessie · 14/09/2012 10:22

Nah, you're making sense. Don't worry.

I am convinced that if enough of us took a stand, we could stop some of this nonsense. Many people are no interested/slightly appalled but they buy the newspaper they normally would, for the sake of the rest of the contents. The result is that no publication loses sales for this sort of invasive nonsense. They retain their usual readership and gain additional sales from the puerile.

If we didn't buy newspapers when they had invasive pictures on the front, and quickly emailed them to tell them why, we could see a difference.

SloeFarSloeGood · 14/09/2012 10:22

She's entitled to a private life.

Swipe left for the next trending thread