Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think anyone member of the RF who wilfully runs the risks of exposing her buttocks to the world..

508 replies

FidelineandFumblin · 26/05/2014 19:18

...whilst on a public engagement must have either a) a screw loose or b) major exhibistionistic tendencies?

She has clearly made a policy of eschewing hem weights.

She knew she would be getting into a helicopter.

It looks like she is commando, although I suppose there is the possibility of a dental floss g-string.

I'm just Shock

OP posts:
FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 13:56

Why what do they think we all do on Thursdays?

OP posts:
FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 13:58

Is there a 'Revolutions for Dummies'? Is it on Kindle?

I might need a revolting buddy.

OP posts:
SaucyJack · 27/05/2014 14:00

I'm not angry with her. I just can't get my head around why it seems so completely beyond her to wear a pair of pants when on official Royal business.

They wouldn't need to be Bridget Joneses either. Any old pair from a Primarni multipack would do. Even pink neon lace with "Birthplace of the King" written on the gusset in glitter would be slightly more decent.

thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:00

The money is one thing, Fideline. The timing is quite another.

Newspapers and PR agencies pay photographers for photos which they then sit on until it's convenient to publish them. Sometimes the subject is given the option of buying them and destroying them, or allowing them to be published with restrictions.

Princess Margaret's reputation was very well protected this way, as was Princess Anne's.

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:08

Even pink neon lace with "Birthplace of the King" written on the gusset in glitter would be slightly more decent.

Not to mention subtle...

Newspapers and PR agencies pay photographers for photos which they then sit on until it's convenient to publish them.

Including German tabloids? They're in on it too?

Princess Margaret's reputation was very well protected this way, as was Princess Anne's.

KM's flashing generally occurs in public though. Rather different from 'behind closed doors' shenanigans in terms of cover ups.

OP posts:
tobiasfunke · 27/05/2014 14:11

This thread makes me despair of the world.
I am a republican and have no interest in the Kate Middleton but the amount hyperbolic, woman hating abuse she is getting on here for her choice of underwear and a gust of wind is horrible.

thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:12

Wonder what the nationality of the photographer was? You know they all need clearance from the Prince of Wales's office right?

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:13

tobias you are being ridiculous and rather rude.

OP posts:
FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:14

You know they all need clearance from the Prince of Wales's office right?

No I didn't know.

OP posts:
thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:15

Tobias isn't being ridiculous OR rude. She's expressing an opinion which is at odds with some others.

thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:16

Yes, all photographers are cleared out by security so only authorised press and photographers have access.

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:20

She is coming very close to personal attack with the 'woman-hating' allegation. Anyone can disagree with me as much as they like, but trying to inflict a misogynistic motivation/subtext on the argument IS insulting as well as being spurious.

'Pap' suggests not 'sanctioned press pack' though, no?

OP posts:
KurriKurri · 27/05/2014 14:21

Maybe it's some sort of protest on her part so they stop making her wear frumpy royal dresses, perhaps they'll put her in trousers now. But I agree I don't want to see anyone's arse and if I was appearing in front of the public I would eliminate all possibility of arse exposure.

But she at least has the excuse of being young, and inexperienced in the ways of the royals. Prince Charles has been knocking around for years and still he manages to open his big gob and say something stupid then be disingenuous enough to have his lackeys say it was a 'private conversation' surely tampongate should have taught him theres no such thing as a private conversation?

thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:22

But there is an element of misogyny here - that it's not okay for Kate to flash her arse but we'll turn a blind eye to William's trousers being so tight we can see which side he dresses.

It might have been a long lens photo in most places but the security staff would never have allowed unauthorised personnel near military aircraft.

Someone known to the Royal PRs has taken that photo; what it's been doing for the past month is anyone's guess.

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:22

Besides I really don't see why a general expectation to remain fully dressed/covered at work would be seen as a gendered expectation.

OP posts:
FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:24

William's trousers being so tight we can see which side he dresses

Really? when?

OP posts:
Hebburnisaplaceonearth · 27/05/2014 14:26

I like KM, but I do find it strange that she didn't wear bigger pants as it's not the first time her dress has blown up. It just gives ammunition to people. It must be hard being criticised and scrutinised for every outfit choice, but It was a very public occasion with loads of photographers- I wouldn't have taken the risk if it were me.

thesaurusgirl · 27/05/2014 14:28

It's not the expectation that's gendered, it's the criticism. They're both at fault, so why is William getting off scott-free?

He dresses to the left Wink. I can see we're going to have to look over my private album again Grin.

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:32

It's not the expectation that's gendered, it's the criticism.

Not mine.

They're both at fault, so why is William getting off scott-free?

This is new info. But tight trews is not the equivalent to bare bottom.Oh no.

OP posts:
GoEasyPudding · 27/05/2014 14:36

The private Prince William Tumblr page? Or Pininterest page? Or do you have hard copies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

TheFairyCaravan · 27/05/2014 14:37

It's not "woman hating" to think that someone in Catherine's position should make more of an effort to avoid these little "mishaps". If it were the first time people wouldn't be so bothered, but it's nearly every time her arse leaves the chair!

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:37

If anyone parrots the 'she's a great role model' guff at this point I will scream.

I cannot believe people are trying to construct a feminist defence of her right to flash her arse without criticism. Of all people.

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 27/05/2014 14:39

I very much doubt weights in a hem would have made much difference. The wind generated by the blades of a helicopter are very powerful.

However I do think it's a curious choice to go (apparently) knickerless on a public engagement.

She was knickerless (or in thong) when that yellow dress blue up when she was in Canada (UK picture desks photoshopped in the knickers to spare her blushes.)

Bettercallsaul1 · 27/05/2014 14:41

I totally agree with you , OP.

Surely the minimum requirement of clothes for a woman (or man) doing a serious job is that they cover your underwear and private bits. At the time this happened, Kate Middleton was representing the country on an official tour and was in public, as she knew she would be. With all the time, expense and planning that goes into her wardrobe, is it too much to ask that her clothes should be fit for purpose? It is part of the job to alight from aircraft, including helicopters, and the hazards of these are well known. It is not as if it is the first time - this exact situation, with the same resulting photos, arose before in Canada. Floaty A-line dresses and helicopters just do not mix and it seems perverse that she has not learned this lesson.

The thing is, Middleton knows exactly what royal decorum involves - you just have to look at the long, dowdy, all-concealing clothes she wore before she got engaged to William, when she was still auditioning for the royal role and was nervous of frightening the horses. I think her refusal to conform to basic requirements now she is in the position she wanted is testimony to a steely determination to do things her way, now that she can. The trouble is that by behaving like this ie laying herself open to these photos, she will inevitably be compared to "celebrities" who have made their fame through exposing and exploiting their bodies. This is very bad news for the royal family, who would prefer not to have their future queen featured in a revealing tabloid line-up with Kim and Khloe Kardashian.

As a staunch republican, I view this incident with mild satisfaction as yet another nail in the coffin of an outmoded institution I think we would be better without (along with Charles' public comparison of a world leader with Hitler last week) but for royalists, it's a real cause for concern. At the end of the day, when your job description is little more than dressing well and waving, surely it's important to try to get it right.

FidelineandFumblin · 27/05/2014 14:41

(UK picture desks photoshopped in the knickers to spare her blushes.)

!

OP posts: