Kate Middleton's Royal Boobs [Pg.3 NSFW]

DaddyBrown wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I like how people are now calling her common for sunbathing topless. .

She is a commoner. In fact there was a time when she wouldn't have been allowed within 50 yards of the heir to the throne let alone marry him, regardless of how much wealth her father had amassed.

Yes she has the right to her privacy, but the point being as someone who is married to the next King of England she has a duty to maintain a certain level of etiquette, and in light of how desperate the media has been to get hold of her, (just like Diana), she should have thought it through.

In fact I'd go as far to say that William should've perhaps suggested it might not be a good idea as the press could be anywhere.

...and they were.

The press are strawberry floaters to be sure, but I've no sympathy for Kate and William, not a jot.

DaddyBrown wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I like how people are now calling her common for sunbathing topless. .

She is a commoner. In fact there was a time when she wouldn't have been allowed within 50 yards of the heir to the throne let alone marry him, regardless of how much wealth her father had amassed.

Yes she has the right to her privacy, but the point being as someone who is married to the next King of England she has a duty to maintain a certain level of etiquette, and in light of how desperate the media has been to get hold of her, (just like Diana), she should have thought it through.

In fact I'd go as far to say that William should've perhaps suggested it might not be a good idea as the press could be anywhere.

...and they were.

The press are strawberry floaters to be sure, but I've no sympathy for Kate and William, not a jot.

Mr Yoshi wrote:I can't believe some people here call sunbathing topless 'common'. Honestly the only way I could see someone saying that is if they've never had a girlfriend before. It's just what women do.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
You know calling someone common because of how they are acting and being a commoner are two different things right.

DaddyBrown wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
You know calling someone common because of how they are acting and being a commoner are two different things right.

And I said her blood was as common as yours or mine, suggesting that we're all commoners. Which we are.

This particular commoner just happened to marry the next King of England.

Denster wrote:lets not have another Monarchy is bad/good debate.

She is now a member of the royal family and everything she does is under scrutiny. She chose to put herself there. She has to take the perks and the pains together. The perks - nice holidays with no expense spared - with the pain that you'll be followed round by all and sundry looking for a photo opportunity.

She's placed herself in the public eye. It doesn't blink or stop scrutinising you because you might want some privacy.

IAmTheSaladMan wrote:There was a similar story to this in the papers years ago but with Sophie, Countess of Wessex. I don't think those photos were ever published though.

I don't see why a "Royal" should get any special treatment by the media. If she didn't want her tits in the paper she shouldn't have got them out in public.

IAmTheSaladMan wrote:There was a similar story to this in the papers years ago but with Sophie, Countess of Wessex. I don't think those photos were ever published though.

I don't see why a "Royal" should get any special treatment by the media. If she didn't want her tits in the paper she shouldn't have got them out in public.

Lagamorph wrote:Hell, we're paying for this holiday they had so why the hell shouldn't we get some benefit from it?
Until the Royal Family start earning their own money instead of being the biggest benefit claimants in the country then they have pretty much no right to privacy whatsoever.

Winckle wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Hell, we're paying for this holiday they had so why the hell shouldn't we get some benefit from it?
Until the Royal Family start earning their own money instead of being the biggest benefit claimants in the country then they have pretty much no right to privacy whatsoever.

- a man living alone in a house his parents pay for

Igor wrote:I hate the blatant double standards on display here.

Jeremy Clarkson wants an injunction to prevent his private life from appearing in the papers? No, pathetic, in the public eye, free press, etc etc.

Royal Family wants an injunction to prevent private life from appearing in papers. Yes, private life is private, not in public interest, voyeuristic media, etc, etc.

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:this is perfectly reasonable public photography of openly nude people in protest.

what this is: a magazine sending a pervert with a camera to spy on and surreptitiously photograph a celebrity in a private context. (doesn't matter if it does turn out to be 'in public' - that's not explicit consent to publication.)