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

Floex wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Floex wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:What even is the justification for that? It's OK to publish spied boobs of other celebs but not royalty? They also seem to forget the internet exists. Anyone who wants to see Harry's knob or Kate's boobs probably already has done.

Why is it alright to publish spied boobies in any case?

Because they are boobies and we want to see boobies.

There's good naked and bad naked, these photos are clearly bad naked. Seeing pixelated, blurry pictures does nothing for me, regardless who it is

But but but but BOOBIES.

Floex wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Floex wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:What even is the justification for that? It's OK to publish spied boobs of other celebs but not royalty? They also seem to forget the internet exists. Anyone who wants to see Harry's knob or Kate's boobs probably already has done.

Why is it alright to publish spied boobies in any case?

Because they are boobies and we want to see boobies.

There's good naked and bad naked, these photos are clearly bad naked. Seeing pixelated, blurry pictures does nothing for me, regardless who it is

I agree with the person earlier in the thread who said it's partially her own fault. She should have realised that she is part of the royal family now, and with that comes the need to uphold a certain level of etiquette. I'm sure there is a better word than that, but that's all I can think of at the minute.

As such, she should keep the puppies locked-up when outside. She knew how much harassment Diana got from the paparazzi, so should have been clued in. I'm not saying this isn't the papers fault, but she should have known better really. Actually, you'd have thought a lot more celebrities would be clued in that they cant escape the press.

Jonathan86 wrote:I agree with the person earlier in the thread who said it's partially her own fault. She should have realised that she is part of the royal family now, and with that comes the need to uphold a certain level of etiquette. I'm sure there is a better word than that, but that's all I can think of at the minute.

As such, she should keep the puppies locked-up when outside. She knew how much harassment Diana got from the paparazzi, so should have been clued in. I'm not saying this isn't the papers fault, but she should have known better really. Actually, you'd have thought a lot more celebrities would be clued in that they cant escape the press.

Any celebrity who doesn't expect this is deluding themselves really.

Jonathan86 wrote:I agree with the person earlier in the thread who said it's partially her own fault. She should have realised that she is part of the royal family now, and with that comes the need to uphold a certain level of etiquette.

Yep, but the cat is out of the bag now. As you say, she is just 'part' of the Royal Family, but her blood is as common as yours or mine, Daddy just happened to have a lot money.

I imagine her parents must be fuming. I bet they spent their lifes preparing Kate for this move into the upper echelons of society and she has gone and shown her true colours.

Bit like this Carling ad form 1985, only in reverse.

I like how people are now calling her common for sunbathing topless. From my experience the posher and wealthier the girl the more likely they are to go topless. Also there's been plenty of members of the worlds royal families that have been pictured topless, it's not like it's a shock. If you are comfortable doing it then there's no problem.

The only issue is whether or not paps were right to take the photos or not. Not whether she was right to do it or not.

If she was on a public beach, I might agree that she can only blame herself. As she was sunbathing on private property, it is not her fault and she has the right to flop out her norks if she wants and not be photographed while doing so.

She has a nice bum.

I dont mind little norks either.

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. It's like calling a guy a slob for peeing standing up. It's just what we do. Now, if she was photographed peeing standing up, well, that'd be another thing entirely...

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.

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.

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

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.

And you've missed the point as well.

Never get a job as PR to the Royal Family. You'd be strawberry floating awful.

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.

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.

It only draws attention to how backwards the whole concept of a monarchy is. I would give mad love to the queens corpse if when she died she left a note saying "Enough of this gooseberry fool. Elect your own damn head of state"

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.

I loved reading The Sun's self righteous bullshit over this, if you didn't get in so much strawberry floating trouble last year you would have had a souvenir pullout special.

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.

I disagree. Where do you draw the line on privacy. If they took photos of her getting in the bath or on the bog then would that be fair game?

Now they've launched a criminal complaint

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164

I liked the quote on Sky News at the weekend. 'Even Big Brother stops short of putting cameras in the toilets...'