What's the big deal about Princess Kate going topless?

[Archae]

On many beaches going topless (or more) is the norm.

Besides, Princess Diana was photographed at a nude beach about 25 years ago, also.
(Yes, she was nekkid!)

[Panasonic]

1. This thread is worthless without pics..

[StrictlyRockers]

2. Yeah, man. Video, or it didn't happen.

[randome]

3. It should NOT be a problem. But we don't live in that kind of a world.

If SHE didn't want the photos published, that should be the end of the conversation, celebrity or not.

[closeupready]

5. To play devil's advocate, why should it be the end of the conversation

if, as you put it, SHE didn't want the photos published? Can you explain what you mean. TIA.

[cynatnite]

8. n/t

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[closeupready]

36. Um, hello? Is there anybody in there? I'm quoting Randome,

are you not reading the thread in time order, reading stuff in isolation, or what's your deal? Just nod if you can hear me.

[cynatnite]

43. No, I'm jumping the gun. I'm sorry. Just seeing bad where none exists. n/t

[closeupready]

48. No problem.

Cheers.

[randome]

22. If she sees it as a problem, then it is a problem.

I would not be averse to laws saying it is illegal to publish nude photos without the subject's consent, regardless of celebrity status.

Mind you, I am far from being prudish. I simply see it as unnecessary and the right to decide on publication should default to the subject.

On edit: re 'consent', I would add, 'or where such consent is deemed to have been given', such as at a public, topless beach.

[closeupready]

38. Oh, you mean like a Model Release? Right.

That makes sense.

And also yes, implied consent is rendered if you are sunbathing at a public nude beach. Thanks.

[seabeyond]

4. the big deal is she did not do it for the public, she did not chose a public beach

she was doing it in a private home. SHE did not want pictures of her naked out there. it was HER choice. do we not respect the woman that chooses not to flash, to not have bare breasts out in the public, to be able to make that choice?

that is what the big deal is.

her CHOICE was taken from her.

do you really not get that?

[nichomachus]

6. Right wingers are always outraged

This is no different than is some photographer snuck up and took her photo through her bathroom window.

They say the royal family is going to sue. I hope they do.

[SoCalDem]

30. While I sympathize with her, I still am amazed that these types of photos always surface

Anyone who is a public figure also knows that they really have no privacy, so never get naked unless the drapes are pulled shut, and no one inside the room with you has a cell phone.

and don't ever get naked outside

[NCTraveler]

39. +1. That's it. Very simple to understand. nt

[Fresh_Start]

7. The issue is that she was on private property

and spied on and pictures published without her permission.
She is the injured party.

[hifiguy]

11. Exactly. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Now if she'd been on the beach at St. Tropez that wouldn't be the case.

[Lex]

9. The pearl clutching is a bit much over this.

If they invaded her privacy illegally, she should sue their ass off. Otherwise, so what, she went topless on a topless beach.

[dipsydoodle]

14. They are suing.

Action was taken here in the UK against the French publishers late this afternoon.

[Lex]

24. Good. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. The action is actually in the French courts

A royal spokesman said the legal proceedings had been launched in France and were for breach of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535

[seabeyond]

15. she did NOT go topless on a topless beach. it is like you and others demanding the right to a womans

nudity and how dare she say no to you.

there is no pearl clutching here. it is a woman, in her private home, having pictures taken and AGAINST her want, put in a newspaper.

what? is it your right to get to see, against a womans want?

talk about the pearl clutchers. what does that make you that you dismiss this woman not wanting to be naked in a magazine.

[Lex]

23. I don't demand a right to women's nudity. I couldn't care less

if I ever see her or any woman's breasts ever. I just don't buy into the Puritan "boobs are scandalous" way of thinking.

You don't know me and you make a LOT of erroneous assumptions about me.

[seabeyond]

26. you seem to be making a LOT of erroneous assumptions yourself

continuing to take it to pearl clutcher and boobs is bad when not a single person has said or suggested that. seems like defending her right not to be naked on front page makes a person a pearl clutcher, puritan scandalized about breasts.

or just her fuckin right to be topless on her private property without a french magazine putting in on front page.

[Lex]

29. you make little sense

but it is entertaining

[Alduin]

42. Reading comprehension isn't a requirement at DU, is it?

Go back and re-read what Lex wrote.

[closeupready]

41. Amen, seabeyond.

Amen.

[FedUpWithIt All]

20. They did. This is against privacy laws in France.

Unfortunately, the profit the magazine hopes to get from this invasion of privacy makes the potential fines seem inconsequential.

[Thrill]

10. Can u link the pic?

[hifiguy]

13. !

[Thrill]

49. I'd like to see what shes working with

[MineralMan]

12. Some people blame her for taking her top off

rather than blaming the photographer and the magazine that published the photos. There's nothing wrong with being naked where it is OK or at a private residence. There is much wrong with sneaking around and taking photos of someone being naked, and there is much wrong with a magazine publishing those photos.

Kate Middleton did nothing wrong, nor should she have to worry about some photographer with an extreme telephoto lens.

[joeybee12]

16. But it's not the first time this has happened to a member of the royal family...

Remember all those photos of Fergie at a private residence? No one's blaming Kate, but no one should act shocked that the paparazzi did everything they could to get these photos...

[TrogL]

18. There is an expectation of privacy

I'm a naturist so I take this seriously.

My club is off in the boonies, you have to know how to get there to get there, signs are posted that it's a "private event". While there you have to ask permission to take photos.

We're not all that far from a major airport but we haven't had any problems with aircraft or paparazzi.

[MineralMan]

21. There's nobody in this thread blaming Kate.

There is another thread, though, where that's not true.

I find the fascination with nude photos of celebrities to be very strange. There's a large demand for such things, and it speaks poorly for those who seek them out, I think.

I just don't like the whole idea of people paying money to look at celebrities' "naughty bits." It's ugly.

[RobinA]

32. While I Completely

agree that there is much wrong with sneaking around and taking pictures of someone being naked. And then publishing them in the paper, I still gotta say - If you're a princess who is of interest to creeps sneaking around taking photos of people being naked and them publishing them in newspapers and you don't want to see naked pictures of yourself in the paper, you probably shouldn't take you top off outside. I'm just the practical type.

[randome]

37. Some people enjoy being nude in the outdoors.

She should have that option if she wants, celebrity-hood be damned.

[smirkymonkey]

55. +1000

Exactly, typical blaming the victim again.

[Strelnikov_]

17. It's good to be the prince n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

19. There is nothing wrong with her being topless.

There is a lot wrong with her privacy being invaded.

This is a newly married couple that took precautions to be in an isolated location. They are clearly shy about public exposure of this sort, as was evidenced by the shy and awkward public kiss after their wedding.

This will only make a young couple, already forced into a formal and rigid public life by birth and affection respectively, even more restricted in their rare private moments. It is a shame.

[Lex]

25. I agree. nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

27. I would need more facts

Was she sunning herself on a veranda in plain view of a public street? Was it obvious to neighbors or passersby that someone in the yard was nude but it took a special lens on the camera to magnify the face to see who it was? Was she even trying to hide or was the publication an issue only after the Queen found out about it and got on her new grand daughter-in-law's case like she did with Diana? At one extreme would be my expectation of privacy if I went outside to water my lawn in the nude or if I was in a back yard surrounded by a wall and someone trespassed on my property. I do find the publication to be a disgusting thing and I would never buy the rag. But I can't decide where I stand without more facts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. It's a large estate in the countryside

From before the photos were published:

According to the Sunday Express, Prince William and Kate Middleton kicked back at the idyllic Chateau d'Autet a historic hunting lodge owned by the Queen's nephew, Viscount Linley.

Set in 640 acres of woodland, the sprawling hideaway, which comes complete with a headed swimming pool and tennis court, is said to boast exception views of the French countrysiden as well as offering complete privacy.

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity/538157/kate-middleton-and-prince-william-s-romantic-pre-tour-getaway.html#index=1

I think you'd need a long lens to get photos from public property.

[RobinA]

33. Maybe It's The Angle

but I find that chateau to be quite ugly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. A bit nicer from the front:

but nothing special.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Somewhere I heard on TV that the pic might have been taken from a public road

I would wonder how the photographer knew to take the picture. If he trespassed and was lying in wait behind a bush then there's every expectation of privacy.

[Nye Bevan]

47. If she could be seen from a public street, her bosoms are fair game.

If the photographer had to trespass, he should be punished.

[FedUpWithIt All]

50. Actual distance to get the shot. Clearly an invasion of privacy IMHO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Thanks. Yeah, you're talking serious optics to see anything from there

You'd be pushing it to work out she was topless even if you had a normal pair of binoculars.

[NCTraveler]

40. Please post a pic of yourself without your bottoms.

It is the norm after all.

[MiddleFingerMom]

44. Are you talking to me?

.
.
.
PLEASE be talking to me!!!
.
.
.

[NCTraveler]

46. I read your posts in the lounge all of the time.

You have truly made me laugh with many of your posts. You have made my day with this response. I feel like I have earned a badge.

As far as your clothes. I was walking behind you in the hospital when you were in your gown. I will never be able to rid my mind of the sight. What is the word?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Disturbing.....Yeah, that's it.

[MiddleFingerMom]

53. Your kind words really did make my day. Thank you.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[Nye Bevan]

45. I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the future Queen has breasts.

With nipples and everything.

[flvegan]

51. Boobs.

[Generic Other]

54. If someone came in my neighborhood training a camera on houses like that

The police would be charging them with crimes. It is a big deal in that respect.

When I was in college, a really big guy was discovered sitting outside the window of some co-eds I knew. He had created a nice little nest where he could lurk, eat candy and spy on them through a well-placed window. They all felt violated by him when he was discovered. One of them happened to look out the window right into his eyes. She nearly fainted.