Topless Kate Pics: Are We Being 'Denied'?

Avatar Image
Kerosene | 07:55 Mon 17th Sep 2012 | News
97 Answers
I will declare immediately that I do not buy so called raunchy magazines etc of naked young ladies, even if I do find the sight very attractive.

Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.

Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.

So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?

Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?

***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***


1 to 20 of 97rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
William and Kate should be thankful that he's not the heir to the throne of Swaziland. The king there, and one of his many wives, have to perform a very private act in the full glare of the public gaze in order to ensure the harvest.
08:56 Mon 17th Sep 2012
A rather long winded version of "Tits oot for the lads".
Question Author
Oi, Duncer,

Just for once I was trying to be subtle!
They batted eyelids when the papers printed pictures of Fergie 'after' she was divorced.
Question Author

God, don't remind me. Gross, or what?
We've all seen the pics, haven't we?

Kate should be secretly proud. She has nice boobs.
Celebrities are not 'fair game'. But they have been known to tip off photographers, so that 'private' photographs get them in the papers. Why do you think that a celebrity photographed as the Duchess was should, or would, have no redress or right to complain? Or that the world should see the photographs ?
It is all getting a bit boring now I think.....although it COULD have been a telescopic lens on a rifle aimed at her not just a camera...lessons to be learned ??
Just for once I was trying to be subtle!

Mmmmmmmm, subtle? I must try that someday?
Question Author

I haven't seen the pics, although I haven't gone out of my way to search for them.


I have mixed feelings about it in all honesty. On the one hand I do recognise the need for privacy, but on the other I also believe that she's incredibly naive for flaunting herself in the first place - and, yes, I also realise that it happened on private property.
I haven't seen them, Jayne. I have no interest in seeing them.

When William becomes King these pictures will be dragged up again. Not good.
Those are not the photos apparently, JJ, there are a lot more - some 200 including "intimate" shots - read what you like into that term.
Question Author

Okay, okay, I failed miserably - again?
//We've all seen the pics, haven't we? //

No - and I have no interest in seeing them. Whilst people clamour to lap it up, the gutter press will always go for sensationalism. So she sunbathed topless. So what!
Question Author
I heard on the news that the Berlusconi group in Italy intend to publish the snaps over 26 pages!

Is that aimed at short sighted pervs just to give them a fair chance?
You say "perv" like it's a bad thing?
I think the sniper argument is perhaps the most worrying aspect of all of this, though in practice if a group wants to murder someone, it's not that difficult to to do. Avoiding being caught, well that's another matter.
If you are...

"well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments*** "

Why are you even asking this question then? Surely you've answered it yourself.
Perhaps because they are not the only arguments?
Question Author

I'd agree with your 'So what!' comment were it not for the royals themselves immediately pursuing it through the courts. I think that sums it up, really, ever since Diana's death in particular, they try to jealously guard their privacy.

Many people, though, choose to apparently believe that they are indeed 'fair game', the youngsters particularly, because they do court publicity when it suits - remember the Olympics? There was hardly an event where we didn't see Wills, Kate and Harry.

It could be claimed that this then is nothing more than a foot stamp at having been 'caught out'? Can they have it all ways - publicity only on their terms? Or are they indeed 'fair game'?
I would've have thought they were arguments enough to be honest.

1 to 20 of 97rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Topless Kate Pics: Are We Being 'Denied'?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.