Topless photos of Kate Middleton published

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Topless photos of Kate Middleton published
11
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 11:47am

Hot on the heels of Prince Harry's booty-baring Vegas flesh fest, topless photos of Kate Middleton have now surfaced, casting an embarrassing light on Prince William's poised and—until now—scandal-free wife.

The photos were published Friday by French magazine Closer and were reportedly taken while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were on vacation in Provence in France at a chateau owned by Queen Elizabeth II's nephew, Lord Linley.
http://www.eonline.com/news/345903/kate-middleton-topless-photos-bust-out-on-heels-on-prince-harry-naked-scandal-palace-slams-grotesque-privacy-invasion

I see a big difference in the publishing of the photos of Prince Harry and these of Kate Middleton. He was partying with a group of people and decided to strip down... I doubt he really expected that kind of stunt, in that particular setting, to stay private. But Kate and her husband were on vacation at a private home -- I would think they felt secure enough there to do what they wanted and have reasonable expectations of it remaining private.

What do you think? Is the paparazzi going too far or should everyone who is in the public eye always have to look over their shoulder? If they have to use a telephoto lens to capture an image that can't be seen otherwise, could that be seen as an invasion of privacy?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-25-2008
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 11:50am

Personally I think she should have been very aware of the possibility of someone snapping photos of her while she was topless sunbathing. It happens all the time to celebrities. She should have been more careful.

Brenda

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 11:57am

Hmmm... so if she was walking around inside that house topless and a photographer was able to snap a photo through a window using a telephoto lens, would that still be a case of her needing to be more careful?

Sorry, I still feel since she was on private property, which was pretty remotely located, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Had she been on a beach, public or private, that would have been a bit different, since most of those areas are visible and/or accessible to others.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2009
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 2:32am
When you choose to be a celebrity you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Being a celebrity by definition means in the public eye and eyes are always on you, therefore pictures and videos of you can always be captured. If you don't want have topless photos taken and you're a celebrity? Don't lay around topless.
Follow me to Coping with Job Loss

Follow me to Birth Control

--------
Avatar for memeu2
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-1999
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 7:10pm
I totally agree with you Lucy! It's time for this stuff to stop! They have the right to have a "life" without worry of pics telling their very move!

memeu siggy 4-08

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 11:39am
ladybookworm wrote:
When you choose to be a celebrity you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Being a celebrity by definition means in the public eye and eyes are always on you, therefore pictures and videos of you can always be captured. If you don't want have topless photos taken and you're a celebrity? Don't lay around topless.

Is marrying somoeone that was born into the royal family the same as choosing to be a celebrity? Sure, I guess she could have chosen not to marry him but her choice to marry doesn't excuse the paparazzi from taking extreme measures. Celebrities or royal family, it's losing sight of the fact that they are human beings with rights that shouldn't have to include living forever in a fish bowl.

Personally, I like the old Hollywood, when stars had a bit of a mystique to them. I'm really not interested in knowing who is wearing panties and who isn't! LOL

Avatar for memeu2
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-1999
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 2:10pm
Agree! Plus I really really hate the pics of the kids! Who cars what surie is wearing! Leave the kids alone!!

memeu siggy 4-08

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 2:25pm

That's another good point, Meme! The kids certainly deserve their privacy and a shot at as normal a childhood as possible.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2009
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 4:08pm
Choice is exactly the point. One doesn't have to choose to be a celebrity or marry one as is Kate's situation. When you make those choices you know what that is going to include which is all of the hassles the paparazzi and society in general create. If society didn't relish the stuff that the paparazzi uncovered then they'd go out of business overnight. Can that kind of scrutiny be good at times? Perhaps. Can it be negative? Sure. Ultimately you still could have chosen a different path.

I personally have no interest in who's topless, flashing their naughty bits at the club, binge drinking, cheating on their spouse, etc. So I don't go out of my way looking for that kind of "news" but despite my disinterest I hear it anyway. The mystique would be nice to go back to, but I seriously doubt it'll happen especially when you have social media owners saying even us lowly non celebrity types have no right to privacy. Good grief.
Follow me to Coping with Job Loss

Follow me to Birth Control

--------
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2008
Mon, 09-24-2012 - 12:43pm
ladybookworm wrote:
Choice is exactly the point. One doesn't have to choose to be a celebrity or marry one as is Kate's situation. When you make those choices you know what that is going to include which is all of the hassles the paparazzi and society in general create. If society didn't relish the stuff that the paparazzi uncovered then they'd go out of business overnight. Can that kind of scrutiny be good at times? Perhaps. Can it be negative? Sure. Ultimately you still could have chosen a different path.

I get what you're saying about choices, but I guess it just kind of sticks in my craw that anyone should have to examine their personal decisions with an eye toward what the paparazzi might do in the future.

ladybookworm wrote:

I personally have no interest in who's topless, flashing their naughty bits at the club, binge drinking, cheating on their spouse, etc. So I don't go out of my way looking for that kind of "news" but despite my disinterest I hear it anyway. The mystique would be nice to go back to, but I seriously doubt it'll happen especially when you have social media owners saying even us lowly non celebrity types have no right to privacy. Good grief.

And I couldn't agree with you more on the social media stuff. But then, I'm always shocked by the nature of some of the things normal people put on their Facebook pages; heck, I've read some stuff on there that makes even the most bizarre Hollywood scandals seems tame! And I think what bothers me most about that is that it's people I know airing their dirty laundry publicly. Makes me feel a little awkward to see them face to face later on!  But that's a whole 'nother issue, isn't it? LOL Sorry I got off topic; it's a rambling kind of Monday and it's been really fun talking with you!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2012
Wed, 09-26-2012 - 7:50pm

I know they say they have laws to protect the royal family but how many people have gone through this before. We all know that will always be someone out there just waiting to impose on someone else for their gain. So I think that Kate poising topless was her taking the chance that she may be photographed and published. She knew what kind of life she was signing up for when she married William.

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/09/kate-middleton-wears-inappropriate-dress-offends-locals