Topless photos of Kate Middleton published
Find a Conversation
| 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?

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