Given the brilliant fine-tuning wrought on her alleged High Street bargain dresses, no mature heterosexual man is in much doubt about what the very winsome Duchess of Cambridge would look like without her clothes on.
So it seems redundant as well as discourteous for a French paparazzo to have spied on the poor girl in a private place and taken a photo of her naked breasts. I wouldn't blame her if she did sue the hack in the French courts, where privacy is taken with po-faced seriousness. And I must say I wouldn't want the royal lawyers on my nyash for any reason.
French paparazzi seem unrepentant and are annoyed by the failure of British tabloids to buy the pix. They think we are being hypocritical and British. 'Why? She is niiice...' I don't blame them either really. It's what they do, the carphounds. There's good money in it.
|
|
No big deal A.C the Duchess topless wow.
|
Sorry, put it in motoring by mistake. Must have been dazzled by the, er, headlights.
(now moved - obviously)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 00:31
|
|
Youve' been looking on the net A.C.Naughty..;)
|
|
Nope. Don't need to. I know what she looks like. Seen lotsa winsome naked women.
|
>> Seen lotsa winsome naked women.
You winsome, you losesome.
|
My wife was a fashion model when I first met her. Has a good degree too mind. Still not too shabby now I'm pleased to say. In fact the first time I saw her she was in her underwear. Saved a bit of time later I suppose.
I asked her about Kate and her jugs and and her take on it was, well, if she looked like Shrek it might be a worry but at least we can be pround of our potentially future Queen's assets.
|
|
I am more upset seeing young kids starving or being caught up in a war situation.Her little breast no.
|
>> I am more upset seeing young kids starving or being caught up in a war
>> situation.Her little breast no.
>>
I feel equally as sorry (if not more so) for her husband given the circumstances surrounding the untimely demise of his Mother. It must bring back a lot of unpleasant memories.
|
|
Ah yes, Dutchie, the familiar tits / war dichotomy that we must all face daily with steely resolve. [Strokes chin gnomically]
|
>> kids starving or being caught up in a war situation.Her little breast no.
Quite right Dutchie, it's not a big deal or one of the world's horrors. No one will see it as such.
But it's a bit of an affront to a lady's dignity, that sort of thing. We wouldn't want our wives to be subjected to it. Lots of girls, some of them good-looking, are more than willing to pose naked. So spying on blameless people in private is just voyeurism really. It's sort of quasi-legal but it's also coarse and immoral.
|
How secluded was the location and who spilt/spilled the beans. The vision could of course been seen through a telescopic sight.
To me, well I am not bothered either way, but given her position then I think that keeping one's kit on would be for the best.
MD
|
|
It strikes me that our values are really rather strange when most nights there's a selection of cop dramas centered around murder and associated serious crime which we'll happily watch with our families but can become outraged by a photograph of some famous person's tits.
|
>> murder and associated serious crime which we'll happily watch with our families but can become outraged by a photograph of some famous person's tits.
I haven't noticed anyone being outraged (apart from the Duchess and her friends).
|
Alright then, substitute outraged with, " consider it even worthy of comment ".
|
|
Quite. Mere tittle-tattle. Let's talk about the crime dramas in Syria and Libya... sheeesh...
|
Whatever happened to the 'News Huddlines'?
I can hear the sketch now:
Wills. GRANDDAD!
Phil. PULL! (sound of twelve-bore gunshot). There goes another pesky one.
(sound of helicopter in the background getting progressively louder, then Gattling gun burst).
Phil. I say Harry old chap, that's a little unsporting.
|
I have seen the pictures, they are very grainy - clearly taken from a long way away with a very long lens and maybe even blown up (the pictures not the tits)
No-one in the UK will publish them (nor the USA) so the big money is down the crapola, and they are going to be sued in France by the Royal Legal hounds and the Tableau will loose (tho wont have to fork out much in damages being France)
Its a typically cheap shabby frog trick - they are still peed off they didn't get the games and the ones we put on were better than they would have managed.
We should have left them in the clutches of the Nazis, they might have made reliable Renaults and improved German food.
|
The French have long had a peculiar fixation with our Royals.
Way back in the seventies Paris Match or similar was speculating about Charles et Marie-Astrid (of Luxembourg). Of course she's a Catholic so would have been off limits for the heir to the throne.
|
>> Its a typically cheap shabby frog trick - they are still peed off they didn't
>> get the games and the ones we put on were better than they would have
>> managed.
>>
>> We should have left them in the clutches of the Nazis, they might have made
>> reliable Renaults and improved German food.
>>
+ 1. It's the way you tell 'em. Keep at it.
|
>> >> We should have left them in the clutches of the Nazis, they might have
>> made
>> >> reliable Renaults and improved German food.
>> >>
Shamelessly stolen from a friend's Facebook page....
Angela Merkel arrives at Passport Control at Paris airport.
"Nationality?" asks the immigration officer
."German," she replies.
"Occupation?"
"No, just here for a few days."
|
One thought was should the future queen be outside topless. Might not want to be seen by the public but the staff/guards were all about.
Not bothered to be honest - I think she and William were a bit naive to assume something like this couldn't happen.
|
>> One thought was should the future queen be outside topless. Might not want to be
>> seen by the public but the staff/guards were all about.
>>
>> Not bothered to be honest - I think she and William were a bit naive
>> to assume something like this couldn't happen.
You need to see the pictures and the context they were taken, she wasn't exactly flaunting about in public and all the staff.
|
|
It's just a storm in a B cup.
|
I don't want to see the pictures. Just saying if she was topless and in view of somewhere she has herself partly to blame. She had the option to stay covered up.
If they were being overlooked from a hill or similar it's lucky only photos were taken. Someone could have done them some real harm.
|
And I am saying that unless you see the photos, you cant appreciate that she was not on "general display". She has no blame, none at all .
Yes its true that it could just as easily been a telescopic sight on a sniper rifle, but that is always the case wherever she goes, tits out or not.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 22:25
|
>> And I am saying that unless you see the photos, you cant appreciate that she was not on
>> "general display". She has no blame, none at all .
As said I've not seen the photos and don't intend finding them. But not sure what they will achieve suing the French publisher. Apart from increasing sales of the magazine.
I wonder what royal will be caught without clothes next week...
|
"Surely if the royal nipples could have been seen by a rodent with a long lens camera, then they could have been seen by a maniac with a sniper's rifle".
Comment from New Statesman!
|
Still not sure how this is motoring related BTW. :-)
Forget the photos though - I hope no Brits are injured or otherwise in Afghanistan in the latest unrest in various countries. Looks like Americans may have died. Puts the photos into perspective.
|
>> "Surely if the royal nipples could have been seen by a rodent with a long lens camera, then they could have been seen by a maniac with a sniper's rifle".
Given the total insanity of a small proportion of people, that's a point really.
Perhaps though the layers of security are discriminating, especially as in this case in France where the outer security ring, if there was one, may have been French. Perhaps some of the French heavies agreed with the paparazzi and didn't see any harm in a photo, but would have swatted an armed person. Who knows?
The other consideration is that there can't really be many people who would want to kill the Duchess compared to the number that wouldn't mind seeing a photo of her breasts. She isn't the most tempting of assassination targets. A fairly blameless person surely?
|
"that's a point really. "
No it's not. She could be shot anywhere. A maniac does not need to wait until the victim is naked before they can shoot them, a paparazzi looking for a photo opportunity does. It's much tougher for a paparazzi in pursuit of the money shot than it is for a homicidal maniac
Unless a 1000 yard exclusion zone is placed around her she can never be safe from a nutter with a gun
|
|
Didn't someone say that you couldn't protect against a hitman who didn't care whether or not he survived the attempt.
|
>> Unless a 1000 yard exclusion zone is placed around her she can never be safe from a nutter with a gun
Yeah, well, that's a point too I suppose. But it probably isn't that easy even for a homicidal maniac to nail a royal.
You would have to be a maniac of some sort to wish harm to that charming looking girl.
|
>>You would have to be a maniac of some sort to wish harm to that charming looking girl.
As they should have learn`t from Dianagate
Beware the Enemy within!
|
>>You would have to be a maniac of some sort to wish harm to that charming looking girl<<
de acuerdo but, she is married to a RAF Flight Lieutenant.
|
The times suggests it was taken from a public road, at a distance of 5-600 metres away, offering a limited view of certain balconies.
Such a shot would have required an 800-1000mm lens, a tripod, and patience. On the only road that passes near the villa. Someone dropped a boo boo here, such action should easily have been spotted and stopped.
|
>> >>Such a shot would have required an 800-1000mm lens<<
>>
>> What, like this: www.pocket-lint.com/review/5839/nikon-coolpix-p510-superzoom-camera-review
No, not like that, you wouldn't get a capture of a royal nipple at 500 metres with that.
more like this
www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/1000mm.htm
|
>>No, not like that, you wouldn't get a capture of a royal nipple at 500 metres with that. more like this
www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/1000mm.htm
At $3000 I think I'll give that one a miss!
|
Kate must have known the risk. Must have.
Does anyone know if the magazine's title implies anything in French? "Clos..." would be pronounced "Clo...". "Huis clos" (we clo) as a legal term means in camera. So "Secrets" maybe?
|
|
Why all the Hoo-Haa! - if you are going to take topless photo`s why cover them with red stars!!
|
>> Why all the Hoo-Haa! - if you are going to take topless photo`s why cover
>> them with red stars!!
>>
Try this version. egotastic.com/tag/closer-magazine/
|
|
My ole woman reckons that don't look like Kate?
|
Of course I clicked on those links, couldn't resist it. But I wish I hadn't. The couple of pix I did see were lousy, and worse than that, very unflattering.
No wonder she wants to sue.
|
I was a tad annoyed when I first heard the story, annoyed for Kate, annoyed for Bill, and annoyed that the frogs were up to their old tricks again.
But now having seen the fuzzy (did I say that!) pics, well, they could be anyone with a nice pair of jugs really.
|
>> I was a tad annoyed when I first heard the story, annoyed for Kate, annoyed
>> for Bill, and annoyed that the frogs were up to their old tricks again.
>>
>> But now having seen the fuzzy (did I say that!) pics, well, they could be
>> anyone with a nice pair of jugs really.
Doesn't matter if they are hers or not, claiming they are is just as bad. I told you they were crappy quality. (the photos)
|
Mr Z Sir, I have a pair of Minolta Classic 10 X 50P Sport binoculars.
I've been thinking of buying a telephoto lens for my Lumix G2 but being they are sooooo expensive I've even thought about stopping it in for the recently released Lumix FZ200 (also very expensive!)
I was wondering what telephoto lens (in mm) would equate to the magnification of my binocs?
BTW, I changed my engine oil today (properly) and as you say, it's an easy car to work on :)
|
>> Mr Z Sir, I have a pair of Minolta Classic 10 X 50P Sport binoculars.
>>
>> I've been thinking of buying a telephoto lens for my Lumix G2 but being they
>> are sooooo expensive I've even thought about stopping it in for the recently released Lumix
>> FZ200 (also very expensive!)
>>
>> I was wondering what telephoto lens (in mm) would equate to the magnification of my
>> binocs?
I think the rule of thumb is magnification x 50, so 10 x 50= 500mm.
>>
>> BTW, I changed my engine oil today (properly) and as you say, it's an easy
>> car to work on :)
Satisfying init. Such a home mechanics dream.
|
Thanks, the LUMIX G VARIO 100-300mm tele works out about £420.
The Lumix FZ200 with 25-600mm superzoom is £470 - £150 for my G2.
Not a difficult decision really is it.
I need a good telephoto because I like to photograph robins, badgers, and tits.
|
|
You'll need a tripod to keep your end up when fully extended to photograph those tits.
|
Speak for yourself chum. Of course ,my apologies, you're quite, well, quite a lot, sort of "old" aren't you?
:-))
|
I am about 4 years older than you old mate, and retired, with a pension.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension
Thats the description of a pension. Just so you know what one is.
|
>>You'll need a tripod to keep your end up when fully extended to photograph those tits<<
What tits?
Re: tele lenses, apparently a 100-300mm Lumix G vario lens is the 35mm camera equiv to 200-600mm.
|
>> I need a good telephoto because I like to photograph robins, badgers, and tits.
>>
You mean "teats", don't you?
|
THIS is a lens, and it's quite affordable too:
www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php
|
>> My ole woman reckons that don't look like Kate?
A couple of the shots didn't look much like her. But they were all lousy shots, unflattering at best.
Do people really pay good money to look at and read this crap? Who could they be?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 16 Sep 12 at 02:36
|
>>A couple of the shots didn't look much like her. But they were all lousy shots, unflattering at best<<
One wonders what all the hooah is about then really, I had a peek at the pics merely to keep abreast of the latest developments.
|
|
In the grand scheme of things it's a mere bagatelle.
|
|
The Royal nipples are nicely dark in hue.
|
|
It's quite appropriate that an anagram of Kate Middleton is 'Naked tit model'
|
|
I've read various reports which say that "the royals" are fuming and are furious. If they want to take legal action then that's one thing, but to raise their blood pressure over it will do them no good at all.
|
|
They live in a bubble a very comfortable one mind you.You make your choice once into adulthood and live it.
|
They presumably all take the risk of long-range snipers every time they go outside.
When she spoke in Malaysia or shakes hands with crowds of people in a street, do the security police search and evacuate every single building within half a mile, just in case there is a sniper hiding in a cupboard waiting?
|
>> do the security police search and evacuate every single building within half a mile, just in case there is a sniper hiding in a cupboard waiting?
One assumes Prince William has grade A security on a similar level to the Queen.
Snipers aren't probably thought much of a risk during 'walkabouts' because the possible targets are moving about among other people and so difficult to hit from any distance. The danger really is from nutters lying low in the crowd ready to go for them at close quarters.
Apart from the close escort heavies we see, at least three or four in the foreground, there will be highly observant trained men and women in the crowd who will have scrutinised everyone in their vicinity. Quite risky to try anything garishly radical-republican I would think.
|
|
They'll often sweep an area in advance of a visit, lifting manhole covers and being generally nosey. ISTR my daughter telling me that Special Branch visited one of her nurseries for a look-see in advance of a visit by Ian Duncan-Smith, but maybe it was someone ore important.
|
The Dook of Kent officially opened our offices in 1990. Fortunately, I was on me day off 'cos I won't bow and scrape to no posh bloke......or anyone, come to that.
All our cupboards and filing cabinets had sticky seals across them, even the bog-roll cupboards under the sinks in the washrooms. The torn bits were stuck on for ages afterwards.
What on Earth would be the point of blowing up a minor royal ?
Tchah, as Lud would say.
Ted
|
>> What on Earth would be the point of blowing up a minor royal ?
>>
I guess Lord Mountbatten's close family might have some thoughts on that
|
>> I guess Lord Mountbatten's close family might have some thoughts on that
That's right commerdriver. There are people who might think something like that would make a worthwhile point, and there are raving nutters who come out of the woodwork.
There can't be many in either category and the authorities know who some of them are. But not all of them, ever. Some risk must always be assumed to exist.
|
>> Quite risky to try anything garishly radical-republican I would
>> think.
I can't imagine there's many a Republican in this country who would attempt to further the cause by assassinating a Royal personage, AC. I imagine that any real threats to Royal security are from quite different parts of the world's populace, who are for the most part thoroughly unconcerned with our constitutional arrangements vis-a-vis monarchy/republicanism. I find it a little bizarre that you may think otherwise.
|
"I can't imagine there's many a Republican in this country who would attempt to further the cause by assassinating a Royal personage, AC"
There are lots : mainly in some offshoot of the IRA who would no doubt love to blow up a member of the Monarchy. Like hundreds of them I suggest.
|
>> There are lots : mainly in some offshoot of the IRA who would no doubt
>> love to blow up a member of the Monarchy. Like hundreds of them I suggest.
Too late, they already did it.
Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma KG GCB OM GCSI GCIE GCVO DSO PC FRS
|
>>
>> >> There are lots : mainly in some offshoot of the IRA who would no
>> doubt
>> >> love to blow up a member of the Monarchy. Like hundreds of them I
>> suggest.
>>
>> Too late, they already did it.
>>
>> Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of
>> Burma KG GCB OM GCSI GCIE GCVO DSO PC FRS
Service record marked: DD
|
>> "I can't imagine there's many a Republican in this country who would attempt to further
>> the cause by assassinating a Royal personage, AC"
>>
>> There are lots : mainly in some offshoot of the IRA who would no doubt
>> love to blow up a member of the Monarchy. Like hundreds of them I suggest.
In furtherance of a Nationalist agenda in the North of Ireland, one that seeks cessession of the six counties into a neighbouring country.
A different proposition from view of Alanovic and others that the UK should be a republic rather than have a hereditary monarchy.
|
"I just don't understand why people seem so down on the petty details of monarchy, while spouting generally inaccurate rubbish about how much it costs us and appearing embarrassed by its very existence. Perhaps all you easily-embarrassed people will eventually get your way and we will have a grey, dreary presidency which will cost more and help start the (evidently much desired) slide into some sort of fascism. You'll really love that, won't you? Not our country any more, not our bizarre constitution, not much fun. But you won't be embarrassed any more so that's all right then. Of course you could all sod off and live in some republic better than your own country. There must be lots of those. Off you go."
AC, on another thread.
AC - is this new tale of Royal Revelations the "fun" which you so crave to find in our constitutional arrangements? Is the existence of such persecution of winsome young ladies, who you so evidently admire, part of this fun, of which you so approve? Or is your support for Monarchy a pick'n'mix sort of affair, yes it's great fun and fun's what we need from our Head of State, but hang on, that bit isn't much fun, let's not have that - at least it's not my idea of fun.
Seems to me the citizens of the French Republic are extracting a bit of fun out of our laugh-a-minute constitution, and now you're all po-faced and in a kink about it.
Hmm.
Obviously (probably) my thoughts on the matter are quite succinct. If we didn't have this blasted family getting its mug shoved down our collective craw at all times, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much prurient interest in their activities. All the Royals have a choice about living a public life at public expense, yet very few seem to be able to turn down the riches and fame on offer in order to live the private lives they tell us they so deserve.
Not that I approve for a moment of people being photographed whilst in private places without permission, but hey, this is the real, nasty world out here. Not everyone is a nice as me. There are even French photographers in it, I hear.
|
>>
>> Seems to me the citizens of the French Republic are extracting a bit of fun
>> out of our laugh-a-minute constitution,
>>
I don't see what the constitution has to do with it.
If we had a prime minister or president with a young photogenic wife wouldn't they get just as much fun trying to photograph her?
And didn't we get lots of fun looking at photographs of Carla Sarkozy?
|
Alanovic, if you look at my posts in this thread, and actually understand them, you won't see much that is 'po-faced'. I am sorry however that you don't get my jokes. I only did the OP on this far from earth-shaking incident because I found it amusing, while still feeling a certain sympathy for the Duchess who looks to me a fairly tough cookie, as she needs to be of course, while managing to be handsome and apparently personable.
What I didn't and don't want to do is rehearse over again the very dull argument about republicanism as a British ideology. You and Polly Toynbee may not realise it, but if you want po-faced, listen to someone banging on about the ghastly embarrassing old-fashioned monarchy. If you want arrogant and unimaginative, listen to a republican proposing airily to sweep all that away and have a rational and democratic system for ruling a populace which by nature is extremely unruly.
I think I have said before that a few decades ago I thought somewhat more like you. But over the years I have gone off the idea of revolution (because that's what a radical change to the constitution would be) after studying a few revolutions close up and in detail. I may be wrong of course. There's no fool like an old fool. But Tchah! all the same.
:o}
|
>>my thoughts on the matter are quite succinct
And here are 73 words to prove it. Thank goodness it wasn't a long-winded view.
|
|
In one of the photographs Kate appears to be putting on, or taking off, her bikini bottom.
|
>> In one of the photographs Kate appears to be putting on, or taking off, her
>> bikini bottom.
>>
Les, some more Royal news nudes to occupy your time:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204325/
Please note, above link contains topless images. Open link at your own risk if at work
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Sep 12 at 19:43
|
Isn't it a tiny bit hypocritical to be suing a paper for publishing a picture of one's own breasts and then taking part in a publicity photograph of someone else doing exactly the same thing?
Either it's a perfectly natural thing to do, we all have them, etc, or else it's demeaning to and exploitative of women.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 18 Sep 12 at 08:18
|
>> Isn't it a tiny bit hypocritical to be suing a paper for publishing a picture
>> of one's own breasts and then taking part in a publicity photograph of someone else
>> doing exactly the same thing?
Errr No.
>> Either it's a perfectly natural thing to do, we all have them, etc, or else
>> it's demeaning to and exploitative of women.
You are being a little bit simplistic (yes I know it livens up the debate)
Royal tits were flashed in private, intention being not to have them on pubic display
Public tit flashing either by design or tradition is a different matter.
|
>> Royal tits were flashed in private
If that were the case, then how come they were seen?
Private to me means behind closed doors, not sunbathing on a balcony, beach, AN Other place.
|
>> >> Royal tits were flashed in private
>>
>> If that were the case, then how come they were seen?
>>
>> Private to me means behind closed doors, not sunbathing on a balcony, beach, AN Other
>> place.
My thoughts exactly.
Incidentally, I'm sure The Queen would never be caught topless. She's much more decorous.
|
>> Private to me means behind closed doors, not sunbathing on a balcony, beach, AN Other
>> place.
>>
How about this:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204095/
p.s. warning - Daily Mail link!
Last edited by: John H on Tue 18 Sep 12 at 11:31
|
One of the comments (not that I would stoop so low as to read em myself)
"If this sort of thing turns you on, then visit the public lavatory in Union Square NYC. There are no cubicle's , simply open plan toilets alongside the urinals. I went in to have a "jimmy" and was confronted with the sight on a bloke having a dump [very orchestral too]. I still wake up in a cold sweat. Apologies ladies if too graphic".
|
>> >> Royal tits were flashed in private
>>
>> If that were the case, then how come they were seen?
>>
>> Private to me means behind closed doors, not sunbathing on a balcony, beach, AN Other
>> place.
Private to me means somewhere I think is not overseen, by those whom I dont want to see.
|
>> Private to me means somewhere I think is not overseen, by those whom I dont
>> want to see.
As they were overseen, then it couldn't have been private.
|
|
I refer the honourable gentleman to the key word "think"
|
>>
>> You are being a little bit simplistic (yes I know it livens up the debate)
>>
Of course.
But the irony can't have passed her mind as she met the jolly south sea maidens, "hang on a moment - this reminds me of something".
:) (Is there a tongue-in-cheek smiley? I'd like to use it a lot)
|
>> Open link at your own risk if at work
>>
When I was at work, use of the internet was monitored by the IT department. Anyone caught using the internet in work time for anything other than work purposes was reprimanded.
|
>> Please note, above link contains topless images. Open link at your own risk if at
>> work
>>
;-)
That warning should be changed to "link is to the Daily Mail. Open link at your own risk wherever you are".
p.s. "egotastic" links posted earlier by L'escargot should have an even stronger warning!
|
|
Pictures of Kate very detumescing.
|
The two page special spread in today's Telegraph made me chuckle. It seems the islanders are planting topless women and topless statuettes everywhere she goes.
It's all good fun, but it does make her look just a teeny bit silly.
The really embarassing thing would be if she loses the legal action, of course.
|
>>
The really embarassing thing would be if she loses the legal action, of course.
Me thinks that they are making "Tits" of themselves! by taking this heavy-handed legal action they are making the incident more "News-worthy" and interesting to the public eye, they should have just shrugged it off, and said nowt. It would have been chip-wrappings last week, and forgotten this.
|
>>The really embarassing thing would be if she loses the legal action, of course.
Seems to be going ok so far.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591
I presume that this action is more about drawing a line in the sand than actually with any hope of surpressing these particular photos.
|
|
To commemorate the release of the topless photos of Kate Middleton, Royal Doulton will be releasing a Collector's Edition of two small jugs.
|
Phwoar! (Tchah!) - Dutchie
