What is it with Royals getting their kit off?

What is it with Royals getting their kit off?

Long-lens shots of the Duchess, taken while she and the Duke were beside a private swimming pool during a holiday in Provence last week, have appeared in Closer magazine today.

St James’s Palace said “a red line has been crossed” by the publication of the paparazzi shots, and lawyers in France are now being consulted over what action can be taken against the magazine and the photographer.

The Duke and Duchess have not yet been shown the pictures, but St James’s Palace confirmed they were genuine and had been taken during the couple’s break at a chateau owned by Lord Linley, the Queen’s nephew, in Luberon.

“The couple simply can’t believe that these pictures were taken, or that anyone saw fit to publish them. They reacted with anger and disbelief when they found out about it.”

of course if they never got their kit off in the first place there wouldn’t be any pictures.

  • Tristanb

    It’s sick that they’re blaming the paparazzi. Look, I’m all for topless girls. But that skank knew what she was in for when she married into the royal family. Plenty of girls don’t get topless all the time – and if you marry Prince William, then you should use your brain.

    • Tristanb
    • Alex

      Actually, the paparazzi clearly broke French privacy laws obtaining the pictures. That being the case, by your approach, it wouldn’t have mattered if instead of sunbathing she had been climbing into her shower. So I guess to ensure against this, she would need to wear a burqua at all times. Of course, this is silly but if you don’t draw clear demarcations, then there quickly nothing becomes verboten.

      Food for thought from a news report:

      “Thomas Roussineau, who specialises in privacy law, said publication
      of the photos undoubtedly breaks French privacy laws . “It is totally
      forbidden,” he said. “The castle is not the street, it is in a private
      place, and they are intimate pictures.”But he said it was likely the magazine had weighed up the potential cost of a fine against the revenue the photos would bring.”

      So this is all profiting by way of an unlawful act. I don;t think it unreasonable for her to expect that the paparazzi would obey by the laws.

      Even if she had been sunbathing topless lawfully at a public beach, then it doesn’t justify publication. It has nothing to do with public interest. This is just sexual exploitation, as simple as that.

      Still the media are merely the symptom rather than the cause: I can’t understand why their consumers seem so intent on treating young women as porn actresses. And I don’t understand why it’s necessary, after all there is no shortage of porn websites from which they can get their thrills.

      And I would suggest that this sort of behaviour is the greatest threat to freedom of the press, since it makes the case for state regulation all the more persuasive, and makes people view the media as purveyors of titillation rather than of the information required to ensure democracy operates effectively.

      • Tristanb

        That’s the price of fame. It wouldn’t surprise me if she did it on purpose.

        She’s essentially paid to do nothing by the British taxpayer – she accepted that, she can accept the consequences.

        She wasn’t getting in the shower, she was sunbathing topless, what the fuck did she expect?

        • Alex

          Yes that’s right, despite being on a secluded private property and despite it requiring some photographer to use a high powered lens many miles away to capture it, she must have done it on purpose and left herself open. Really.

          Why is it in the public interest to publish? None whatsoever. Indeed the rag that published it said that it didn’t know what the fuss was about, since she was sunbathing topless like any woman on a French beach. Well hello, as if that’s not clear evidence that this isn’t in the public interest to know.

          The price of fame argument is extraordinarily weak. There is no necessary connection between her being famous by virtue of her marriage, and any need for the public to know what her breasts look like.

          It’s sort of like blaming a crime victim for the criminal’s offending. In this case, the photographer has broken the law — and this would have been the same whether she photographed while sunbathing on a private property or while taking a shower. Hence you just make arbitrary distinctions when saying “she wasn’t having a shower”.

          I think you’ll find that the British taxpayer doesn’t pay her anything. The Civil List doesn’t extend to her, and that her expenses are borne from her husband’s income.

  • Mitch82

    I don’t care how royal they are, the tits are a 2/10 at best.m

    • thor42

      Heh…. harsh judging there….. ;)
      I’d score them at about a 5… maybe 6….

      • Travis Poulson

        That’s you kicked off the judging panel.

    • guest

      You’re gay aren’t you Mitch…

      • Alex

        No, from his postings, I would surmise that he is a hetero who is sufficiently secure in his sexuality that he doesn’t find the presence of homosexuals threatening.

  • baw

    People are entitled to some privacy, and to let their hair down. If doing this lets her unwind so be it.

  • AnonWgtn

    She is a beautiful woman.
    Wow.
    Leave them alone – he is a lucky bloke

  • Gazzaw

    The security detail needs a kick in the arse. They should be thankful that it was a camera that was attached to that long-shot lens and not a sniper’s rifle.

  • The Peanut Monster

    I guess unlimited wealth and fame has a price after all. Ah well, too bad for them.

  • Val

    My puppies look better than that and I’m twice her age. If they never got their kit off the conception process would be a bit more complicated and isn’t that the reason for the marriage?

    • Brian Smaller

      Can you post a comparison pic so we can be sure :)

      • Travis Poulson

        Strictly for research purposes of course.

  • Bruce

    They cant have it both ways. They enjoy being followed by media when it suits them. If you live off the public purse then the public have a right to now what you are up to. She is just a highly paid bludger.

  • nzd.gbp

    If you think topless sunbathing is somehow evil, please don’t go to europe.

  • Anonymouse Coward

    You think the Royals have no privacy now.

    Wait until the Paparazzi deploy these;

    http://www.reghardware.com/2012/09/14/sftws_spying_with_digital_binoculars_sony_dev_5/
    (sorry you will have to unwrap the url)

  • greg

    Royals love to get naked, reminds me of the king with no clothes.

77%