Irish tabloid prints topless Kate photos

Disgusting.

Its good, Kate is very pretty.

Ms. Middleton married into this odious celeb/royal culture which is just as odious as the newspapers/magazines which print this garbage. A match made in the sewer - they deserve each other.

What I don't understand is: why, after marrying into the royal family, would one engage is topless sunbathing? Surely the consequences of such behavior are readily apparent...

The royals should just do a nude family portrait and get it over with. The full Monty! Then no one can make their nudity a scandal anymore.

The owners of the Irish tabloid were not informed of the decision to publish the photos and strongly condemn it.

Chairman Richard Desmond said: "I am very angry at the decision to publish these photographs and am taking immediate steps to close down the joint venture. "The decision to publish these pictures has no justification whatever and Northern & Shell condemns it in the strongest possible terms."

How times change, now we can inspect the future queen's breasts on the internet. I suppose by the next generation we will be able to watch a "royal sex tape".

What I don't understand is: why, after marrying into the royal family, would one engage is topless sunbathing? Surely the consequences of such behavior are readily apparent...

Am I wrong? I mean, the Paparazzi literally hounded Diana to death... she has to know that wherever she goes there is going to be at least 4 cameras on her at all time.

Indeed Triumvere so why Kathrine (not Kate now folks) would be outside topless and be shocked at pics being taken is beyond me. Is it disrespectful? Sure but this is the world we live in. Don't want your royal bits in the media, keep them under wraps. That goes for Harry as well.

Triumvere, 'why, after marrying into the royal family, would one engage is topless sunbathing?'

Because she is a young woman who wants to be able to relax like anyone else when off duty at a private venue and causing no harm to anyone else. Just because someone is a 'celebrity' does not give carte blanche to invade their privacy. There is no public interest in this, just voyeurism.

MY house is my private venue. However, if I go out on my balcony topless, you think all those people in the parking lot at the grocery store aren't going to watch - and perhaps take snaps? Come on now!

Clearly there is public interest as people are buying the mags and we're discussing it.

How times change, now we can inspect the future queen's breasts on the internet. I suppose by the next generation we will be able to watch a "royal sex tape".

Katy should be grateful it's only her boobies on show. Queens in the past were expected to give birth in public, to prove that the heir hadn't been swapped for one healthier/better looking/the right gender.

Next time find a private chateau with higher walls, Kate. Or you could consider keeping your top on.

"Next time find a private chateau with higher walls, Kate. Or you could consider keeping your yop on."

Or, to the paparazzi: Next time, find something else to do, or consider not humiliating people, lol.

"Next time find a private chateau with higher walls, Kate. Or you could consider leaving your top on."

Or, to the paparazzi: Next time find something else to do, or consider not humiliating people, lol.

Haha, learn a royal lesson: don't do it in France!

Tmaries, "Clearly there is public interest as people are buying the mags and we're discussing it."

Perhaps I should have been clearer. This is not in the public interest and does not warrant the kind of invasion of privacy that has taken place. She was doing no harm relaxing at the home of a relative, on private grounds, far from the public gaze.

Using a long lens to peep on someone's private life is voyeurism. The guy that took the photos is at the very least a Peeping Tom, possibly a stalker. Those that publish the photographs are simply greedy and looking to profit from some people's low brow desire to gawp at something they shouldn't.

She's got boobs. So what? All women do. As such it's 100% true that they papers are only printing the picture to make a buck. I really don't understand why seeing this woman's breasts is any more important than seeing someone's breasts in porn (or better yet, in real life). What's with the curiosity? Do people think they'll look different?

It's a bit rich for the Brit's royal family to complain if "greed"

Well is seems that there are pictures of them going at it so perhaps it won't be too long - though not a video.

I gave the balcony example. Do you think my privacy should be respected if I am at my own place but in view of others and topless? It would be nice to think so but that isn't how it works. Surely someone in their position should know this.

Indeed, the guy that took these shots is scum but we live in a world where, sadly, this is the norm. If she doesn;t want shots of her tatas out there, cover them up when outside. Done and done.

Tmarie, I disagree. The woman didnt flash her bangers in Tescos, or even from an adjacent property. They were on private land and the balcony she was photographed on was not in public view. The photographer had to use a long lens to get the pictures.

If you leave your car unlocked and someone climbs in and takes it, are you culpable? Of course not, the perpetrator is responsible for the invasion.

Obviously it was in public view or we wouldn't have the pictures.

If I leave my car unlocked and someone takes it I am partly at fault for being as idiot for not locking my car. Same goes with leaving the house unlocked - or walking around topless on an open air balcony and have snaps taken of my boobs.

If waitey Katie doesn't want her bits snapped, cover them up. And if she wants to walk around topless, be fine with it when pics are out there. She's got nothing to be embarrassed about at all and is making a mountain out of a molehill with this. Had she laughed it off - like Harry - no one would really care. It is the reaction from this that is making it an issue, not the pics themselves.

If someone takes something that is not theirs, they are solely responsible for their own actions. Naivete is neither a fault nor a criminal trait. Stalking is though. We'll see how the photographer's responsibility is measured when he has to explain himself in court.

Poor Kate. William and Harry should give the cameramen a sound thrashing.

How about taking and publishing photos of the cameraman and the publisher of the Irish Daily Star picking their noses, and call it even?

European news papers are bottom feeders and are still trying the old 1960"s show some boobs advertising to sell papers

If someone takes something that is not theirs, they are solely responsible for their own actions. Naivete is neither a fault nor a criminal trait. Stalking is though. We'll see how the photographer's responsibility is measured when he has to explain himself in court.

@ SwissToni OK. Say late at night some evening I'm out walking about. I see somebody walking ahead of me alone. They're dressed pretty smartly and look like they're well off. Nobody else is around so seeing an opportunity, I walk up behind them, whack them upside the head and take their money.

Are you saying that I am entirely to blame for my actions? Shouldn't the "victim" have to accept some responsibility? After all. they were being an idiot for (1) being out so late at night alone, (2) wearing nice clothes that made them look rich, and (3) being careless enough to let somebody sneak up behind them, whack them upside the head and take their money, weren't they?

Obviously, this person was in a public place, walking around with lots of money in their pocket, so they must have wanted somebody to steal it, right? If they didn't want their money stolen, they shouldn't have gone out, right? Surely that person should have known better, right?

I'm sorry, but if you don't want to be attacked and robbed late at night, then stay home. Done and Done. @@

What with Prince Harry's backside a couple of weeks ago, and now Kate's baps all over the internet, I hope to Gawd that Princess Anne keeps her drawers on.

That's the problem with being rich and famous, isn't it: you live in a fishbowl. Then again, I wouldn't turn it down...

Aisai, bad anology. Walking around topless is illegal in many countries - for women anyway. Walking around flashing cash isn't. Depending on where you're at though it could be rather stupid. Same goes for your other analogy you're hinting at. You can try and protect yourself by a) covering up and b) avoiding areas you know are dangerous. A little prevention goes a long way sometimes. Kind of like locking your car door.

tmarie it is not illegal to walk around topless in France or the UK.

Aisai, bad anology. Walking around topless is illegal in many countries - for women anyway. Walking around flashing cash isn't. Depending on where you're at though it could be rather stupid. Same goes for your other analogy you're hinting at. You can try and protect yourself by a) covering up and b) avoiding areas you know are dangerous. A little prevention goes a long way sometimes. Kind of like locking your car door.

Don't think it's bad analogy. Bit exaggerated perhaps, but the premise is simple enough. But let's try another.

Woman walking around topless on a beach (in a country where such a thing is not illegal). Man walks up to the woman and gives her as grope. The beach is public place. The woman is walking around topless. Some men are scum. If this woman doesn't want her bits groped then she should cover up, right? She's partly at fault, right? If she's going to walk around topless in public then she has be fine with it when somebody comes up and gives her a tweak, right?

Oh just so there's no confusion. She locked her car door. @@

Leaving a car unlocked and/or walking around alone dressed to the nines in a bad neighbourhood late at night might not be illegal, but a lot of people would say it was pretty stupid.

tmarie is right, if the royals could just laugh this off like Harry did the whole story would fizzle out like a damp squib.

If they don't like the attention being royal brings, they could always abdicate.

Leaving a car unlocked and/or walking around alone dressed to the nines in a bad neighbourhood late at night might not be illegal, but a lot of people would say it was pretty stupid.

I didn't write "walking around in a bad neighborhood". I wrote "Say late at night some evening I'm out walking about. I see somebody walking ahead of me alone." It could be on the street where their house is.

tmarie is right, if the royals could just laugh this off like Harry did the whole story would fizzle out like a damp squib. If they don't like the attention being royal brings, they could always abdicate.

The Prince Harry thing is sort of different. He seems to have been more of a willing participant in his own scandal.

Kate was at a private chateau which is probably in a fairly exclusive area. She was sunbathing. If she had know she could be seen, she probably wouldn't have removed her top. She wasn't standing on her balcony across from the parking lot of a grocery store. The photographer most likely got a tip that the Royals were going to be there. He probably hid and staked out the chateau for hours, perhaps on somebody else's private property. Maybe he paid somebody off to get access to that area. He was looking for that one shot that would make him and his magazine very rich. He took the photo from quite a distance away just as if he were a sniper targeting the Prince's wife with a gun. He wasn't just walking down the street and happened to notice a topless Kate on the other side of the road.

The photographer probably knew in advance that any photo he took would cause an uproar. He hit the jackpot and the magazine ran with it. They will most likely be sued and have to pay out some pretty hefty damages. They may even have to post a retraction. But, by then they would have made more than enough money off these photos to cover anything they lose in court.

Is the distance that this photographer took his photo the reason while some people think it's no big deal? Would it be more upsetting if he just walked up to the Prince's wife, took out his cell phone, and snapped a few upskirt photos?

I didn't write "walking around in a bad neighborhood"....It could be on the street where their house is.

A neighbourhood where people come up behind you, whack you upside the head and take your money sounds like a pretty dodgy neighbourhood to me. Some people do live in bad neighbourhoods.

The photographer most likely got a tip that the Royals were going to be there. He probably hid and staked out the chateau for hours, perhaps on somebody else's private property. Maybe he paid somebody off to get access to that area. He was looking for that one shot that would make him and his magazine very rich.

He probably did get a tip, yes. But no need to hide or pay to get access to someone's private property; the terrace is visible from the road, albeit with a zoom lens. And 'that one shot' - apparently the Italian magazine Chi is planning to print a selection of 30 out of some 200 offered. So it looks like he had plenty of time to get in as many shots as he needed. Perhaps Katey should be thankful that he was just a photographer and not a sniper with a gun. And instead of spitting nails and sueing the French press, maybe Prince Billy should be hauling his security people over the coals and hiring someone a bit more competent.

Don't get me wrong; I am not in any way excusing the behavior of the paparazzi which is, in general, disgusting. It is most certainly disrespectful and invasive to take and publish these pictures. (This would be true if Catherine had no connection with the royal family.)

-

We can recognize that the Duchess has a right to engage in a given behavior, without approving of or regarding that behavior as prudent. Keep in mind that this isn't just a marriage, it is essentially a job. Being Duchess of Cambridge, and in line to become the next Queen carries duties and responsibilities. The monarch is head of state, and by extension, members of the royal family represent the nations and peoples of Great Briton. In this sense, topless sunbathing - albeit well within the duchess' rights and performed in a private, secluded area - is unprofessional. When your job entails the representation of a particular entity - whether nation or corporation, and all jobs do to some degree - then there arises a duty not to preform actions, otherwise acceptable, which will bring that entity into disrepute. You can be sure that the Queen would never have been caught sunbathing topless.

A neighbourhood where people come up behind you, whack you upside the head and take your money sounds like a pretty dodgy neighbourhood to me. Some people do live in bad neighbourhoods.

Yes, but it was my post. And, I purposely did not use the expression "bad neighborhood". "Crime" can happen in all kinds of neighborhoods, day or night; "crime" can happen to all kinds of people, rich or poor. Trying to blame the victim seems wrong.

And 'that one shot' - apparently the Italian magazine Chi is planning to print a selection of 30 out of some 200 offered. So it looks like he had plenty of time to get in as many shots as he needed.

"One shot" is meant to be taken metaphorically than literally. It's the "one shot" that will make this photographer rich and famous (at least in the paparazzi world).

And instead of spitting nails and sueing the French press, maybe Prince Billy should be hauling his security people over the coals and hiring someone a bit more competent.

I'd bet that quite a few of the Prince's entourage have gotten a talking too. Possibly even the Prince and his wife have also gotten a talking too. "Prince Billy"? Really? I might be wrong but for some reason it sounds you're not much of a fan of the Royals regardless of whether the news is good or bad.

Aisai, if you make an unprovoked attack then yes you would be solely responsible. Doesn't matter if your quarry is rich, poor, black, white, christian, muslim, royalty or chav. Innocents don't asked to be attacked and have every right to live their lives in peace without harrassment. As does Kate have the right to a private life. She's a public figure and when in public is fair game. When the doors are closed and she's out of the public gaze, her life is her own.

Yuri, care to get me a link where it isn't illegal in the UK? And how many women walk around topless in France when not on a beach? Some common sense please. It is a shame that women are treated differently than men with all of this but we know it. She's a princess. Cover up or laugh it off.

I purposely did not use the expression "bad neighborhood"

Maybe, but the royals know they (figuratively speaking) live in a bad neighbourhood; they know low life paparazzi are going to be targetting them 24-7 and that they can be pretty ruthless about it. It goes with the job. As Triumvere points out, flashing her stuff is unprofessional, for all she might be well within her rights. This is a woman who is going to spend the rest of her life cossetted and pampered at the taxpayers' expense; they have a right to know what kind of person they have 'representing' them.

I might be wrong but for some reason it sounds you're not much of a fan of the Royals

And you're a master of the understatement.....:-)

Cleo I think your distaste for the monarchy is predjucing your thinking. The law should be the same for all. Kate has acted in no way illegally and she has selected a spot right out of the public eye. I think all public figures are aware of the spotlight and just how insidious the paparazzi can be. But, no public figure should have to accept zero privacy and the public need to get a grip on just how much of a person they have access to. Perhaps there's some further learning to be had for the media in all this, that there is a price to pay for breaching an individuals privacy.

I have no distaste for the monarchy but 100% agree with Cleo. Waitey Katey is well aware that she's being watched anytime she's out in daylight. Taking off her top to frolic around and having pics taken shouldn't surprise her. Or is she even dumber than I thought?

It isn't ZERO privacy. It you want to parade around with your top off, do it inside - like the rest of us.

Well tmarie we'll have to agree to disagree then won't we? I think the court case will demonstrate whether celebrities are allowed outdoors or not.

Oh they're allowed outdoor - just with clothes on or without clothes on and not making an issue of being snapped. But yep, agree to disagree.

French court backs UK royals on topless photos

http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-backs-uk-royals-topless-photos-110940094.html

"These snapshots which showed the intimacy of a couple, partially naked on the terrace of a private home, surrounded by a park several hundred meters from a public road, and being able to legitimately assume that they are protected from passers-by, are by nature particularly intrusive," the French ruling decreed. "(They) were thus subjected to this brutal display the moment the cover appeared."