Kate Middleton Topless Photos

natrix

Is it just me or was she being remarkably naive in thinking that she could wander around topless and nobody would be taking any photos??

OffTheBackAdam

Especially after what happened to the Brother-in-Law!

t.m.h.n.e.t

I have seen these Norks of royalty and can confirm.


They look like every other titty I have ever seen. Not a bad bikini either,though it wouldn't work at Blackpool beach

siamon

Any chance of a link, can't find the pics

t.m.h.n.e.t

THIS LINK IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK/WIVES/CHILDREN/COMMUTERS

NEITHER IS THIS ONE

siamon

Many thanks! Box ticked.

jordan_217

Any of Camilla ??

t.m.h.n.e.t

jordan_217 wrote:

Any of Camilla ??

I don't do beastiality

jordan_217

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

Any of Camilla ??

I don't do beastiality

Had to look that one up. Brilliant

Daz555

Future Queen of England should not be getting her norks out in public.

beancounter

Daz555 wrote:

Future Queen of England should not be getting her norks out in public.

Um....she wasn't in public (hint - that's kind of the issue)

bc

capt_slog

beancounter wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Future Queen of England should not be getting her norks out in public.

Um....she wasn't in public (hint - that's kind of the issue)

bc

Norks is ok, but the line must be drawn at 'flaps'.

ddraver

So girls get to see Harry Naked but us Boys can't see Kate's Norks

THIS IS FEMINISM GONE MAD!!!!

Where the fucks are you now Communters?!?!?!?

Frank the tank

Sorry to be a bit serious.

The woman is the future queen, I'm no royalist but that to me isn't the issue. She was in a private place and should be able to walk around in any state of dress/undress that she or William desire.

Would you be happy if some cameraman with a telescopic zoom lens took photos of you or your loved ones and sold them to a mag for his/her own financial gain? I wouldn't be very chuffed.

ddraver

To cake stop with you Frank!!

Frank the tank

ddraver wrote:

To cake stop with you Frank!!

Soz fella, forgot I was in BB. Yeah let's see them baps.

WheelieBad

Frank the tank wrote:

Sorry to be a bit serious.

The woman is the future queen, I'm no royalist but that to me isn't the issue. She was in a private place and should be able to walk around in any state of dress/undress that she or William desire.

Would you be happy if some cameraman with a telescopic zoom lens took photos of you or your loved ones and sold them to a mag for his/her own financial gain? I wouldn't be very chuffed.

Nope I wouldn't be pleased atall. But I keep getting told that the royal family are good figure heads and great tourist attractions. So surely they are being payed the extortionate amounts of money they should understand that the public is going to want to see them..

GiantMike

Frank the tank wrote:

Would you be happy if some cameraman with a telescopic zoom lens took photos of you or your loved ones and sold them to a mag for his/her own financial gain? I wouldn't be very chuffed.

If I'd married into the Royal family and was on the civil list, then yes, I'd be feckin' ecstatic.

Cleat Eastwood

it all becomes clear now - no wonder prince philip had knob probs - he's been spying in her bedroom and having a sly doff of the cap.

big_p

those photo's are naff, when are they going to publish the one's were wills is hanging out of the back of her....??

BelgianBeerGeek

Now gents, they are only a pair of tits. I take it we can all be adult about this? Surely you have all seen a pair of breasts before? And if you haven't, the Internet is a good place to start with what a pair of norks looks like.
After all, when she starts knocking out the heirs and spares etc, they will be public property anyway?

fatreg

them ere photos are shite quality, scanning not too good, was some zoom lens used, can only imagine it was a 800mm if not, the beast that is the 1200.

No action of a Queen to be though, despicable behaviour from her, one should never put yourself in a situation you can not fully explain yourself out of.

but in keeping with the BB, with the amount of royal nude pics appearing, I'm expecting a "The Royals nude" 2013 calendar.

majormantra

fatreg wrote:

despicable

:roll:

fatreg

^ spelling is spot on Squire.

as for the choice of words, it was/is personal choice/thought, I still think she's a mug for doing it, naivety is no excuse, she's in the public spotlight, nowhere is sacred, other than a man's castle.

ShutUpLegs

big p wrote:

those photo's are naff, when are they going to publish the one's were wills is hanging out of the back of her....??

A little bit of sick just came up

Limburger

As British subjects (some of us anyway), we have paid for those norks and should therefore be able to sample the merchandise so to speak.

I reckon this outrage is phony posturing but then I'm not a royalist. However, if you are born into some archaic institution that places you in a highly elevated and advantageous position just for existing or marrying someone. You then make full use of those advantages and lord it up, to then spit your dummy out because it turns out there are downsides is bloody naive and plain idiotic.

Also, I've read some stuff about how a UK pap wouldn't have done it - fine then, don't swan off to the french villa of some relative, piss off to Torquay instead then. The French could not give a flying fig about how special you think you are. They have something of a history of decapitating people like you for being the cretinous leeches you are. Johnny foreigner finds it hilarious when he can snap some tit pics of the English Royals. Makes 'em look ridiculous, innit.

MattC59

Limburger wrote:

As British subjects (some of us anyway), we have paid for those norks and should therefore be able to sample the merchandise so to speak.

I reckon this outrage is phony posturing but then I'm not a royalist. However, if you are born into some archaic institution that places you in a highly elevated and advantageous position just for existing or marrying someone. You then make full use of those advantages and lord it up, to then spit your dummy out because it turns out there are downsides is bloody naive and plain idiotic.

Also, I've read some stuff about how a UK pap wouldn't have done it - fine then, don't swan off to the french villa of some relative, wee-wee off to Torquay instead then. The French could not give a flying fig about how special you think you are. They have something of a history of decapitating people like you for being the cretinous leeches you are. Johnny foreigner finds it hilarious when he can snap some tit pics of the English Royals. Makes 'em look ridiculous, innit.

Not entirely sure whether this is serious or not, but I suspect that it is. Oh well, I guess that someone has to balance out reasonable intellect somehow.

siamon

Limberger

So she wants to market herself as pure as the driven snow, whiter than white, simpering and coy Diana replacement, then cavort round in private like any half cut Essex good time girl?

Silly and arrogant & deceitful.

Also, they look a little soft and droopy to me, maybe she should have some work done?

ddraver

Sorry, are you suggesting that she should nt ever remove her clothes ever?

I find the attitudes that it's OK to show us Harry but not Kate hilariously hypocritical. Personally my life would have been just the same if I hadn't seen either of them but I admit that I did have a quick google search to find the pics.

The argument that Harry is different because one of the other partyers took the pictures but it's not fair on Kate because it was a "journo" is side splittingly stupid. Even if there is a difference it is so far down the spectrum of "public interest" that the difference is like a arguing over whether or not a truck or a bus rolled past versus the Haiti Earthquake!

Anyway, back to nork jokes...

rolf_f

ddraver wrote:

Sorry, are you suggesting that she should nt ever remove her clothes ever?

I find the attitudes that it's OK to show us Harry but not Kate hilariously hypocritical. Personally my life would have been just the same if I hadn't seen either of them but I admit that I did have a quick google search to find the pics.

The argument that Harry is different because one of the other partyers took the pictures but it's not fair on Kate because it was a "journo" is side splittingly stupid. Even if there is a difference it is so far down the spectrum of "public interest" that the difference is like a arguing over whether or not a truck or a bus rolled past versus the Haiti Earthquake!

Anyway, back to nork jokes...

There is a difference - presumably Harry was aware of the photos being taken because someone in the group he was with took them. Of course, it says something about the class of people he was hanging about with but I do think that that is different to someone snooping about with a telephoto lens.

What I do find a bit rich is the Sun trying to claim that it was in the public interest to show the Harry pics. Given that we know what happened, the pictures don't add anything to the story at all. It is hypocritical of the Sun to pretend that they are on some high moral ground by choosing this time not to post the Kate pics.

majormantra

fatreg wrote:

as for the choice of words, it was/is personal choice/thought, I still think she's a mug for doing it, naivety is no excuse, she's in the public spotlight, nowhere is sacred, other than a man's castle.

Despicable = deserving hatred and contempt. She may have been naive, but your word implies some kind of moral turpitude, which I think is in no way present.