Kate Middleton's Topless Images
By shello
@shello (964)
United Arab Emirates
September 20, 2012 7:02am CST
What are your views about this latest issue of the royalties of Britain is facing right now? Though practically speaking we have nothing to do with them and I'm not from UK either but we all know that the day Kate Middleton married Prince William she also became a public property. But what are your thoughts about her images being published in a Swedish magazine? Is it really necessary to publish it in spite of the fact that the two were in a private estate during that time? Or the magazine company has all the right and the freedom to reveal it to the public?
3 people like this
6 responses
@almond24 (1248)
• Hungary
21 Sep 12
They should have been more careful, but who thinks about it in a private property? Paparazzi only think about money, no matter how respected people are, they will always try to invade privacy and show that they are worse than we think. No matter how much Kate Middleton tries to be accepted by the public and by the loyal family, and no matter how people like her, I'm afraid paparazzi will always try to destroy her image. There are mean people everywhere unfortunately.
@shello (964)
• United Arab Emirates
22 Sep 12
The paparazzi are only after the money and the popularity that the issue will create. I don't think they do have consideration on whose privacy are they supposed to invade. Considering that the people involved are part of the royal family and the elite society, well that would make them more money.
1 person likes this
@rosesthorns14 (803)
• Philippines
20 Sep 12
My thoughts on the topic is that the paparazzi has a bad reputation for ruining the privacy of the royal couple. They have no respect, although they say that it is normal to see Kate Middleton's topless images like you see a lot of topless women on the beach but the point is, they target celebrities and of course, royal couples are among them. Sadly, it happens. The paparazzi do their job just to make money. The more people buying their magazines, more money are coming for them.
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
20 Sep 12
The magazines have no right to publish them nor to put them on You Tube or Facebook. If they had to use a long range camera and if she was in a private place like on the private grounds of the Castle, in the back yard surrounded by a high wall, then if someone was in a plane above hiding in the clouds and miles away, then they were invading her privacy. That she married Prince William,does not mean anyone can photograph her when she is taking a shower or a bath or when she is changing her clothes.
There is such a thing as decency. If she were on a public beach it would be all right, but then I doubt she would strip down to her birthday suit in such a place.
@salonga (27775)
• Philippines
21 Sep 12
That is invasion of privacy. How could they do that to this royal couple? Kate is such a respectable woman. Why publish her private photos and topless even.... all for the sake of money, money, money! Well surely they will pay a high price for this. They have to face the court for what they did.
@angelkarah050182 (4980)
• Philippines
20 Sep 12
Those people are heartless. I hope they will be in the same situation someday. LOL. Thanks for posting and happy mylotting.
@deazil (4730)
• United States
20 Sep 12
Newspapers have very few ethics these days. They put no value on an individual's right to privacy. They have no respect for anyone/anything with the exception of money. And they stoop to any depths to get it, apparently. The estate where the pictures were taken is very secluded and set in 640 acres of woodland. The royal couple had every right to expect privacy. There must have been a certain level of difficulty in taking those pictures. Greedy people will do just about anything for money. It's disgusting.
