Royal boobs

[MrGongGong]

How do you mean: "supposed to be outraged"? I am outraged because it's an unnecessary violation of someone's privacy for reasons of commercial titillation.

If capitalism is your bag then it's a perfect piece of marketing
are you really "outraged" ?
children dying of Malaria is an outrage this is hardly that important

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If capitalism is your bag then it's a perfect piece of marketing
are you really "outraged" ?
children dying of Malaria is an outrage this is hardly that important

A different kind of outrage.

If William and Kate were the "Let them eat cake" kind of royalty, I might agree with you, but the greedy and unprincipled editors and photographers are the Marie-Antoinettes of the modern age (along with Gove, Cameron and their mates).

[LeMartinPecheur]

I have a slightly different take on this. Never mind the privacy issue. Why does the aspiring consort of our future Head of State, given the privilege of a nice holiday pad in the South of France, regard it as an essential part of the fun to display her boobs outdoors at all? Once she's done so, all that has followed is inevitable. And then, why sue? The remedy is obvious - keep your bra on, dearest, unless the curtains are closed. Bad decisions (whether "just a bit of fun" or "sue them for every cent") do not deserve to result in sympathy or damages.

Mrs LMP points out that the duchess favours low necklines on evening dresses, and might wish for a 'widespread' sun-tan in this area

With the known risks of UV sunbeds, and with bottled suntans no doubt a touch infra dig, I can see sense in this.

[teamsaint]

A different kind of outrage.

If William and Kate were the "Let them eat cake" kind of royalty, I might agree with you, but the greedy and unprincipled editors and photographers are the Marie-Antoinettes of the modern age (along with Gove, Cameron and their mates).

Frankly our modern elites, headed by the royals, are taking the **** just as much as they ever did.
In there it is privilege, expensive lawyers and feeling hard done by.
out here its non existent pensions, pay rates that never go up, unemployment,housing shortages, and paying every last penny to the banks.(ets etc etc).
It makes my blood boil.

Oh and these days its £30 k a year at their schools.
That is more than most people earn before tax.
Edit: I agree that the press are bad...but in general they do the elites' dirty work for them.

[ahinton]

I have a slightly different take on this. Never mind the privacy issue. Why does the aspiring consort of our future Head of State, given the privilege of a nice holiday pad in the South of France, regard it as an essential part of the fun to display her boobs outdoors at all? Once she's done so, all that has followed is inevitable. And then, why sue? The remedy is obvious - keep your bra on, dearest, unless the curtains are closed. Bad decisions (whether "just a bit of fun" or "sue them for every cent") do not deserve to result in sympathy or damages.

Oh, so just let the drones with infra-red and the rest do the stuff that goes on behind closed curtains then and that would be OK, yes?

[ahinton]

Or barmy, even - though balm might come from the luxurious lifestyle, I suppose, but we are regularly told it's not like that.

There is much to be said for your main point, and Decantor's in 7, that it is so probable that the newspapers will rush to publish topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, where they wouldn't by interested in most people. That being so, it is very stupid of the Duchess to go topless sunbathing at all, let alone somewhere that's not completely secure. That's what makes the legal action seem greatly over the top.

If you're one of those people, nowhere but nowhere is secure, so you daren't even speak unless you want to risk it being relayed everywhere within seconds...

[ahinton]

Nothing, but that doesn't mean that people habitually do it in public.

Indeed, but in a position such as hers/theirs, there quite simply is no "private". Just wait until the neuroscientific guys and gals take precedence over the journalistic long-lens camera-folk and then you'll see, as indeed we all will (because we'll be made to, with a vengeance), exactly what may be going on in the minds of such people as well as what they might or might not be wearing and/or doing at any given moment.

[teamsaint]

If you're one of those people, nowhere but nowhere is secure, so you daren't even speak unless you want to risk it being relayed everywhere within seconds...

If they don't like it they can give it up, take the money . live quietly somewhere. and leave us alone.Everybody I know thinks they are a bunch of useless spongers......well, not my mum, obviously !

[ahinton]

I would agree with you to some extent, but these photos are in French, Italian and Irish rubbishy publications, and it seems unlikely that people (men mostly) will buy the magazines to marvel at the artistic ability of the photographer.

Everyone has the right to privacy in a private place. They were only visible via a long lens.

The right they may indeed have, but the extent (if any) to which they might ever hope to exercise it is at the behest (not to say "mercy") of whomsoever expects to get paid handsomely for infringing it.

[ahinton]

Well I'm very pleased Viscount Linley (minor royal) has made/inherited enough money to have his chateau estate in France ,with such a lot of acreage that it gives W & K a sporting chance to escape those long long lenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Linley

Not much sport, even less sporting and even less chance again...

[ahinton]

The journos will do just want they want, as long as they can (and if they can't, they'll either get themselves sacked, sued or both or have to find a way to do it without being either) and no one will be able to stop them or those organisations which choose to publish their work, other than (again) if sued to high heaven in a probably somewhat forlorn hope of damage limitation. Live with it. That said, I deplore what's been done, but Margaret Thatcher was wrong when (mis?)quoted as having allegedly asserted that there's "no such thing as society"? - nonsense! - it's "no such thing as privacy"! - especially now. Never mind boob pics; if someone somewhere isn't listening into every word that the royals and others in "high places" are saying - and soon also tapping into that they and others are thinking without actually giving voice to it - I'd put that down to sheer laziness!

[Sydney Grew]

. . . at the behest (not to say "mercy") of whomsoever expects to get paid handsomely for infringing it.

"Whomsoever": The objective case of "whosoever" (more frequent than "whomever"). - O.E.D.

But it will be a comfort to know that Ruskin is with you, Mr. H . . .

[Pabmusic]

"Whomsoever": The objective case of "whosoever"...

It is an odd thing that no-one seems to have a problem with 'he' and 'him', but 'who' and 'whom' are often muddled. Perhaps it partly explains why the distinction is dying, and most people say 'who' regardless.

[kernelbogey]

It is an odd thing that no-one seems to have a problem with 'he' and 'him', but 'who' and 'whom' are often muddled. Perhaps it partly explains why the distinction is dying, and most people say 'who' regardless.

Now wildly off-boob, but this is not the case with 'I' and 'me': it's now pretty common for my well-educated colleagues to say (e.g.) 'If that happens please contact Sarah or I'.

(This, I take it, is a consequence of the misinterpretation of the rule about 'You and I are going' rather than 'You and me are going' etc.)

[Ferretfancy]

We need a queen who can commit the occasional outrage against good taste, it would work wonders for the image. There hasn't been a really rollicking one since Queen Caroline got locked out of her husbands coronation and was adored by the public for it . The establishment were at a loss what to do about this delightful lady ( viewed in retrospect ! )

All this prompted the immortal lines :-

"Most gracious Queen we thee implore
To go away and sin no more
But if the effort be too great
To go away at any rate ! "