BS: More naked royals

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM

Sod the co9rkscrew - for economic reasons I now brew ny own vino, five gallons at a time. It never reached the bottling point!

And here, my friend, is The Levellers' toast from an old woodcut of the tim):

"No way to the old way!"

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:40 PM

If there is one thing that those who know me, or of me, know of my habits, it is that I do not drink vino, or indeed any form of alcohol, at all, and have not done so for over 10 years ~~ at Sunday lunchtime or any other time.

QED.

The sun's below the yardarm. Corkscrew, where art thou...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:31 AM

As to the royals role in charities, and yes that is good.

But, is it not much different and much the same role as some other rich folk and celebrities take? I suspect if they were not there, the role would be filled by others in the spotlight.

Some celebrities do it for genuine concern (for example Willie Nelson, Bono, and the Ex Mrs Paul McCarthy), and I suspect some do it it increase their popularity. Save the wildlife, feed the kids, ban land mines, help the farmer, respect history, all good causes with celebrity and rich folk support to increase visibility...good stuff.

But, don't expect the royals to "speak out" on highly controversial topics, those that are in dire need of public attention.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:04 AM

Just to be clear, I am not anti-royal, and it does not matter to me if history has decided if any country has them or does not have 'em.

To me, they are merely a remnent of a feudal past, and only "window dressing" when it comes to holding any actual political power. I expect if they tried to influence politics (which I suspect they are comfortable in not doing so) they would be quickly "stomped down" (no, not beheaded in current times).

As to their purpose? "Window dressing" does not need to have a purpose beyond just that,nothing outside of being pleasing to the eye. And, it is not abnormal for there to be a difference in viewpoints on what is "fine looking" window dressing and what does not look that good.

I don't envy their money or celebrity status and feel it is no more significant than the same status given sports, music or movie stars. If they have the dollars, let them do whatever they want with it. But, I do not feel that as celebrities they should expact any more privacy than any other in the same category. When it happens, why should any celebrity whine? In some cases, as SS suggests, any coverage can improve popularity, and the public's view of their significance.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM

"When I was that age, I would have done the same thing."

And, who cares what you would'a done or what Harry (or any other Royal) does? I don't.

The point is, why make a big deal about it if you get captured on camera, when (like it or not) you know there are always folks out there trying to make a dollar from selling a picture of your celebrity status. It goes with the territory of all celebrities. In Harry's case, I dont believe it was the paparrazi who shot the Harry photos?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: olddude
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:22 AM

Well being from America I don't really have any views of Royals or anything else. But it seems to me their Charity efforts are pretty amazing (or am I just reading what people want me to read) Seems like Princess Dia really did great charity work and elevated the Nation. I suspect Kate will and does also but like I said I dunno.

But I still think a young married couple has the right to play around without half mile away camera's trying to capture their bits.

Now Harry, well he is a 20 something single soldier. Good for him. He was having fun, who cares. When I was that age, I would have done the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM

If there is one thing that those who know me, or of me, know of my habits, it is that I do not drink vino, or indeed any form of alcohol, at all, and have not done so for over 10 years ~~ at Sunday lunchtime or any other time.

Ah ~~ begod!

xxxxx

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 09:28 AM

I'm an atheist, and a neutral about royalty. But I am not aware of any great eliciting of blood or thunder on these particular counts. Could it be that SS attracts these, not because of his views, but because of the truculent charmless aggressiveness with which he always appears to see fit to express them? Why can you never attempt a modicum of civility, SS, or a mild moderation in what you say? You have the knack of coming over as if a kick in the cods and a bloody nose are the least you would like to give anybody who chances to think differently from you. I have no doubt that, in private life, you are quite a different persona, held in love and affection by family and friends, whom you treat with equal affection and regard and consideration in return. Why can it never appear thus on this forum, I wonder?

Affable greetings

~M~

Begod, that vat of Sunday lunchtime vino appears to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 09:20 AM

Well I do believe that I have represented myself on this thread with considerable, calm, decorum and reasonable civility (I called chongo very very silly, admittedly, but only because he called me very silly for nothing and said something very very silly himself, but I'm not bitter). 'Tis the lot of any atheist or anti-royalist to have to put up with this flak if they ever express their views in a direct manner, which is what I seem to have done on this thread. Chongo has again said something very very silly indeed (and I'm not even sure who he's supposed to be addressing), but I won't say anything nasty to him except to request that he looks up "prejudice" in a dictionary. To his utter amazement, he will find that it does not mean "disagreement with me."

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 08:40 AM

What you got is broad prejudices! ;-D And narrow minds. Ook! Ook! Yer always lookin' for a fight with someone, but seem peeved when ya find one, and that don't make logical sense unless yer some kinda masochist.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 06:41 AM

"Hey, and it's tough being anti-royal. It's the same as being an atheist. Down rains the blood and thunder! :-)"

Yes, but we've broad shoulders - and even broader minds.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 06:40 AM

I'm an atheist, and a neutral about royalty. But I am not aware of any great eliciting of blood or thunder on these particular counts. Could it be that SS attracts these, not because of his views, but because of the truculent charmless aggressiveness with which he always appears to see fit to express them? Why can you never attempt a modicum of civility, SS, or a mild moderation in what you say? You have the knack of coming over as if a kick in the cods and a bloody nose are the least you would like to give anybody who chances to think differently from you. I have no doubt that, in private life, you are quite a different persona, held in love and affection by family and friends, whom you treat with equal affection and regard and consideration in return. Why can it never appear thus on this forum, I wonder?

Affable greetings

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 05:58 AM

That's it, Ed. They know they'll be snapped. They want to be snapped! They know it's good for 'em! Even Harry's getting over that pic of him giving a girl a standing-up one from behind. All the commentary about that by now is sympathetic to the poor lad. With the royals there is virtually no such thing as bad publicity!

Hey, and it's tough being anti-royal. It's the same as being an atheist. Down rains the blood and thunder! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 04:57 AM

I dislike the institution of royalty as much as anyone else here. I am just not able to work up as much spite towards them personally as some people have developed. Removing basic human rights from anyone is ultimately extremely dangerous - not least of all to onself.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:06 PM

Is it really new and unexpected?


""In 1994, a photograph of the naked Prince of Wales, on holiday at a friend's chateau near Avignon, was published in Paris Match and the German paper Bild. It showed Charles standing at a window of his room after going swimming with only a white towelling robe thrown over his shoulder. The prince had spent time at the chateau every summer and been pictured through the same window four years earlier by a platoon of paparazzi who had their long lenses trained on him from a nearby olive grove."" Daily Mail Online

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:55 PM

Anyone seen "nakie" pictures of Camilla, 'cept Charlie?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:40 PM

You Americans are fond of dry goods....rumour has it

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:32 PM

The one coming...

Lizzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:30 PM

You mean last January...or January comin'?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:23 PM

Just wait until you get a look at Miss January, Chongz...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:19 PM

Trouble is, Bobertz, the muddy trails that pass for "streets" in yer neck o' the woods never got useful word out about nothin'...except the whereabouts of the revenooers! ;-D

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM

Glad that I ain't paying taxes that go to the royals...

BTW, word on the street is that Liz is in negotiating with Playboy...

No???

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Beer
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:10 PM

Late arriving at this thread and stopped reading where Little Hawk spoke about Dylan and Woody etc.
Well said by the way.

I'll be honest and to the point. 100% of men like looking at breast. But not this way. Where is the morality today. The word means nothing I guess. I would love to see Kate's breast. But what are my chances of me seeing them. Bottom line is I should never see them. Anyone here contributing to this thread who are married or whatever agree with their love mate being exposed like this stand up. I am nothing to Kate or William but i would never want my privacy invaded like their's were.
I hope they fry the bastards. unlikely I suppose.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:38 PM

I'm not a Royalist either, Steve. I'm just having a little fun baiting you over your vehement anti-royalist sentiments. I can see reasonable arguments either for or against having a royal family, and I am living in part of the former empire...Canada...and the Queen is still technically our symbolic head of state and is on our coins, etc, but that doesn't worry me. I've seen taxes spent on worse things than the House of Windsor. I'm neither for her nor against her, and I don't particulary mind about her inlaws either. It's not something I intend to get my knickers in a twist over, to use another popular English expression.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM

Yeah well chimpie, yer a very very very silly monkey yerself. If you ain't got no regard for dem royals, don't get involved is my advice. And yeah, dem paparazzi are the scum of the earth. They do a useless or worse job of work wot contributes nowt to the general well-being of this great nation of ours. A bit like bankers, hedge-fund managers, landlords, accountants, Wayne Rooney, Brucie effin' Forsyth, people who run aerodromes, people who build wind turbines all over Cornwall, gentleman farmers, ATOS "medical professionals", Prince Philip, any archbishop you care to name, actors in Casualty, people who make Mr Whippy, Tory press officers, Jimmy Carr and that bastard who ripped me off over my car servicing. There are loads of people in the kind of employment that you and I would regard as less than gainful.

Aw shit. Mr Whippy ain't all bad...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:05 PM

Steve, yer a very silly man who is doin' what he accuses others of...engagin' in a tired knee-jerk reaction, cos I ain't a royalist. Not even slightly. I got very little interest in the Royals. I just think the paparazzi are a buncha pestiferous, ammoral scum who act like jerks, that's all. I am neutral about the Royals. I ain't for 'em and and I ain't against 'em.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM

Heheh. Or is it all a storm in a B cup?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM

For what we're paying the Royals, it's only fair that we get to see their tits and willies.

And it doesn't look like our future Queen's knockers are worth the public investment. Surely there's a civil servant whose job it is to ensure that presumptive Royal boobs are at least a C cup?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:57 PM

And there's nothing particularly "devious" about getting a long-focus lens, pointing it and pressing the shutter. You point and you shoot. You eat yer butties and go home for your tea. They can't see in the dark or round corners, you know. The really devious thing would be for the royalty to stop getting their norks/meat 'n' two veg/front botties/bumbums out in places where they have panoramic views of the countryside, innit! We can see them, so they can see us! Doesn't take much intelligence, but there you go...

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:55 PM

I suspect she also "flashed" their body guards, who likely had a closer view?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:40 PM

Well, alanabit, you don't seem to comprehend that the royals, who you so valiantly defend, actually want this stuff to happen. That's the whole point. Harry shat slightly in his/their own bed, of course, in the particular manner of his exposing himself to the public eye, but, generally speaking, this media exposure of tits-out royal bimbos does them all nothing but good. And they don't give a flying shite about your, my or anybody else's "human rights." They prefer stags and grice and pheasants to you and me any day, old boy. If you don't believe me, try trespassing on their shootin' lands (ours, actually) and see what happens! I tried it once and shots were fired over my bloody head! I repeat. Look at the way they treated The People's Princess, and learn!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 03:32 PM

The point is Steve that the paparazzi scum got those photos through devious means with no consent whatsoever. I just happen to believe that although I do not particularly like the Royal Family, they are entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 03:27 PM

Well, alanabit, as I recall no-one broke into anyone else's house to take those pics. If someone broke into my house with the specific aim of taking pics of me/mother/sis/missus/girlfriend (shhh...), I fear they would not obtain much of a marketable product. They did it not by breaking in but with that piece of kit which is all too well understood by the royals: the telephoto lens! Actually, I'm filmed walking down just about every town street these days, and I heard last week that one school near me is putting CCTV in the kids' bogs. Hey, where's the outrage there then?? One law for them...?

As for you, chongo chimpie, and little hawk I imagine, well done for indulging in that well-known, tired knee-jerk reaction common to all royalists when they hear criticism of their darling heroes: the critic is simply jealous! Not principled or imbued with any sense of fairness - just plain jealous! Ha bloody ha.

And, with this: Can't imagine why she took off her clothes completely while outside. The royals know full well there are extremely good telephoto lenses, and that any media photographer could get shots of her. Well said, Eliza. Of course they know, and of course they know they'll be snapped. They want to be snapped! They know that all the ensuing fuss will only enhance their standing in the eyes of the more gullible section of the public. Oh yes, royalists: your heroes are not only money-sponges, they are also among the most nasty, cynical and manipulative people on the planet. You clearly learned nothing from the disgraceful way they treated the People's Princess!

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

For one's own satisfaction?

Maybe it's similar to men liking to pee outdoors or something...that feeling of unfettered freedom.

Just think, if we hadn't all been taught the social custom of covering up those "bits" in the first place, no one would give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:16 PM

Can't imagine why she took off her clothes completely while outside. The royals know full well there are extremely good telephoto lenses, and that any media photographer could get shots of her. It's not as if she was inside a house. I've travelled the world when younger and sunbathed on many beaches, but never felt the need to go topless. It's enough IMO to wear a small bikini, why tan the bits nobody sees?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:08 PM

In a country where they chopped the king and queen's head off, I can't see the courts getting worked up at nipplegate.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:19 PM

For obscure reasons this discussion of "naked royals" reminds of this fine song by Neil Downey:

Composed by Neil Downey ©

The Main Royal Yard

As I walked out one morning down by the Boston Docks
I met a pretty young Judy there and after a line of talk
She throws her arms around me waist and says, "Me jolly tar,
How I'd like to see your lofty ship and her main royal yard!"

Her main royal yard, her main royal yard!
How I'd like to see your lofty ship and her main royal yard!

Says I to myself such a strange request has never been put to me;
What interest would this Judy have in a ship that sails the sea,
Exceptin' for me six months pay for which I've worked so hard,
And what's this silly fascination with the main royal?

With the main royal yard, with the main royal yard!
And what's this silly fascination with the main royal yard!

So as we walked aboard the ship the watch he winks at me,
"Are you sick of the shore so soon, me lad, are you lookin' to go to sea?"
"To sea your ass," says I with a grin. "But don't be laughin' too hard
For this lassie is wantin' to climb aloft to the main royal yard."

To the main royal yard, to the main royal yard!
For this lassie is wantin' to climb aloft to the main royal yard!

So it's off with her petty coats one by one and her velvet slippers too;
Then up aloft as sure as hell exposing a lovely view;
And soon she's up to royal shrouds as soon as any tar,
And a prettier sailor I never did see on the main royal yard.

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
And a prettier sailor I never did see on the main royal yard!

Says I to myself I must be daft to allow such a thing to be
When all of a sudden this lassie aloft starts spitting down at me;
She give to me a saucy wink, likewise a saucy nod,
And she hollers, "Now, Jack, come frolic with me on the main royal yard."

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
And she hollers, "Now, Jack, come frolic with me on the main royal yard!"

Now the moon was so romantic a-shining on the bay,
And the wind was blowing east-nor'-east as she let me have me way;
Soon we'll have a little baby and he'll be a jolly tar,
For you know he was conceived up on the main royal yard.

On the main royal yard, on the main royal yard!
For you know he was conceived up on the main royal yard!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:05 PM

""a need that don't necessarily benefit society""

If if there were such a fine-tuned definition of "what actually benefits (the global) society", I suspect many would be without a job and on the street?

People wiew the stuff, buy the trashy papers and products that advertise in them, money is made, people are employed and paid (aka jobs)- (elementary Watson). That is what turns the wheels of our current economy, regardless of what your personal life choices are made up of (how you spend your time and loot), Chongo-bird.;)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:01 PM

Geez, Steve, I can see yer really peeved over this. ;-D How about we petition the monarchy to adopt you so you can get these things that you presently can only dream about? Think of it! You could get chauffered around in stretch limos, camp out on the Riviera, stay at French villas, own big yachts...what are we waitin' for?

Let's start an online campaign now and give you the life you've always deserved.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:00 PM

So it's Okay Steve if I break into your house to take intimate photographs of your wife, mother, sister, girlfriend etc to sell them to newspapers is it? Little as I like the royals, I feel I owe a little basic respect and decorum to any human being. I would have been just as angry about this - possibly even more so - had it happened to the woman who serves me baguettes in the canteen at work.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

is it :-(

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

The royal family have been cashing in, in terms of enhancing their somewhat raggity image, on Kate's legs, arse, titties and charming fizzog for a good while now. It certainly isn't her brain-power that's been flaunted in front of us, has it? Just like they cynically did, and failed, with Diana. Watch that space, eh? She's hardly been kept under wraps. Naturally, the media have been complicit in this. It's frankly laughable to watch the royals squirm just because some obscure French society mag or whatever it is fails to play their game for them. Tuff titty, Kate!

As for the paparazzi being the real parasites, well they go out to work, they get paid their wages and go home for their tea. The royals, on the other hand, get our money poured all over them to do whatever they like with. Like staying in some French country mansion that most of us who pay for them to do it can only dream about.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:11 PM

Bein' a hit man for the Mob serves a need too, Ed, but it's a need that don't necessarily benefit society if ya see what I mean. So is it a legitimate job? Hey, c'mon...there's money in it, right? ;-D How could it not be legitimate if there's money in it?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM

I suspect there is some "choice" (if not strategy) involved in crossing the line from just being a royal to becoming a celebrity. Some royals seek this status, maybe as an attempt to increase the popularity and thus the usefullness of the post?

I doubt that there would be much public interest in naked pictures of a royal, that are not considered celebraties. No interest, no photos, no paparrazi.

IMO, the lawsuit (another country and public air space) seems like a long-shot.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:49 AM

""So rather than envy them for their elevated position in life, we might count our blessings that it has happened to them and not us.""

I would be surprised if many on here actually envy the royals?

""...is taking surreptitious photos of people who think they are in private a legitimate "job"?""

If there is money in it (feeds some need) , someone will do it and that "makes it their job". All jobs that serve a need are legitimate, though many have more prerstige in some societies than others. Whether some, or even many, hold the profession in high regard or not (their perspective) seems (IMO)irrelevant to whether it is a job or not?.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:44 AM

I hope the civil lawsuit bankrupts the French newspaper. Hit them where it hurts.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

Well, yeah, Ed...I think they do live with it, and they probably do attempt to adjust their lives accordingly. But they're not perfect. Nobody is.

I'm just saying that we're probably lucky not to have to deal with the stuff the really famous in this world have to put up with all the time. So rather than envy them for their elevated position in life, we might count our blessings that it has happened to them and not us.

Once you are there it's almost impossible to escape.

****

On the other tack: is taking surreptitious photos of people who think they are in private a legitimate "job"? I don't think so, I think it's the same thing as being a peeping tom, even if you are getting paid to do it. Matter of fact, I think it's worse when you're getting paid to do it, because it's a far more cold-blooded and calculated act than the act of someone who just cannot control his own prurient desires.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:20 AM

Ummmm????

I suspect dealing with the paparrazi "sneaking around and taking semi-nude photos of with telefoto lenses" is a known part of "the package" of this fate (or chosing to be part of it, aka Kate). They should live with it and adjust their behavour accordingly. It is hardly a surprise to anyone, and shouldn't be for these folks..

So, logic (common, not commoner, sense) says these folk should adjust their lifestyles to deal with it, exercise caution, or take a bit of responsibility for the results, (in which they play a part).

Making a big deal about it fuels the public interest,and IMO just makes them look silly, rather than special. As if a naked Royal body, exposed to the public, is not in "the public domain" for the picture takers, as with other human bodies. Maybe some say it is bad taste, but that also is part of life, for royals or not-so royals.

If my daughter got caught, I would have a talking to her and question her wisdom, not attack the photographer - who, like it or not, is just doing their job taking pictures that many people will (go out of their way to) look at.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 11:04 AM

Unlike pop stars, famous politicians, and people like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton, the Royals did not choose their fate in life, Steve...they were born into it...though I suppose you could argue that someone who marries a Royal chose her fate. On the other hand, why shouldn't she marry a Royal if she wants to? Someone has to, after all! ;-) So why not Kate Middleton?

My point being: why despise these people and indulge in slagging them because they happen to have been landed by fate in a different position in life than yours? What if YOU had been born in the Royal line? How would you have gone about escaping your rare and unusual fate if you had? Would you have felt consumed with guilt over being a social "parasite"? Would you have run away and joined Al Qaeda, perhaps? Or become a member of the Red Brigades?

You'd obviously like to see the Monarchy abolished. Well, fine, I'm sure the world wouldn't stop turning if it was, and no one is obliged to like the Monarchy...but why all this personal venom toward the individuals who were born into that situation or who married into it? They're just doing the job they were handed by fate, and I wouldn't exactly call it an easy one, because they don't have the luxury most of us do...the sheer joy of our anonymity! The world won't leave them alone. That could be a real pain to have to deal with, and I don't envy them for it. I'd hate to be stuck with a job like that, even if I did get to live in mansions and palaces.

On the other hand, you have these paparrazi, people employed in a crass and exploitive profession, people so well described above as "arse-licking back-stabbing self-obsessed sociopaths..."

Those people are the real parasites, Steve. They live merely to spread rumour and gossip, one of the nastiest things a person can possibly do. They live to embarrass and destroy other people in order to enrich themselves and their employers. They don't do it out of any sense of social service, they do it for their own personal gain. They're like vampires.

If it was your wife or daughter they were sneaking around and taking semi-nude photos of with telefoto lenses, you wouldn't like it one bit. But you're not famous enough, so they probably can't be bothered. Be glad of it.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 10:12 AM

Yes, I was curious. So, I took a quick look at the above link. My assessment - Clearly not my "cup of tea". Fortunately, we don't all have the same taste in women - not that my opinion matters much to any royal, real or fake.