BS: More naked royals

Subject: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:00 AM

Fascinating how differently people have responded to this story and the double standards being applied.

Harry was a jerk, a stupid idiot, his nakedness was damaging to the royals, he should learn to behave!
On the other hand no-body is horrified by Kate's semi-nudity, instead it's the terrible behaviour of French tabloids being commented upon.

I wonder why we have such different attitudes about how and where rich and priviliged people get their kecks off?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:04 AM

The royal family has always been a complete bunch of tits and they've never been shy about exposing themselves in public. Anyway, who gives a shit?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:09 AM

Obviously you do, leveller. Otherwise why get your knickers in such a twist about them?

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:11 AM

I know which is prettier.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM

I think art is the problem. I think artists paint women because its easier to paint the female front bottom than the male.

Has anyone ever depicted the male sex organs convincingly - from Michelangelo's David to Jim Dine - no one's ever done justice to the old meat and two Jersey Royals.

So the female form has become the stereotype of beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM

"Otherwise why get your knickers in such a twist about them?"

How do you know that I wear knickers? Have you been peeking?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:04 AM

If I were to scrutinise anybody's nether undergarments, lev, you may rest assured they would not be yours.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:04 AM

I note from the OP a bit about double standards?

I doubt either Royal was asking lowlife photographers to invade their privacy.

It is more a reflection on the purile inquisitiveness of human nature than an excuse to deride people for being posh, rich etc.

Although the latter seems to get more airtime on Mudcat British chippy buggers keyboards than that of being impressed by tits.

Even the tits whom wish to impress the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:16 AM

If Harry And Kate and Wills get down and dirty, that's OK.

If Her Majesty the Queen does it, I don't want to look.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

The problem isn't so much the photos, it's the Single-Brain-Cell Knuckle-Dragging Dickheads who buy the shitty rags that publish them. What a bunch of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 11:57 AM

it makes nipple difference to me.....

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

Harry was a silly twit, playing round at a party. Kate was quietly sunbathing in what she thought was a quiet, private place....until some acrobatic papparazzi climbed up something to get a blurry image.....oooohhh, wow! Probably barely identifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 03:26 PM

I am pretty republican in my sentiments. I have only read a bit about it in the German press. However, I wonder what kind of a creep can have so little self respect that he is willing to put himself out in order to take photos of a woman, who believes she is in private, naked - or near naked - so that he can sell them. The fact that it was a famous person makes it no less despicable than if he had been spying on your wife. It is contemptible behaviour in my book. The paparrazzi seem to be competing to find new lows to sink to.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:05 PM

Is there NO law under which the publisher can be enjoined?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:06 PM

"Harry was a silly twit, playing round at a party. Kate was quietly sunbathing in what she thought was a quiet, private place....until some acrobatic papparazzi climbed up something to get a blurry image.....oooohhh, wow! Probably barely identifiable."

Ha! I thought Harry was papped (just like Kate) while nudey in his own privately hired holiday suite? I don't really see the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 06:46 PM

How in Hell ANY 'celebrity' NOT engaging in any Illegal activity can be photographed in a NON public situation and have it dubbed "In the Public Interest" is beyond me .

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: gnu
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:36 PM

The only slution is for the works of them to throw a naked bash and invite the papernazis. Have at it and get it over with.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:36 PM

"... privately hired holiday suite..."

With a bunch of other nude folks who had cell phone cameras. He begged for something like that.

Kate thought she was alone ....

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 09:00 PM

This electronic age is fine for communication but it opens up another can of worms. They are a young married couple just relaxing together in their own privacy and some shit has to do that. What a shame

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 10:17 PM

What should be done is to take embarrassin' naked photos of all the editors and owners of the gossip magazines that hire the paparrazi, and put 'em up all over the Net...makin' sure to identify exactly who they are and which magazines they own or work for.

Or maybe just put 'em out on the street in the stocks naked for a day to teach 'em a lesson. Let them be gawked at for a change.

I might mention that my political enemies been tryin' to defame me for YEARS by photoshoppin' bogus photos of me supposedly in the nude at public beaches and stuff like that.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:13 AM

I hate to say this, but "Chongo's" idea sounds just about right. But dead seriously, it's a shame that no on will face a little serious jail time for doing this to any woman. Should this be treated any differently, legally, than pulling off a woman's clothing in public without her consent?

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:36 AM

Well, it is a genuine crime, so I think yer right, frogprince. It ain't no different than bein' a peeping tom and lookin' at people through their windows after dark and takin' pictures of 'em. That is a crime, and people get arrested and jailed for doin' it, so why not arrest and jail journalists for doin' it too? And also arrest and jail their bosses who sent them out to do it. That would put the whole thing to a stop right quick.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:44 AM

there is somthin magical about the word papparazzi which makes the peeping toms semi legitimate and vitually invisible.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 01:52 AM

That something magical is called: "money"

As was said by people like Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan: "steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king" "steal a loaf of bread, and you're called a thief...steal an entire nation and you're called a conquering hero".

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 02:02 AM

I used to work in various sectors of photography & media in London..

Most photographers I encountered were complete c@nts.

It's the ruthless hyper competitive nature of the beast.

They don't survive long, let alone succeed,
without being arse-licking back-stabbing self-obsessed sociopaths...

The whole business is based on aggressive exploitation of one form or another.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM

the guy's a financial genius.

Show me another investment this week that has produced about five million quid from two threepenny bits......

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:18 AM

I've heard some rubbish this week about this. "Papparazzi killed Diana..." No they didn't. A drunk driver killed Diana and she had been stupid enough to get in a fast car with him. "They're going to sue the French magazine." Well, having a go at the froggies always goes down well with us Brits, innit. I note that Harry did not sue The Sun. Most of us who go on holiday have to make do with leaking shower hoses in the chalet and a pubic hair under the sunny-side-up in the B&B. They get to stay in the lap of unearned luxury, every desire pandered to, and all they have to worry about is not flashing their titties in public view (oh yeah, we have to do that as well!). It's also quite amusing to contemplate the fact that Kate was "on holiday" when her whole life's been one long holiday. Nary a productive day's work in sight...

As for those pics of her norks, well they are of no interest to me whatsoever, which is just as well as a three-hour search of the net for them proved fruitless... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 07:20 AM

"As for those pics of her norks, well they are of no interest to me whatsoever, which is just as well as a three-hour search of the net for them proved fruitless... ;-)"

Titter... :)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:33 AM

If you don't want pictures of your nippies (big or kinda small) in the public domain, cover 'em up.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:34 AM

Or, as they say in boxing "protect yourself at all times" :)

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 08:55 AM

The royal parasites enjoy wonderful exposure (not that kind) and publicity from the press. It is a crucial, if not the main, channel for their perpetuation. At times the sycophancy therein borders on the positively obsequious. It's amusing, therefore, to note that when the publicity is occasionally not exactly of the glorifying kind they want they squeal like little piggies. At least the pics of her knockers and his thrusting arse are true, unlike most of the overblown, aggrandising, arse-licking rubbish we read about them most of the time. Stuff such as how hard they work, the poor dears, how we need 'em to drag in the tourists, etc. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:24 AM

Hmm. I misspelled "paparazzi," I see. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:37 AM

It's absolutely disgusting that those depraved sex mad snail & frog munchers
think they can get away with this vile filthy outrage.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40b_1347627859

Subject: RE: BS: More naked royals
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 09:59 AM

Ah, Steve, is it envy that consumes you or mere rancour?

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.

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 - 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 - 11:30 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM

is it :-(

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?