Duchess Kate had another ‘Marilyn moment’ (without knickers) in Australia


As many of you mentioned in yesterday’s Prince William post, Duchess Kate has another “flasher/Marilyn moment” controversy. Back during their grueling Australian and New New Zealand tour, it seems one photographer got a shot of Duchess Kate from behind, with her dress blowing up, and wouldn’t you know… she wasn’t wearing underwear. For the love of God. The German paper/site Bild won the bidding war for the photos, and you can see the NSFW bum photo here.

I give up. I don’t even know how the pro-Kate people can defend her exhibitionism and inappropriateness at this point. I’m including photos from the same day – Kate was wearing this light Diane Von Furstenberg wrap dress, and I remember thinking at the time, “That’s interesting that she’s not wearing a slip because we can see right through the dress, it’s so thin.” Not only was she not wearing a slip, she wasn’t wearing underwear. So… just like Kate’s first steps in New Zealand (when her dress blew up as soon as she walked off the plane and the world saw her panties), Australia got a good look at Kate’s privates as well. This is like the tenth major “Marilyn moment” during working hours.

The UK papers are describing this whole thing as yet another “privacy row.” But unlike, say, the photos of Kate and William on vacation on a private estate, these new photos were taken when they were out in the public sphere, as they exited a helicopter on their way to a public appearance. To my mind, the issue of privacy doesn’t enter into it – the photographer wasn’t even close to Will and Kate. Kate’s just an exhibitionist who doesn’t even wear panties under her loosey-goosey, fly-away wrap dresses while she’s working. I’m starting to wonder if the Queen really is extremely disappointed with Kate’s inability to simply place fabric weights in her dresses.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

return home

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

411 Responses to “Duchess Kate had another ‘Marilyn moment’ (without knickers) in Australia”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dani2 says:

    Maybe she was wearing a thong?
    Either way though, I hope this makes her more self-aware in the future. She’s not just a celeb, she’s representing a country and it’s just not a good look to have your bare butt flashing in public, however briefly.

  2. Lindy79 says:

    Id say it’s more like she’s wearing a thong but yes, as a member of the Royal family and knowing there are strict dress codes etc, possibly granny pants would have been a better choice.

    • SnarkySnarkers says:

      I’m sure shes wearing at least a thong but yea….windy day in a dress. C’mon Kate!

    • MediaB says:

      AGree likely she’s probably wearing butt floss (what is the point in everyday life people? Maybe Kate can explain to me…?), and probably normally wears the fug nude hose over the top of them like a “slip” with most outfits… But she must have had something in the suitcases that would have covered her up. It’s not even a tight fitting dress where she could the (no) excuse of trying to avoid VPL.

      • Original Tessa says:

        I wear thongs under pants pretty much every time I wear pants. I don’t like VPL’s. They’re not uncomfortable if you buy the right ones. You get used to it. Now, under dresses, I wear underwear with a butt on it, for exactly the reason we’re in this thread. And if it’s a tight pencil skirt, I wear a thong, but tight pencil skirts don’t fly up in the wind, soo….

        I don’t know. Thongs are used in every day life by me. I just don’t like the look of panty lines.

      • I used to wear thongs (which my autocorrect keeps wanting to change to “things”) a lot in the 90s, but when the little shortie boy shorts came out, that was me finished with them. They are just as good for VPL, and you don’t have to go searching for that special pair of panties depending on what you are wearing. I always hated the thought that my thong might be visible under my pants, because lets face it, there is nothing worse than seeing someone’s thong sticking out the back of her pants. That’s actually worse, IMO.

      • chaine says:

        i wear thongs pretty much every day. The one-size-fits-all lace ones are incredibly comfortable and much nicer than having to unbunch regular panties all day long.

    • Sabrina says:

      I also think it’s more likely that she was wearing a thong rather than not wearing anything under her dress.

      • FLORC says:

        We’ve seen above to the hip and waistline. there was no thong. And if there is a thong here it’s stiill terrible as she’s on the clock representing the BRF.
        And VPL is not an issues these days. Panties and slips can easily hip a seam.

      • Red Snapper says:

        The shot of her coming off the plane in NZ makes it clear: SHE DOES NOT WEAR A THONG!! Not to be gross but you could clearly see her pubic hair and clitoris, plus you could see through her thigh gap to the curvature of her butt.

        You guys she’s all but waving her biscuit in those little kids faces when they give her flowers.

        And it enrages me that the Daily Fail keeps talking about “near misses” when they mention her Marilyn moments. Near misses? She’s been flashing her bare ass again and again and again. And now that one paper has published one photo, when there at least a dozen to choose from, they huff and puff about privacy. People shouldn’t publish pics of Kate bare ass, but God Forbid anyone suggest that Kate should wear panties. How long is this going to go on for? How many times is she going to flash her vag and ass before it can be spoken about openly?

      • Amanduh says:

        @ Red Snapper: apt name as per your comment ;)

  3. birdie says:

    Get it together, Kate. It is not that hard to not flash your privates in public.
    Oh and to show how classy “Bild” is, the title is saying: Thank you for this ass-awesome weekend.

    • Hannah says:

      There sexist idiots, nothing new here.

      • Zimmer says:

        Sexist they may be, yet the 3- women featured are playing right into it and encouraging it. That’s how I see it anyhow.

        Expect that from the Kardashians, but Kate has absolutely no excuse. Just like Kim, I believe she loves attention on her body parts. She flashes all over the place.

    • Montrealise says:

      I saw the cover, too. There are three women: two of the Kardashian sisters and Duchess Kate. Although the pictures all focus on their rear ends, two of the women are wearing pants and the third – guess which one? – is flashing her bare butt. It’s a sad day for the British monarchy when the Kardashians show more decorum than the future Queen Consort.

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    At this point, she’s doing it on purpose.

  5. Nina says:

    Oh God. Can’t really defend her on this one – What was her stylist thinking?? This is not how you represent a country, come on Kate.

  6. BendyWindy says:

    She’s probably wearing a thong.

  7. PunkyMomma says:

    This is just carelessness on Kate’s part. No excuse for all the royal bit shots. She (her dressers) should, as a matter of principle, ensure that those skirts and dresses stay modest.

  8. eliza says:

    Make no mistake, she LOVES all the attention from any place. She KNOWS what she is doing. She is far from dumb.

  9. Annie says:

    I think it possible she’s wearing a thong, however, she should have been wearing underwear that covered her bum. I gave her several breaks before, but now think she’s an exhibitionist, too. For someone in her position to make the decision to wear no underwear while working, or to wear a thong instead of more conservative underwear is either an exhibitionist or excessively stupid.

  10. smee says:

    I bet The Firm will come down hard on her for this. We’ve seen the last of her above-the-knee summer frocks with wedges! It’ll be all wool pencil skirts with girdles from here out.

  11. 30winks says:

    I may be old (41) but my mom taught me to wear slips with skirts and dresses that weren’t lined. Is that old fashioned these days?! Kate wouldn’t have these problems if she wore a damn slip, and she can afford some beautiful pieces too. There are lovely lovely undergarments to be had out there! She needs an intervention.

    I didn’t come from wealth, but my mother had taste and class, and passed on how to chose garments that were well made, and to select fabrics that looked more expensive than others–I guess I lucked out. She could also sew, and made most of our clothes as kids.

    Money cannot buy Kate class, this is just so tacky.

  12. Ellen says:

    OMFG out the damn weights in your dresses, you foolish woman. Argh! These two are going to be the death of me. It’s like they’re reading from a manual, “how to screw up every little damn thing.” Weight your dresses! Do some work! Get a clue!

  13. PS says:

    … and that’s how you marry a Prince !

  14. MediaB says:

    I guess she thinks everyone saw everything when she modelled as a student…so meh.

    It’s very…unbecoming.

  15. Mia4S says:

    I saw her name come up on news alerts and thought maybe she had done something interesting or useful for a change. Hahahahaha! How crazy of me.

    I really do not get the monarchy or deference to it…at all. It’s just so silly these days.

    • bluhare says:

      Just how the Queen wants the monarchy to be viewed. I’d have loved to have been a fly on the wall at Buckingham Palace this weekend!

      • hmmm says:


        Is this sort of thing reported to the Queen?

      • Lady D says:

        My question too. Does the queen even know about these situations? I really can’t see the queen telling Kate to put some panties on. (and, how embarrassing would it be to have a senior/mother-in-law tell you to put some on?)

      • bluhare says:

        I don’t see how she could miss it. The photos aren’t in the British papers, but there are articles about it. If she personally didn’t see it, I bet her office is fielding plenty of questions!

        I mean this is the woman who doesn’t like the word “toilet” because it’s vulgar. Can you imagine her thoughts about Kate’s bum on display at work??

      • LAK says:

        The Queen wouldn’t tell her directly. She’d have her people do it which is more embarrassing.

        HM receives ALL the papers, broadsheets and tabloids, and i’m sure now that she’s all internet savvy for a silver surfer, she probably reads stuff online too.

        I cant imagine being told off by my inlaws [never mind their entourage] about my under garments.

        And the rest of the family are aware of these marilyn moments and don’t let the transgression disappear without somehow communicating that they know
        eg rumour has it that Camilla’s christmas present from her ex-husband in 2012 was a cartoon of naked Kate being papped.

        Let’s not forget Fergie coming down to breakfast at Balmoral to entire family openly perusing whichever tabloid had her toe sucking pics.

      • Liberty says:

        I would love to see them assign Princess Anne to her case for three months.

      • AM says:

        And the entire family reading the tabloids around the table as Diana: Her True Story was serialized and Diana sat there looking innocent!

        Sounds like a great reality show.

  16. I’m about 99% sure she’s wearing a thong of some sort. I mean she would have to be. To be outdoors, near a frigging helicopter, with absolutely no underwear on would be just utterly reckless. And you can say what you want about Kate, but she has never shown herself to be anything close to reckless.

    That said, it confuses me that she wouldn’t go the whole hog to protect herself. After all, what’s the point in always wearing safe, boring, knee-length, respectable, acceptable dresses with nude tights and ugly shoes if you’re going to allow something like this to happen? Put the damn weights in, get some good lining, and carry on pretending you’re just an average girl shopping the highstreet (who just happens to avail of a few hundred pounds worth of tailoring for every look)

  17. mkyarwood says:

    Maybe they were ‘busy’ before they got out of the car.

  18. m says:

    I can’t believe that some people on Twitter and different blogs are turning this into a feminist/sexism argument and claiming that her privacy was violated by the “upskirt” shot. Its as if the photographer went to great lengths for the picture when in reality she was just snapping away and happened to get it. People are constantly making excuses for Kate, no wonder she never learns, she’s always getting by as the victim!

    • bluhare says:

      I agree, m. It would be a privacy issue if she were on her own time, minding her own business, and someone was lurking trying to get photos (like Sarah Ferguson and the topless toe sucking stuff). But it wasn’t. She was AT WORK (or what passes for work for these two), and in public with photographers documenting the event. None of them ran behind her with a fan to get her skirt to blow up from what I’ve heard, so she handed this to them on a silver platter. And someone made 100K from it.

    • Merritt says:

      Because it is a privacy issue. When pictures like this are published of famous people it normalizes creepshots. Creepshots and the people who take/post/publish them should not be tolerated or normalized.

      • AC says:

        I don’t disagree with that. Its not ok to publish these.

      • smara says:

        I disagree. This is not a creepshot. Kate was there to be photographed and expecting to be so. And the expressed outrage in the press and the public solidifies expectations of public nudity in western working women. ‘None’. We are all naked under our clothes. We are expected to wear clothes that cover this nakedness. That is not slut shaming, that is adhering to the social contract. *sses and vadges are still expected to be private. By not taking the necessary precautions, Kate is violating these norms. Hence, endless online shots of her bum. HRH Duch*ss Kate.

      • Merritt says:


        I disagree. This is slut shaming. It is not okay to take pictures of a person in this way. And it is even more wrong to publish it. These pictures are in the same vein as creepshots. It is wrong. End of story. This happens to regular women and it is wrong. And not condemning it allows it to continue.

      • FLORC says:

        Your logic seems very off here.
        A person representing their company/nation/family goes out in a sea of journalist and paps. They wear a light, flowy dress with no weights and no slip and at most a thong on a very breezy day. Shutter speeds are high. This is a known pattern and is almost a guarantee for Kate and dresses.
        And it’s not slut shaming. Kate appears to love showing off her body and has for well over a decade without giving it a 2nd thought or attempting to prevent a photog of getting another shot.

        If an exhibitionist wants to flaunt they will flaunt. And we accepting this and not condemning it is not promoting it.
        Much like a smoker. They want to smoke. It’s their body. By us not preventing this person from smoking we’re not promoting smoking. It’s not black and white. If that makes sense.

      • bluhare says:

        I get your point and see the parallels, Merritt. Another woman took this photograph, and I suspect it was a lucky shot that caught her skirt just at the right moment.

        Whether Bild should have bought and published the photo is another story. To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about that. It isn’t newsworthy and it does pander to prurient interests. But Kate knows from experience what can happen and she continued to think it was no big deal. And found out it is.

      • hmmm says:


        So Kate is merely a victim and bears no responsibility for her behaviour? To comment on her lack of decency and propriety is not s***-shaming. However, it seems to behoove some to attempt to shame others from having opinions about decency and propriety.

        @smara argued this brilliantly. There is a social contract whether people like it or not. Conversations about propriety and decency are within the norms of that social contract. The tabloids ought to be ashamed of buying such photos taken of anyone; but Kate is just a culpable for behaving without a thought to propriety. She doesn’t give her child and what he will see in the future a thought, which I find way more shameful than anything else. George’s mama was a floozy. That is going to be his legacy.

      • Merritt says:


        My logic is fine, thanks.

        It doesn’t matter who this happens to. The person to blame is the person who takes the picture and then those who publish it etc. End of story. No one should ever think they are immune to someone else taking advantage of a wardrobe problem they might have.

        Are you kidding me? She is being shamed, I’ve seen numerous comments about how trashy she is and how horrible etc. No shade on the photographer or publishers though.

        The gender of the photographer doesn’t matter. It was wrong to take, sell,a dn publish the picture.


        Part of the “social contract” is also not being a disgusting creeper. And when you take, publish or promote this type of thing, that is what you are doing.

        You can claim it is not slut shaming all you want. But it clearly is. You even went on to call her a floozy. That is slut shaming.

        And once again, normalizing this behavior hurts non-famous women. They are the ones being targets by so called revenge porn sites. The parallels are very clear.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        There are underlying gender issues at play here that have nothing to do with Kate’s culpability. That is why it doesn’t matter if she is a moron or an exhibitionist. The point being made top thread, imo, is that a male dominated media presence gets to guide the conversation we have about our bodies, our views and what is acceptable. This is a problem. But few will engage in dialogue about this because we are wagging our fingers at Kate and reducing her to (insert noun of choice)
        Kate can be and is in the wrong here but I, personally, could care less The fact that upskirt shots, nip slips, thigh gaps etc exists as a lucrative pap market should tell us how low we’ve sunk and become complicit in this crass objectification.
        Shame on the photographer, the German website and the clicks we have all given this story, myself included. And the ‘she asked for it/deserves it’ just gives me the creeps as a female.

      • AC says:

        You nailed it Dame. She’s an idiot for putting herself in a position where this could happen, but a decent human being would not publish this. I suspect the almighty dollar won out here. Look what Harry got away with in Vegas. Everyone still loved him! (Including me). We can speculate all we like and yes its fun, (guilty as charged) but its sad that someone can take a shot up a dress and publish it for cash and that seems to be ok, while she takes a ton of heat.
        Just put your damn underwear on for gods sake!!

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Thank you for this. I had forgotten about the Harry stuff. He also was rumored to have drunkenly stripped down at one of his father’s birthday parties but no one calls him trashy or a vulgar exhibitionist. And when Will was snapped full frontal urinating after a polo match most of the comments were whistling and cat calling in nature as if he were a sexy male dancer or something.the fact that the photog found a market is depressing.

      • FLORC says:

        Kate is being criticized imo and not shamed.
        And it’s a very small amount that are calling her trashy. Very small and it appears your making it a blanket statement.

        I still think your logic is flawed and plays to an extreme to exaggerate your point..

      • bluhare says:

        Snarkweek, I don’t think people have said she deserves this.

        Merritt, I get your point, I do, but this isn’t slut shaming. This is called dressing appropriately for your environment, and Kate doesn’t do it. I didn’t mean to imply it was OK because a woman took the photo. But the fact of the matter is she got lucky, very very lucky if you define luck as the ability to make a lot of money for getting a shot at the absolute worst possible time for the subject.

      • Jaded says:

        @Merritt – it’s not slut shaming. No woman who is in a public service role like the BRF should deliberately go out without underwear or with the merest hint of butt floss on a windy tarmac with a floaty little dress on knowing full well the cameras are going to be trained on her every move. This has happened on too many occasions now and it’s either deliberate on her part and Wills’ or she’s just a vapid girl who hasn’t grown up beyond being a 21 year-old rich little club hopper who loves to show off her body at every opportunity. It’s a shame he married someone so obviously immature as she can’t seem to grasp the enormity of her role and the dignity to which she should treat it.

      • Merritt says:

        @FLORC , bluhare, and Jaded

        It is slut shaming, you can claim it is not until you are all blue in the face. It is slut shaming. I also think it is pretty clear that you all need to look up what slut shaming is, because that is what is happening here. It doesn’t matter who she is or what she is supposed to represent.

        It is wrong for people to take/publish/promote these types of pictures. It doesn’t matter if you are a member of the BRF or a nobody walking down the street.

        That reality is all the people condemning here, are gleefully doing so. They are not horrified, they are excited to have something to bash her about. Because of course women’s bodies are considered public property. As someone pointed out, both William and Harry have done things publicly involving nudity. But are not bashed, instead people just give it a wink and a nod.

      • FLORC says:

        So, it seems we live in a society that has a camera in a pocket at all times and we love to use them. We live in world with limited privacy. And that’s just us as civilians. Not public figures like the BRF.
        So, maybe we are desensitized to our lack of privacy for ourselves and feel no issue in disrupting the privacy of others. Maybe we are promoting it if not condemning it, but you are pot calling the kettle black.
        You are here shaming others on other threads. You are here promoting a site that posts and promotes this behavior you believe to be shaming.

        And.. What Suze Said below.

      • Merritt says:


        Seriously? So now anyone is is creeped on is to blame and not the creeper?
        That is disturbing on so many levels.

        And now moving into a personal attack. No actual argument, so you just say that I’m shaming others and that ends it. Perhaps it is time to get re-sensitized to the concept of privacy and shut down and condemn those who violate it.

        Like I said, you can live in denial about slut shaming. But just remember contributing to slut shaming has real life consequences for all women.

        FYI, what Suze said below indicated a complete lack of comprehension regarding what slut shaming is,. And then tried to claim the same thing happened with Harry. But not actually, since with Harry is was very much the wink and a nod I referred to.

      • bluhare says:

        Merritt, yes this does have consequences for regular women. It might make a lot of women realize you need to be dressed appropriately. Yes, there are creeps doing weird-ass shit to women and posting it online. I do not see how this encourages it. It was not someone sneaking up and seriously violating someone’s privacy by doing an upskirt shot, and if it does enourage it, then please see my second sentence. Shit happens, and Kate got photographed when it did. End of story.

        IMO, you cheapen your argument by calling it slut shaming which is a trite description of a serious issue. When ever I see that descriptor I run for the hills, as I do with body shaming and pretty much any other shaming as it’s a flip and easy way to label something without discussing it. Sometimes shaming is a great behavior modifier, and it’s end result isn’t always bad. IMO, this is one of those times. If it helps her modify her behavior in the future so this doesn’t happen again, then it isn’t all bad. That being said, if history is the great predictor it doesn’t look good.

        I really take umbrage at your comment regarding Suze. She’s one of the most rational people on this board, and she does have an excellent grasp of the issue. You might notice her today at work . . . she’s the one with her skirt hiked up around her waist enjoying the breeze . . . .

    • Suze says:

      Slut-shaming? The most pointless phrase on earth. It means nothing anymore.

      No one was shaming Kate for her sexuality or her body. No one is trying to put her in a Burka. Just pointing out that it’s foolish to run around in unweighted lightweight, loose dresses with your ass exposed – particularly when you know that you will be getting in and out of a helicopter. Get one of your people to sew weights in your hems and for that appointment, wear a pair of boy cut underpants. It’s very easily solved.

      If William had a habit of walking around with his fly unzipped, or was swinging it commando a la Jon Hamm, I’d wag my finger at him too. Well, he can do that in his private life all he wants, but keep it contained and zipped in public.

      I say these things not because I’m a prude, but because they are stupid and sloppy things to do.

      And Harry did get plenty of grief for running around nude. Go look up the CB thread. Slut shamed from here to eternity. ; ).

      • The Original Mia says:

        Well said, Suze! Well said.

      • bluhare says:

        Totally and completely agree, Suze.

      • GracePM says:

        Remember she did this while working. Even if the photographers didn’t take the photos, there are still people, including children at these events that have been exposed by no choice of their own.
        I would have preferred the photos be published with the blur.

      • Jaded says:

        Spot on Suze – this defense of what amounts to be the most inappropriate and ill-thought out behaviour of hers has got to stop because she’s making the BRF into more of a gong show than they already are.

      • J.Mo says:

        Well said, Suze. Merritt is outvoted and has to go look up “slut-shaming.” To me, it IS wrong to sell these photos and to be able to make a hefty profit.
        Is it wrong to pose for them, Merritt? -because people seem to think she is setting them up herself. I am not tantalized and excited by these slip-ups, intentional or not. I’m perplexed. I’m also very disappointed because I love Kate and Will & the “idea” of the royal family and wish that other people enjoyed the usual show as naively as I try to.
        Kate is not careful. I don’t care if she curses and swears, but when she is working, I fully expect her not to. I’m not clutching my pearls but she should conduct herself for fans of royalty and critics of royalty as if we are all wearing pearls and are ready to clutch when she doesn’t follow decorum.

      • Merritt says:

        @J. Mo

        Outvoted? I really don’t care if people agree with me or not. I know that I’m right. The more people people ganging up on me, reassures me of that. I understand what slut shaming is. I’m horrified that so many do not get it and refuse to see why it hurts all women when these pictures are taken and published, and when the photographer and publications are not condemned for being disgusting individuals.

        There s a difference between what a person poses for and what they do not. Take Kate Winslet for example. She has appeared nude in several films. That is her choice. But if someone takes a nude picture or video of her without her consent, that is wrong. It is not complicated.

        It is problematic to call her out for not being careful. This is the same logic used to blame women when they are physically attacked etc. And there is a connection here.

        This entire topic completely feeds into #yesallwomen. Because only women have their bodies considered public property.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Personally speaking, I don’t care what Kate wears below her skirts. The problem now is that I, along with the rest of the world, do know and will forever have these images imprinted on my mind – yet something else that takes away the focus of the occasion. Will Kate’s skirt flip up? Is she wearing a thong or nothing at all? Everyone’s attention will now be concentrated on the next possible peep show. Normally, a lady’s undergarments (or lack of) is a matter between her and her husband, and she has the responsibility when she’s a public figure in a public venue with the eyes of the world upon her to dress appropriately for the occasion and not allow anyone else a peek up her privates. As well as being prepared for the weather conditions, locations and modes of transportation that can cause such fly ups, she must realize that her derriere is now the most famous part of her anatomy and photographers, whether professional or amateur, will be aiming at it for the money shot. It’s reprehensible and degrading that the media does that, but Kate’s participating in her own downfall because she just won’t do a damned thing about it after having these horrid fly ups for the umpteenth time. All I can think of is what’s the matter with her? And what’s her purpose, because this has now got to be deliberate. Any one of us caught exposing our panties (which I hope we’re wearing) to the general public would have it happen just the once because we’re dying of embarrassment, horror, shame and mortification and would take immediate measures to ensure that this would NEVER happen again. Kate is arguably one of the most famous women in the world, and for her to be so continually blase about one of the most humiliating circumstances that could happen to any woman in public makes me wonder about her mindset and question her motives.

      If the Queen or no one else in the royal circle can’t get through to her, where is Carole Middleton in this scenario? I’m sure Kate must listen closely to her mother’s advice, and this is certainly a crucial time where Mom should strongly dispense it, as long as she doesn’t have the same cavalier attitude as her daughter’s. That’s if Kate even listens to her now. Otherwise, this whole house of cards the Middletons have built up will collapse with Kate being disrespected and as the laughing stock of the world. A dignified and suitable Queen Consort? William’s own judgment in choosing a woman so highly unsuitable for a royal role? I think not.

  19. Francis says:

    Kate’s just trashy and common and I don’t mean social level.
    How people continue to defend her is beyond my scope of comprehension.
    IMO She obviously just doesn’t give a crap if her bare bottom shows. She likes being in thongs and topless or bottomless outside as we saw in the France vacation photos.

    I believe the British press has a lot more of these photos that they never print because they have an agenda to make the world see her in a certain way since she is Queen Consort of the future, but it’s when she goes to other Countries the photogs don’t hide it and show the photos.

    IMO Kate’s kind of low class in behavior and trashy. She’s too busy always trying to play sexpot in some way.

    In the UK this would have been hidden and more of the Kate never puts a foot wrong mantra repeated. I think she just doesn’t get what it means to represent the crown in a dignified manner.
    She married a Prince but she still lacks class. They need to send her back to Princess school, but sadly the class part can’t be taught.

    • Sixer says:

      I think UK press reporting is quite complex:

      * there is an element of deference (or wanting to appear deferential without actually being it, anyway)
      * the Cambridge penchant for litigation
      * the hacking scandal
      * etc, etc

      But in this case, they are only reporting it as a privacy issue so that they can get away with reporting it without any trouble. And the subtext is shade on the Cambridges. Faux privacy outrage.

    • aenflex says:

      As an non-English person, I think the whole ‘Royal family representing a country’ is kinda sad anyway. I wouldn’t want to live in any country where a handful of closely-bred people are the chosen few who represent it. We all know they aren’t the decision-makers anyhow, monarchy is basically dead. Not that I have any kind of problem with England or Great Britain as a whole, I don’t. But I don’t see the sense in Kate’s ass-flashing being representative of an entire country, and if it is indeed that, I think it’s sad,

    • I’ve heard a lot things said about Kate Middleton. I have NEVER heard her described as a sexpot. That’s hilarious.

    • in_theory says:

      “How people continue to defend her is beyond my scope of comprehension.”
      Probably because some people here get a tiny bit carried away with their hate-ons for her. For a person they have never met, who has done nothing to them personally and who doesn’t matter one bit in the grander scheme of things, no less.

      • FLORC says:

        The site deals with escapism. When I take issue with the hate this site can house I simply don’t come back.

        And you’re wrong in this case. Lots of people here pay for the Cambridges. How they live and spend directly impacts some posters here. And those posters have every right to complain about how their money is being wasted by Kate, William and the rest of the BRF.
        Also, they have the right to complain about how their country is being represented.

      • in_theory says:

        How is their money being wasted by Kate showing off her butt? And I wasn’t commenting on the monarchy as a whole, which I have pointed out as being superfluous more than once in other threads and which people have every right to criticise. Calling Kate personally trashy, low-class and stupid without knowing her at all, though, has nothing to do with complaining about how the Cambridges waste money. For me that’s simply mean and hateful. For you it’s escapism.

      • Sixer says:


        Money isn’t wasted BY Kate showing off her butt. But one can make a case for Kate wasting British taxpayers’ money by not living up to her role as a representative of state – in a constitutional monarchy, that’s what she is. Her role is constitutional. The monarchy costs £200 million a year to maintain. You can make a case for her not living up to her role in two ways – the amount of work she does; whether she exhibits appropriate behaviour when she is doing it. She doesn’t do very much. She doesn’t dress appropriately to a constitutional role when she DOES do her not very much. This is how her butt can reasonably be seen as a money-waster.

        BTW: I am British. I am a lukewarm republican. (I say lukewarm, because on my list of priorities for my country, changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic would be way down at the bottom. It doesn’t affect the day-to-day democracy in any significant way. So it’s just a principle thing for me. And not a principle that’s going to improve the lives of many Brits).

  20. M.A.F. says:

    I’m with the thong group. Maybe when she is in public she should be a little more aware, especially if it is windy, of what she is wearing.

    I might also be the only person rolling their eyes at this story.

  21. lucy says:

    It’s a bit of a leap to say she’s not wearing underwear. While I’m not outraged by it, I do think it’s happened too many times and that she should start adding those little weights in the hems.

  22. Beth says:

    Who doesn’t wear underwear? Is this a thing I missed? What the hell!

  23. Original Tessa says:

    I usually find a way to excuse her for the little stuff like this, but she doesn’t have enough clothing on underneath that short flimsy little dress. She had to know this was a possibility and just didn’t care… and to that, I shake my head.

  24. Talie says:

    The world has seen her breasts, I don’t know if she cares. There is something slightly exhibitionistic about her despite how dull she *seems.*

  25. maichan says:

    Would I be a prude if I just simply refuse to look at images of royal bits anywhere? I wonder. I shuddered even when I read a comment that maybe william and kate were’busy’ in the car and thought ‘eww…’. As far as I’m concerned, personally, william is like a ken doll He has no bits and I don’t want to think otherwise because royals should be busy doing royal-y things without their bits hanging out. Kate just shattered that illusion for me. Evil. Beautiful bottom. But still makes me want to bleach my brain.

    • Belle says:

      Oh… but… but, can we make an exception for Harry’s bits??? Please? Now, I’m not suggesting that we should see his actual jewels in public per say, but maybe just a thinly veiled preview of what might be expected in a private showing?

  26. Mich says:

    She is too tacky for words.

  27. aenflex says:

    Her ass looks great. She could have been wearing a thong?

    • Francis says:

      How is a thing better somehow? It’s STILL tacky. Future Consort goes out with a string up her butt and no slip, no weighted hems. It’s so cheap. Girl needs to get it together. She’s going to end up worse than Fergie is my prediction, I think she is a bit like Fergie anyway, but the press hides it.

  28. Dany says:

    now i have pictures in my head… Kate meeting sick children in hospital while wearing no underwear under her light little dresses :(

    oh my and now i wonder how unhygienic it is to shake hands with someone who grabs her hair every 2 minutes… talk about natural oils and hairstyling products… wandering from hand to hand…

  29. Pumpkin Pie says:

    I am pretty speechless, She is embarrassing to watch and I find her an embarrassment to the Royal family. Future queen (sorry I don’t know how to bold that out).

  30. Francis says:

    Totally real photo, British press including, Tanna already confirmed that all over twitter. It’s real.
    Why is it so hard to believe Kate walks around with chances of her rear end being exposed, we have all seen this behavior from her several times before.

    IMO She just doesn’t care,she enjoys the sexpot attention she gets and she’s rather trashy.
    Pr. William didn’t decide to date her until she model the see through lingerie dress,so maybe this is what he likes too. Either way it cheapens al the work her handlers and the Monarchy is trying to do to give her some gravitas. She just doesn’t get it and never will IMO.

    William would have been screaming to high heaven if it was fake.
    The Palace is not even defending her this time and that in itself says a lot about the whole thing. They probably threw their hands up at this point. She’s hopeless.

  31. Isa says:

    The dress doesn’t look thin to me? I couldn’t tell it was see through.

    She’s probably wearing a thong. Either way, I never go commando or wear a thong with a dress for this very reason.

  32. Melymori says:

    Maybe she does because she knows she is boring?… Everytime I see her on the news I fall asleep. The only thing entertaining she has done IMO is baby George.

  33. FLORC says:

    Kate skipped underwear and modesty garments when meeting loads of photographers during a work event outside with known breezes and light fabric because of course she did.

    This is her thing.
    I’ve happened upon more images of Kate’s privates more than Kims. And she has a tape! That should say a lot to how often Kate flashes.

  34. Selina says:

    I for one think MORE of her for not caring about upholding arbitrary standards of propriety. What’s so harmful about seeing a woman’s (beautiful) body? Are we so scandalized by the female form? If she’s doing it on purpose, good for her for subverting these arbitrary rules of conduct. It’s likely the only form of freedom she feels as Duchess and it’s an act of personal rebellion. I’m not offended.

    • Francis says:


      Then she should move to a nudist retreat, where she can really be Free.

    • Jaded says:

      Let’s not turn this into an platform for fighting against arbitrary standards of propriety or rules of conduct forced upon us poor women – it is nothing more than crass exhibitionism because let’s face it, I doubt if she even knows what the word “arbitrary” means. She’s as dumb as a box of candy floss and her behaviour shows it. She’s not there to show off her cute body body in some misguided attempt to break free of the shackles of repression, she’s there to represent the BRF in a respectful manner. She’s there to promote Great Britain and to attract people to the notion of staying in the Commonwealth, not to have them eagerly anticipate her next booty show.

    • bluhare says:

      I’m not offended, Selina, but I have a question. Would your boss go easy on you if you’d flashed your bits at least three times while at work? Especially if you’d flashed them at clients? Which Kate did as the public are her clients.

      Even if you flashed just your coworkers, how would you like it brought up at every Christmas party after that?

      • Christin says:

        This is exactly what floors me. She is working. My work dress code requires ‘appropriate undergarments’ and we are less formal dress than royal work requires. Yet if a guy at my workplace has a Hamm-type pants issue or a female’s skirt blows up and exposes her bum, it would be viewed as unprofessional and certainly not for repeat at work.

        I’m in the minority that thinks she had NO underwear. The photo I saw showed her waist and there was no sign of even a tiny string going across it. She could afford comfortable, no VPL undergarments that cover her for her WORK engagements.

        I now cringe to think of the view kids may get when she bends down to accept their flowers and gifts.

      • wolfpup says:

        Total cringe…children!

    • Patty says:

      Technically she was working. There is nothing subversive or awesome about flashing tits, cock, ass, or your vagina when working/while at work – unless you are a stripper. It’s just stupid and classless.

    • Suze says:

      You are right!

      Tomorrow when i am work I am going to sit at my desk with my skirt hiked about my waist.

      When HR comes to haul me off the premises, I am going to use those very arguments to make my point!

    • hmmm says:

      Yep, she is subversive, indeed. Floozies of the realm now have their own Royal representative. A great blow for floozies everywhere! It’s about time! :)

    • Racer says:

      Good for you! I look forward to seeing a picture of you naked grocery shopping. The revolution starts with you!

      • Selina says:

        She was fully clothed for work. It was the wind that exposed her yet we’re acting like she’s committed a sin because we saw her *gasp* butt cheeks. I just think the pearl clutching and disparaging remarks (calling her an idiot, etc.) should be reserved for something actually offensive, i.e., harmful to society. She’s in the most scrutinized proper position and this carefree attitude manifest in what she wears or doesn’t wear under her clothes is likely the most freedom she can probably feel.

      • Suze says:

        Not the wind, Selina, the updraft from the helicopter. Which she was well aware she would be riding.

        And this is not the first time it happened. No one thinks it’s a sin, and I see very little “pearl clutching” – only eye rolling over the stupidity of it all.

        I agree that it doesn’t make her an idiot, but it does make her a slow learner, and someone who repeatedly makes the same mistakes over and over again.

        She has a lot of free time. She can manifest her pantie freedom then.

      • J.Mo says:

        Maybe she curses and swears as well as enjoys going commando, but when making public appearances she needs to think of the royalty fans and critics and behave accordingly. I curse and swear, but when I am a Duchess, I will refrain and wear panties too.

    • Montrealise says:

      If she feels so constrained by the rules of propriety that she needs to rebel in this way, maybe she should not have married into the Royal Family.

  35. Delta Juliet says:

    I would be MORTIFIED if I had a wardrobe malfunction and I am just a little ole nobody that no one cares about. How can the future Queen be so blasé about it? Wife and mother to two future kings? I’m not prude but it’s inappropriate. And saying “maybe she’s wearing a thong”….really, that doesn’t make it any better.

  36. aimee says:

    I wonder if the same people who fawned over her outfits during the tour and oohed and aahed about what she wore every day are the same people who are “up in arms” over this transgression?? Personally, I think her “fashion sense” is over-rated and this latest incident isn’t worth the attention it’s receiving. Maybe if Kate was an interesting, charismatic person and actually had some semblance of a work ethic, we would be beyond talking and debating about trivial stuff like this? Oh well..

  37. Francis says:

    Oh I agree her fashion is boring as hell and not worth the accolades, but a future Queens bare rear end , well, it’s worth the coverage. I think the people saying it’s not worth covering, don’t want people to see how trashy she might be.
    She does this type of thing on a regular basis, there is no excuse for it at this point.
    A thong is no back coverage of a persons rear end, it’s basically a nude backside. There is no more defense for Kate, IMO she doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Lacks class.

  38. Sayrah says:

    Ugh I don’t get the criticism of this woman. She was probably wearing a thong. I don’t think she’s capable of making the wind blow. Maybe she’ll get some weights for her dresses which are lovely for spring and summer I have to say.

    • pleaseicu says:

      Thong or not, why does she need to flash anyone at all? Once is an accident and mistake. I don’t think there’s a female member of any modern monarchy that hasn’t had one accidental dress mishap. However, once is enough for those female members to learn to either wear a slip or weight their hems so it doesn’t happen again. Except for Kate. She’s on number five or six of these “mishaps” of her flashing the public at public appearances. It seems almost intentional at this point.

      And it wasn’t a natural wind that caused her dress to blow up. It occurred when she was exiting the helicopter that transported them to their destination. She’s married to a helicopter pilot. She routinely travels by helicopter. She knows the hazards involved in wearing light fabric skirts/dresses in such conditions. How hard is it to just put on a slip for an afternoon?

  39. Aeryn39 says:

    I think Kate’s waiting game showed she’s not stupid. I believe she knows exactly what she’s doing. I think it’s mental, but I’m sure she has her reasons.

    And I don’t get all this talk about thongs and VPL when they make paper-thin seamless underpants that give full coverage and leave absolutely no VPL. I have several pair from Intimissi (sp???) which I used for various costumes when I’d have a quick change in the wings and didn’t feel like mooning the stage hands. I’ve also worn them with day wear. You see nothing but if you bend over or if you encounter a breeze, the world doesn’t become your gyno. They’re $10 a pop!! And there are plenty of other high market ones as well – she could afford any of them, she simply chooses not to.

    Personally, I think it’s her way of saying step off to The Firm. I thinking showing her a*! (literally) is a way to thumb her nose at TPTB. Too bad she overestimates her popularity as a work-shy Royal WAG (BTW – now that I know what a WAG is, I use it far too much, LOL!)

    • Christin says:

      I found full coverage ones that advertise and deliver no VPL. They are a different brand than what you mention, but are just under 10 dollars a pair. They are so lightweight you can barely feel them (could never say that about wearing a thong).

    • hmmm says:

      That is what I suspect as well- the naked rear is her way of giving the powers that be the finger, a show of defiance. On this last tour, it was a mash up of long, conservative severely buttoned up clothes and then potential to flash her naughty bits, with success. Seems erratic. Probably her pea brained version of a master plan. It’s something she can control.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Then I think she should have never willingly accepted royal life with this passive-aggressive attitude if she couldn’t cope with its demands and doesn’t care for public life. I’m tired of this 32-year-old refusing to grow up and accept the rules of the Royal Family in exchange for her lavish lifestyle and privileges. It’s a business, it’s her job, so get on with it! It’s fine to keep a streak of independence, but I’m sure there are other ways she can demonstrate her spark and personality without “cheekily” embarrassing the position and institution she represents.

  40. Nibbi says:

    This is someone with money, time, and readily available wardrobe assistance whose main “job” is to look presentable and classy while representing her country.

  41. MissMary says:

    I wonder if it’s her way of rebelling against the image the Firm wants her to cultivate: meek and polite wife and mother who does “good works” and dresses in bland, Queen-approved fashions. StG not going to be surprised if she’s subjected to underpants checks before leaving the grounds from now on, and them making sure they’re industrial granny panties that go above her navel.

    • diana says:

      I LOL picturing the Queen sticking her nose underneath Kate’s dresses to check for underwear.

    • Selina says:

      That’s what I figure as well, MissMary. This bit of irreverence in her spirit that she’s kept up is surprising and refreshingly brazen. She may have always been an exhibitionist, since that’s how her husband noticed her, and retaining that part of herself is reclaiming ownership of her body after submitting it to the body politic to rip apart, as we do. Public life and its duties are clearly not something she enjoys so it makes sense that she continues to not change this about herself/rebel in this way.

      • Montrealise says:

        She may not enjoy public life and its duties, but she sure seems to love all the perks and privileges that go with her role. Nobody forced her to marry into the Royal Family. She seems to want it both ways – be a princess and yet not have to do all of the icky things that princesses are supposed to do, like work for charities and wear appropriate undergarments.

  42. GracePM says:

    Did she have these flashing moments when she was just Waity? Or did she just start doing this after she got married?

    • FLORC says:

      Many times she was caught exiting cars in miniskirts with thongs and without. Also, nipslips.
      She also sunbathed topless, but I believe that to be a non issue.
      During the same time she dressed well for weddings. She wore slips and pencil skirts.

      IMO private events and personal time with family should be off limits. When you alert the paps to your location, get dressed up for the paps because you know they’re waiting for you at specific points you can choose to avoid, or are out for a public engagement you should cover up and put your best foot forward.

      There is no defense for this. Had this been a diplomat or diplomats adult daughter, or even a celeb at a public or charity event it would be deemed trashy by many here who defend Kate only because it’s Kate.

  43. PennyLane says:

    Her husband must know about this. There’s no way he can’t know she is going out on work engagements with no panties on.

    I wonder if her not wearing underwear during their forced (from their point of view) public appearances might be a little rebellious “thing” that they have between them. A naughty secret, if you will, that is sometimes shared with the world.

  44. alex says:

    good luck to the commonwealth you will curtsy to the queen of butts and shes nasty!!!!!

  45. mollie says:

    Probably wearing a thong and I guess I’m the only one who doesn’t see a bit of a butt cheek as a scandal.
    It just doesn’t offend me, I wish I had that bottom and the confidence not to care if the wind blew up.

  46. hmmm says:

    What is the point of being Queen if you can’t command your representative to cover up her bits? What’s wrong with this picture? And Carole must be so proud.

    I hope that this time there are repercussions for this continuous exhibitionism. Perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen her at the glam events lately.

  47. lucy2 says:

    Always wear underwear.

  48. Marianne says:

    She can’t exactly control what the wind will be like. I’ve had a few Marilyn moments myself! However, I make sure to wear underwear.

  49. feebee says:

    I think she’s was probably wearing a thong because even she isn’t THAT stupid. What if the front of the dress was blown up?

    There are two sides to this debate and after reading #YesAllWomen, it only reinforced that I think we need to think about that.

    Even Princess Diana wore weighted hemlines, so it’s not a new idea, so Kate might want to try that, and there’s a reason I double-knickered when playing sport in a short skirt and why water polo players usually wear two swimsuits, c’mon Kate, a little common sense.

    But in this culture it’s okay to publish these photos, it’s okay to continue to say to women, I don’t care if you were caught in an unfortunate moment. Your embarrassment, especially if it has anything to do with normally undercover body parts is fair game to be published. The goal here is ridicule and titillation. It happens much more often to females and is much more acceptable. I disagree that they wouldn’t have published if it had been William sans undies in a kilt but I bet the reaction would have been different.

    Bottom line (sorry), once again the girls are being told “Do (this) so we won’t sexually objectify you, rather than let’s stop sexually objectifying women”.

  50. JessSaysNo says:

    She’s not wearing a thong! It’s not 2002 so… just no. Obviously she just hates wearing underwear which is ODD as hell for being a public person. At least wear a slip DAMN!

  51. Sharon Lea says:

    Diana had her skirts weighted, this is not a new concept. As everyone is saying, this has happened too many times, it is surprising she would take such risks. Wish someone with a psyche degree would weigh in as to why someone would be an exhibitionist. What was hidden from us during their courtship? I have read that William was shielded in the press from negative stories, whereas Harry was fair game. Maybe Kate was too.

  52. Patty Cake says:

    She disgusts me. why did Prince William marry her again. showing her @ss in public while holding office, who does that? She might as we’ll be another Anthony Weiner. I believe this crap is staged. What woman, who has any decency, who holds an important office btw, would continuously wear inappropriate clothing only to have well organized wardrobe malfunctions while she is on business? People can say what they want about our current FLOTUS but at least she respects herself and the current position she has enough to get something as simple as wardrobe correct. No one wants to be disrespected by your @ss Kate

  53. shelley says:

    She very well may be wearing a thong, but for God’s sake, she needs to wear a slip if that’s the case. She is royalty, which she seems to forget, and no one is supposed to see royal ass cheeks.

  54. wow says:

    Kate, Kate, Kate… sighs.

    I’m trying to hang in there with you, but these flashes need to stop girlfriend. I understand that Kate can’t control the wind BUT even I will admit that this is unacceptable because it keeps on happening! As some mentioned earlier, once could be excused. It happens once, you are made aware and FIX the issue. Especially for someone in her position. I really don’t understand her refusing to take the weather into consideration when chosing these dresses. And I doubt it’s for lack of anyone trying to help her. I read somewhere (after the airplane flash) that people have suggested things to her (like weighting the hems) but she refuses to do those things.

    She has lovely legs, sure, but save that for your Prince. The world doesn’t need to see. I saw a website that showed her skirt blowing up on several public appearances. I had no idea there were that many. Kate, get it together. No excuse for this to keep happening. I wonder if she’s buying into the press of being the hottest Royal Wife or something. It’s just odd that this keeps being a reoccuring thing. Especially for someone in her position.

  55. Deedee says:

    Pity. Instead of being remembered as a fashion icon, she’ll just be remembered for her naked pics. Honestly, Kate, invest in some slip shorts or at least boy shorts and hem weights if you want to wear full flimsy skirt dresses so that people will remember you and not various stages of undress. Its not amusing. At all.

  56. Green Is Good says:

    Even Marilyn didn’t have this many moments.

  57. Maggie says:

    Oh how dare she show us her ass!! It appears they are finished for the day and walking away with William’s arm around her. He may have accidently pulled her dress up and the wind caught the hem. I dont think for a second she’s a flasher on purpose. Accidents happen.

  58. PoliteTeaSipper says:

    I like Kate, and consider myself pro Kate, but FOR GOD’S SAKE WEIGH YOUR DAMN HEMS

  59. Kelly says:

    She’s either really dumb or really tacky. Or both…

  60. diana says:

    You guys don’t get it, do you? Let me explain the situation: she is wearing a house robe, so why would she be wearing any underwear? Good grief you ladies..do you get it know?


    Glad we are on the same page. :P

  61. Abby says:

    You know, I keep wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I’m done. COME ON KATE. GET IT TOGETHER.

  62. sam says:

    if not intentional, I would think it’s what she got for being so vain (fake) – her waist is long and legs are short, also her built is like a man – wide shoulders and narrow hips, therefore she always prefers wearing dresses with big flairs, and belts that are lifted at least 10 cm above her real waistline, together with the 5′” high heels to give the illusion that she has super long and lean legs ….. these flashings are bound to happen if you ladies try to wear your dresses with a waistline a bit higher, try it, cross the street with even a slight wind, you know what I mean.

  63. HK9 says:

    Damn girl, I like you but if you’re not going to weight your hems, wear some underwear!!!!! You need something between you and the rest of the world OK?!

  64. bettyrose says:

    Ugh could we not call people “trashy”? Her exhibitionism is odd for someone who worked so hard for that title, but using words like trashy or common just plays into the class system. And it’s a tad sexist. Personally, I think it’s funny that she’s pulling her private rebellion this way. And even if you don’t find it funny, you can call out her behavior without diminishing her humanity.

  65. Chris says:

    Christ who cares? It’s just a bit of flesh. Unless you are extremely, anally prudish or over 80, it’s not a big deal.

  66. Meg says:

    you marry someone like him for the attention, her family already has money. so maybe she just eats up the attention

  67. Reece says:

    Can we officially stop calling them “Marilyn” moments? IIRC the only time I’ve ever seen Marilyn Monroe’s naked a$$ is in Playboy, which is entirely appropriate. Hell even in a couple of those she had on underwear.

  68. lunchcoma says:

    I really want to introduce her to this thing called the pencil skirt.

  69. Tess says:

    Look I like Kate. I accept that she will probably never do anything worthwhile with her role, she’d rather shop all day. Whatever, let the other working royals overshadow her. Personally, I think that we’ll see Harry being much more of a central figure in the BRF in the years to come, and I think he could and often does very easily overshadow William. BUT, Kate needs to wear underwear. Thongs are fine, I love them, but as someone who’s had her skirt blow up in strong winds, while wearing tights and a thong, it’s embarrassing and not something I’d like to have happen again. If she hates underwear, fine. Wear a slip or pants or a pencil skirt. She does this so frequently that it has to be an exhibitionist thing at this point. She has gone out in public MANY times before the ring without underwear, flashing her vagina to the paps. Pictures exist. She’s done this time and time again, and it’s baffling.

    • word says:

      She has the means to buy the most comfortable underwear money can buy. There’s no excuse. Especially when you’re on a trip where cameras are following you around the whole time. It’s classless. How can you feel confident and relaxed in a flow skirt on a windy day with no panties on when you know your pic is going to be taken non-stop all day? I don’t get her reasoning.

      I too think Harry will out-shine his brother. I think Kate is perfectly fine living the life she lives and I doubt we’ll really see her shine. Her job was to produce an heir. She did that.

  70. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    A cry for attention? I think that’s what Diana’s eating disorder was (and I think Kate has one too). Subconsciously people can feel that even bad attention is better than no attention.

  71. Cricket says:

    I wonder if this is her subtle signal to William she is ready for baby and maternity break part deux? IIRC after the balcony expose, she got preggers with George…

    Seriously though there is zero excuse for this time and again especially when she was scheduled to be there, know full well photos will be snapped and such. I’m guessing if she isn’t preggers soon, she will be starting a new fashion trend of pants.

    And remember, it was not summer in Australia when they were there, I believe it was beginning of their autumn.

    • andrea says:

      what was the balcony expose?

      • FLORC says:

        In France. William and Kate ducked out of the Paralympics to vacation. It was forgiven because it was the timeline when George was conceived.

        Kate was caught topless and sunbathing outside on a balcony by a pap on a public road with a long range lense. Ultimately a big deal was made because we saw Kate topless, but we had seen that lots of times before. Popular theory was they made a big deal about privacy and topless shots because Kate was caught smoking while trying to conceive (or possibly carrying) an unborn George. Myself a few here saw those pics before they were removed. Kate was mid drag off a cig.

  72. Francis says:

    I read that in some of Diana’s dresses, she had secure undergarments built in, she would basically step into the dress and be totally covered and slips built in too in some and almost everything Diana wore was weighted.

    Does anyone think maybe Kate feels this behavior turns PW on in some way or gets His attention so she keeps doing it? I just can’t understand how she could have so many mishaps. Weighted skirts worked for Diana and the Queen.

    Diana was a perfectionist with her clothes and how she presented herself.

  73. Tiffany :) says:

    Hmmm. Usually I think people do make too much of a fuss about what she does/doesn’t do…but it does seem odd that she wouldn’t make more of an effort to cover her cheeks, especially if she knows she will be using a helicopter!

  74. lrm says:

    Really shocking that she does this. It’s not the appropriate context for such displays, obviously. So strange to me-and I’m not even into royals one way or the other. I’m american and not prudish in my view, but this is just shocking to me that she keeps doing this like so many drunk/wasted ‘celebrities’ do.

  75. sam says:

    did she really produce the heir ?

  76. anne_000 says:

    I don’t understand the excuse by apologists that she might be wearing a thong. How does that make it any better? I’m thinking some people don’t understand how thongs work & why they’re designed as they are. Thongs don’t cover the buttocks. That’s the reason why they’re designed as they are: expressly not to cover the buttocks but to show them bare…

    I don’t understand the excuse by apologists about privacy issues. Was this a private situation? Was the reporter lying on the ground taking pictures up under her dress? Was Kate not aware that as she was walking around outside on a tarmac in a fly-away dress going commando in the strong wind created by the helicopter propellers & any natural wind & not aware that she wasn’t in the privacy of her home? Do people who use the privacy issue excuse think she’s too stupid not to realize where she is & what she’s wearing?

    Didn’t I read previously that the Queen’s stylist was to assist her on this NZ/Oz trip? But even if every stylist gives her wise advice, is Kate the kind of person who accepts it?

    It gets to the point where one has to wonder if a person who makes the same mistake repeatedly is really that stupid or is doing it on purpose.

    • FLORC says:

      The Queen’s stylist involvement was exaggerated.

      I’m taking the stance that if nothing else Kate is indifferent to who sees her upskirt shots. She’s flashed and exposed herself both knowingly and unknowingly to cameras for well over a decade at this point. There isn’t 1 ounce of evidence anyone here has brought that is an excuse or reason of why she’s had her bottom caught on film during a work event again.
      It’s not slut shaming to point this out. It’s just calling a spade a spade.

      What is silly is how many people are defending a person who doesn’t appear to want or need defending. And is quite content continuing this behavior.

      Off Topic a bit. A week ago my neighbor’s grandmother visited. Our backyards are visibe from certain points. I was out in the garden, glanced over and saw their grandmother sunbathing…
      My neighbor came over with her husband to apologise and told me her nana has dementia. I felt terrible. Then her husband stated that’s a lie. She was a nudist for the last 20 years and enjoys laying in the sun.

      So 1. Good for her. And 2. Nana and Kate don’t need defending. If they did nana and Kate know where to buy underwear.

    • Patty Cake says:

      Her admirers will always take up for her, regardless. It won’t matter what she does. She could unintentionally assault the public in the face with oozing diarrhea spraying out of her ass because she didn’t wear drause, she would still be considered as doing no wrong. Folks would say, well, she has a nice ass. And If I were having diarrhea, I would want my ass to look like that, I just don’t understand what the uproar is about? We have all seen a woman’s body before. Its just crazy really to see the extent that people will go to to defend her. Now had that been the FLOTUS, not as likeable, ( in the same way that Goop isn’t as likable as Emma Thompson) she would have been blasted to high heavens. When in reality all Kate really is, is a slacker. Haha.

    • zbornak syndrome says:

      @anne_000 Exactly!

  77. Miss5280 says:

    WHAT???? It is a very simple thing to have dress weights sewn into the hem of a garment you don’t want flying up at the slightest breeze. I assume she gets all of her clothing tailored to fit her and it would be ridiculously easy to sew the weights in. At this point, she’s being trashy. She must at least realize that seeing a thong might give people the impression that you had nothing on (from certain angles), so why not wear panties and keep it a little bit klassy? (Classy with a C is reserved for people who don’t flash their undies at all.)

  78. Kimbee says:

    She should be using the weights or whatever so her dress doesn’t fly up.. She totally knew what she was in for when she married him so start acting like it! Im from the UK and all this ‘privacy row’ rubbish is ridiculous.. If this was any other celeb they wouldn’t get so much people sticking up for them.

  79. anne_000 says:

    The thing is, Kate knows ahead of time when she’s going to be near helicopters. So she has enough time to put on underwear & dresses that won’t fly up.

  80. Flower says:

    Happens way too often to be an accident, may be it’s Williams idea, perhaps his little fetish to put a bit of zing into the crushing boredom that sets in whenever he has to do anything that resembles royal duty.

  81. BunnyBabe says:

    Duchess Kate, these repeated mishaps have permanently damaged your reputation. Yikes. I really want to like you but you make it hard out here!

    On a side note, the Marilyn Moments thing is a totally misnomer. The “moment” being referred to is not Marilyn’s moment from her life but a moment of ACTING in a movie under the character name The Girl during The Seven Year Itch. And she had not one, but two pairs of granny panties on! Just as during her lifetime, Marilyn’s character she played on-screen bleeds over to color her off-screen character. Even Norma Jean didn’t expose herself like Kate has (accidentally I hope)! Yes, during purposefully nude photo shoots but not upskirts by the paparazzi. And Joe D was pissed/embarrassed that night about Marilyn’s scene in the white dress. William may want to take a page out of his book (minus the violent rages of course).

  82. african woman says:

    GREAT BRITAIN’S FUTURE QUEEN ? this isn’t about thongs and nice ass but the picture she gives the public and she is walking comfortably not even trying to hold her dress down that it wont b blown by the wind ,GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

  83. amber5ash says:

    Maybe she’s not happy with the parts of herself that we can see, so she flashes the only other parts we haven’t. I highly doubt she’s doing it by accident anymore. I can’t stand her.

  84. SoCal says:

    If Kate managed to change her ways and wore a slip or some shape wear under her dresses and they still blew up, would we make a fuss? She can still wear a thong or nothing at all under a slip and only she would know and we wouldn’t have to know.

    Does it have to be weighted hems only so that her dresses never again blow up and toss out the argument for her wearing slips? Because if the weights hold down the dress who cares if she is wearing slips or not, right?

    • Feeshalori says:

      Absolutely, Kate can wear (or not) what she wants, the point is that we shouldn’t have to know it. That’s the whole idea of weighted hems and fitted slips, so that the world doesn’t have to see what lies beneath.

      However, after all these multitude of times that it’s happened, there is a good chance now that the world won’t just be interested in her outerwear but also wondering about the state of her undergarments as well since she’s left us nothing to the imagination. I think Kate is her own worst enemy.

  85. melain says:

    She knows she is the most photographed woman in the world. She knows photographers will be snapping her from every angle. She also knows she will be in and out of cars and outside. She knows the wind may gust. Whether she is wearing a thong or not is kinda irrelevant. She’s doing it on purpose. Because any woman who has had a picture of her bum on the cover of a magazine and didn’t like it would make damn sure it didn’t happen again.

  86. Jade says:

    Pardon me because my knowledge on slut shaming is limited but this is firstly about context and the frequency. If Kate wants to be naked as an individual walking down the street, that may be her rights. But you can’t exercise all of your individual rights at the workplace or in a professional setting with conventional decorum in place. There is no wrong in having an accidental exposure once in a while especially if it’s not your fault, but I bet any boss would call you out if you can prevent the situation but you don’t, hence it happens to you repeatedly. We don’t have to take helicopters to know that such situations exist. And you are one of the most photographed woman on earth. It’s simple. A male royal family member wearing a non-weighted kilt would still be called out for it in this context. Again I emphasize the context and the frequency. Nonetheless, I appreciate that folks like Dame Snarkweek has a different opinion, makes me think from another angle I may not have considered.

  87. Xantha says:

    I said it before and I’ll say it again: Pantsuits are the way to go for day events. Just rock some well tailored pantsuits and then the focus can be less on her clothes and more on the charities that she’s supposed to be giving attention to.

    Save the dresses for nighttime events.

  88. Penny says:

    May I present to you, the Duch-ASS of Cambridge.

  89. ivanhoe says:

    Jeez, give her a break, never seen such a gathering of frumpy jealous women!!
    She’s married an arse who comes from a long line of arses maybe she just wants join in?!

  90. dorothy says:

    After several incidences of her dresses blowing up, if she hasn’t put weights in her dresses or even taken the time to put on underwear, then one has to assume it’s intentional. Shame on her. Have some dignity.

  91. jason says:

    all hail the queen of butt s, england the jokes on you!

  92. Maria says:

    is is possible that someone photoshoped the photo? If not, she is dumber than I thought.

  93. Lizzy1013 says:

    Ugh there is nothing to be said that hasn’t been said already on this subject. Did any one see that pic of Obama saving Michelle from a similar mishap? It’s so cute! Her dress is about to fly up as they are boarding a plane and he pushes it down.


  94. bcgirl says:

    this girl is going to cheat,
    her ass is all she’s got

  95. CeCe says:

    Speaking of how the Queen’s clothes are weighted, I thought that her dresser, Angela Kelly, was supposed to have assisted Kate in preparing her wardrobe for this trip. One would think that after all Kate’s previous “accidents,” Ms. Kelly would have automatically had weights added to all her skirts. I wonder if Ms. Kelly’s job is on the line now?