Duchess Kate went topless during her last vacation, and now it’s a huge scandal

These are photos from the second country of Duchess Kate and Prince William’s Epic Asian Tour – they are now in Malaysia. These pics are from last night’s state dinner and from today’s tour stops, including a mosque in Kuala Lumpur. For the state dinner, Kate wore a custom Alexander McQueen gown that looks less “Malaysian” and more Bollywood to my jaded eyes. Doesn’t think look like something you would wear to a state dinner in India? The material even looks like a reworked sari. Then for today’s full day in Kuala Lumpur, Kate wore a white silk chiffon Beulah London dress, once again a dress with a full skirt and lots of buttons. The dress seems rather dated to me – like, it’s something a 40-something woman would have worn to her quickie wedding at City Hall. In 1985. Kate also had a lovely head scarf which she wore for the trip to the mosque, but she did not wear outside of the mosque. You can read more about Kate’s styles and activities here, at What Kate Wore.

Meanwhile, there’s a huge scandal brewing. It seems that Duchess Kate was photographed topless on her last vacation with Prince William! Kate and Will were recently staying at a nice chateau in France, and Kate went sunbathing topless on the balcony (and the grounds) of this PRIVATE estate. Some paparazzo got photos of the sunbathing and topless swimming, and now the French magazine Closer has published the “very sensual” images (that’s how they’re described). Coming on the heels of Prince Harry’s butt crack scandal, this is rough news for the royal family, but the royal family and their people are really going HARD against the French magazine. From the BBC:

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are hugely saddened over the “grotesque and unjustifiable invasion of privacy” by a magazine which published topless photos of Kate, a royal spokesman says. French publication Closer printed the pictures of the duchess, taken during their private holiday in France. The royals are now considering legal action over the case.

The BBC’s Nicholas Witchell said that they could act against the magazine, the photographer or both. He added: “They are incredulous that any magazine would have felt they had a justification in publishing these pictures. They could go to law or seek a remedy through the French court – that is a big step to take but that is clearly what is being considered now. I have rarely heard quite such a level of publicly expressed anger that I have heard today reflecting William’s feelings. He is absolutely determined to protect the privacy of his wife, he has always been very protective of her and that anger has mounted during the day.”

The photos are blurry and taken with a long lens, the BBC’s Paris bureau says. There are four pages of photos of the couple, with Kate topless in several. On the magazine’s website, it says the pictures are of the couple “like you have never seen them before. Gone are the fixed smiles and the demure dresses. On holiday Kate forgets everything.”

The Duke and Duchess, who were staying at the French chateau of the Queen’s nephew, Lord Linley, “have been hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner”, a spokesman for Clarence House, the Prince of Wales’s office, said.

“The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to the Duke and Duchess for being so. Their Royal Highnesses had every expectation of privacy in the remote house. It is unthinkable that anyone should take such photographs, let alone publish them. Officials acting on behalf of their Royal Highnesses are consulting with lawyers to consider what options may be available to the Duke and Duchess.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The view from Downing Street is that they are entitled to their privacy.”

The royal couple were told about the magazine’s plan to publish the photos during breakfast in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on their tour of South East Asia. They have now left the city and travelled to Sabah in north Borneo, where they are due to visit a rainforest.

It has emerged that British newspapers were offered photographs last week but turned them down. BBC News reported that Lloyd Embley, editor of Mirror and Sunday Mirror, said they were offered a set of pictures of the duchess in her bikini a week ago but, as with the pictures of Prince Harry, they took the decision not to publish them. In both cases they believed it would be a clear breach of the editors’ code of practice involving breach of privacy.

BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said royal officials “believe a “red line” has been crossed. The couple cannot believe someone would take such photos and publish them.

“The publication of the photographs will be a bitter blow to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Prince William witnessed the complex relationship his mother, Diana, had with the media. He believes the actions of the paparazzi in Paris contributed to her death. He wants to shield his wife from the worst excesses of reporters and photographers in full flight.”

[From BBC]

Obviously, this IS a terrible breach of privacy, and once again (like Harry), a breach of security. Did none of William and Kate’s security guards notice the paparazzo hanging out of a tree, snapping photos? I realize the pics were probably taken from a distance, but even so… how about a perimeter check, you know? As for everyone claiming that this is just like Diana, etc… it feels like it’s too early to use the Diana card, but maybe they’re just trying to nip (ha) this in the bud before every paparazzo feels like it’s Open Season on the duchess.

As for the possibility that Kate will be “shamed” for cavorting topless with her husband while on vacation on a private estate… please don’t. It’s fine. If you want to shame her for anything, it should be that she’s simply “on vacation” for half of any given year. Don’t even bother with the topless thing.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

354 Responses to “Duchess Kate went topless during her last vacation, and now it’s a huge scandal”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jennifer says:

    If no one was sucking on her toes, then I think we’re good.

    • Cherry says:


    • iamwatchingyou says:


    • Elizabeth says:

      Long ago when Princess Diana was 5 months pregnant with William, she and Charles were photographed on a private beach/estate in the Caribbean. She was wearing a bikini and it was deemed to be scandalous – baby bump exposed and all(1982 style scandalous). The photographer who shot the photos talked about crawling through the dense jungle for 1/2 mile with a zoom lens “the size of a howitzer” so that he could get the shot. Sooooo, a perimeter search by the body guards may not have turned up anything if the zoom lens was big enough. Still I agree – no toe sucking, no foul.

    • Izzy says:

      Hey, as long as it was her husband sucking on her toes, it’s still all good!


    • Really? says:

      Ha, ha, forgot about Toegate…anyway, i think she did it on purpose to take some of the residual heat off of Harry, a fantastic show of support if you ask me.

  2. Eleonor says:

    I really like both dresses.
    For the topless, I understand she likes sunbathing etc.etc. but now she is a royal and if she doesn’t want things like this to happen, privacy or not, she has to keep her tits covered. BTW I don’t even see the scandal: she was in vacation with her husband.

    • Liv says:

      I disagree. She was at a private chateau, not a public a beach…that’s invasion of privacy. She can do whatever she wants at home.

      • gg says:

        Topless sunbathing is not a luxury British royalty can afford to do.

        The papps are always an invasion of privacy and nowadays they can get the shots anyway and get paid serious money, so they go through tremendous effort to get those shots.

        Just like Jackie O, Diana, Fergie, et al., if you take your top off outdoors, even at a private island, you can expect some crazy photog to shoot you. There are now options to cover your nips while you get the rest tanned. If I were she, I would’ve already invested in some stick-on cups if I didn’t want my naked boobs to show up in the media somewhere.

      • Maria says:

        I completely agree!!! She was at a private home with her husband!!! How can she not be expected to have some privacy in this setting? Where she will have privacy with her husband? Just in the confinement of your bedroom? This is ridiculous!!!

      • Liv says:

        gg, don’t you think there’s a difference between a beach and a house/chateau?

      • LAK says:

        @Liv – a beach on private island is the same as a Chateau. The beach is only for you, with no expectation that any member of te public will find you there and photograph you.

        It is very clear in the pap pics of Jackie O that the photographer was in a boat with a long lens. Just like this scenerio albight this one is on land.

      • LAK says:

        Turns out there is a public road close to where they were sunbathing.

      • gg says:

        No, no difference – if you’re outdoors and take your top off, it’s not very wise. Because they ARE getting the shots anyway, as per the evidence.

        Is it wrong? Hell yes! But technology and cash have a way of getting through barriers.

        After a friend was being peeped at, I won’t even get undressed in front of ANY windows anymore after this happened to my friend. Authorities found a lawn chair and empty snack bags in her back yard where the peeping tom had set himself up a nice comfy viewing place. I trust NO ONE when I’m nude except my own family.

    • kibbles says:

      I must agree. Yes, it is an invasion of privacy, but when has that ever stopped the paparazzi? As one of the most photographed celebs in the world, she has to expect things like this to happen. If she likes to be nude outdoors, she needs to do it on a private island where there is no way the paps can hide to photograph her. Being outdoors period makes her vulnerable to being photographed. That is true of any high profile celebrity. The Royal family will have to make a big fuss and possibly take legal action only to prevent this from happening again.

      • taxi says:

        Jackie O got papped nude on a private Greek island owned by her then-husband, from a boat.

        Will & Kate were at his cousin’s spread. That would normally be considered a safe place to get rid of the tan lines.

      • gg says:

        Even private islands aren’t safe. There are helicopters, planes and boats that could be easily hired to get a very moneymaking pic of a princess’ boobs, which would justify the cost of any transport.

        They stop at nothing these days.

      • Viv says:

        agree with ya, kibbles. Somewhere in Buckingham Palace the queen is asking her advisors if it is legally possible to staple vital pieces of clothing to her grandkids’ bodies.

    • iheartjacksparrow says:

      I agree. Once a person becomes a “celebrity,” if they don’t want topless or nude photos to get out they have to keep their clothes on when they are in a position for other people to see them. With virtually everyone having a cell phone that takes photos, and tabloids offering huge amounts of money for “scandalous” photos, this sort of thing will continue to happen unless “stars” keep their clothes on in public.

    • ShugAveryPee says:

      The scandal is the french magazine violated the law by publishing topless pictures of her breast while she was in a private residence…. that is a crime even if the picture were taking from a public road with a zoom … that is the scandal…
      I agree that she will have to find another way to sunbath now that she is a ROYAL… You get great perks in life and you lose some too.. Like PRIVACY …

    • ShugAveryPee says:

      The scandal is the french magazine violated the law by publishing topless pictures of her breast while she was in a private residence…. that is a crime even if the picture were taking from a public road with a zoom … that is the scandal…
      I agree that she will have to find another way to sunbath now that she is a ROYAL… You get great perks in life and you lose some too.. Like PRIVACY …

    • Cricket says:

      I don’t understand how the paps knew they were in France. The photos of Kate look like she knew she was being watched. The paps must have been told K & W were in the chateau. And who asks someone to spread lotion under a bathing suit bottom? Sorry for being long winded but really.

  3. mln76 says:

    Pregnancy announcement for deflection in 1…2…3

  4. mln76 says:

    Oops double comment

  5. Amelia says:

    They’re lucky it was a photographer and not some crazy bloke. Or an assassin, what with all the Taliban threats about Harry.
    I have this feeling that this was always going to be an inevitability. She’s one of the most high profile, well known faces in the world, she was never going to coast through royal life. People have been desperate to draw comparisons between Waity and Diana since before they got engaged. Now they’ve got one, albeit a very unpleasant one. Who wants to be hounded by the press?

  6. Talie says:

    The same thing happened with her sister, she had her shirt off right in front of William, but that’s how Europeans do.

    • GoodCapon says:

      I don’t mind going topless in front of my boyfriend (duh) but in front of your sister’s? I take it they aren’t as bothered when it comes to nudity…

    • LadyJane says:

      I sunbathed topless on a public beach in Spain so I am not going to get all judgy BUT….
      Perhaps the cost of being on holidays/vacation for half your life is that you only ever get you kit off behind your own closed doors. I think that trade off would be fair. Where do I sign up for that job?

    • Emma says:

      Not sure about your ‘Europeans’ tag, Talie, which is so massively generalist as to be meaningless. Us Brits are a lot more reserved than, for example, the Italians and the French when it comes to this sort of sunbathing, who have plenty of nudist or ‘clothing optional’ beaches and don’t bat an eyelid when someone takes their top off on a normal beach. Going topless on a British beach is still a no-no. And given our appalling weather, probably quite sensible…

  7. Jules says:

    What’s to see anyways? I am sure any photo of her topless is as boring as she is clothed. She’s not Diana, she never will be. Diana actually cared about people.

    • effy says:

      Wow! take a chill pill.
      did she say she is Diana or wants to be Diana? SMH!

    • Mrs. Ari Gold says:

      @Jules. I couldn’t have said it better. So true. I find her to be very boring on every level – which is fine – I just wish everyone would stop pretending she’s anything special and stop covering her. Diana was soulful and it was evident in every picture and everything she did.

    • Dani says:

      Honestly, if Diana wasn’t dead, you would be talking just as much shit about her as you are about Kate. I actually don’t find anything that bad about Kate, but I guess it’s a matter of opinion, because I was never too interested in Diana either. She wasn’t a saint, and I think it’s about time people stop comparing her to Kate and throwing Kate under the bus. Two separate people, two separate lives.

      • Jaded says:

        Great comment!

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        Diana and kate are apples and oranges. The circumstances, the ages, the relationship dynamics with their husbands, and their outside interests are all different.

        Diana did many scandalous things during and after her marriage, but she deeply cared about others and tried to use her name and time to make a difference in others lives.

        Kate has already admitted she only cares what William thinks. I wish would have passion for a cause that wasn’t royal schmoozing related.

        Bare breasts in europe is nothing. And i’m betting she was so thin at the time her bare chest would look sickly. I think that would be the worst part about the pics.

      • Merritt says:

        This is very true. People conveniently forget that at the time of her death Diana was constantly being trashed by people. Then she died and everyone pretended that they never participated in trashing her every move.

      • ZenB!tch says:

        Thank you! I never got what was so great about Diana.

        As for Kate, I find this much more egregious than what happened to Harry. She wasn’t drunk and grabbing naked strangers in a tacky hotel in Vegas. She was on vacation on the balcony of the house she was renting. She wasn’t even on the beach. That is just rude.

        Europeans sunbathe topless all the time. Americans untie our bikini tops to prevent a tanline in the back.

    • gg says:

      And Kate is such a cold, hard horrible person who doesn’t care about people, and it’s a given she’s in “competition” with a dead lady. Grow up already.

      • Dani says:

        GG – Love your comments, always!

        Alexandra Bananarama – I agree with you, but also in a sense, disagree, because Kate does a lot of charity work (whether or not appointed by the Palace, I don’t care) and she’s never been outwardly rude or cold to anyone. Everywhere she’s seen she’s always smiling and being friendly. Just because she doesn’t preach about equality and doesn’t go out of her way to be like Angelina Jolie and adopt 5,000 kids doesn’t make her a careless person. Yes she cares what William thinks and yes she is ‘waity’ but girls got game; she knew what she wanted, went for it, GOT IT, and is now doing her job. Mean, nice, pretty, ugly, better or worse than Diana, let her be. She honestly isn’t all that bad.

      • LAK says:

        @Dani – There is no evidence that Kate does ‘alot of charity work’ because when she does do it, the palace can’t wait to tell us all about it. And if you go by the court circular, her engagement diary is surprisingly bare.

        She’s visited her charities, that she is a patron of just once, each. That was widely publicised. So don’t know about this working alot marlarkey, because she doesn’t.

    • erika says:

      come on! that’s a bit of projecture!

      this has NOTHING to do w/ Di, its privacy.

      if you’re the CEO of Apple, should you enclose yourself within a cardboard box as you go #2 on the toilet?

      same thing, it was a private estate. Royal or not, PRIVATE.

      they’re human, i don’t think they need to curtsy before they get into bed w/ each other.

      this is SOOOO typical of France. so typical.

  8. someone says:

    I just don’t get the topless sunbathing thing though. I’ve never done it so perhaps I don’t know how good it feels or something? I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of it.

    • Michelle says:

      It’s meant to avoid tan lines. I had strapless BM dresses and Even my more conservative friend admitted to sunbathing topless so she wouldn’t have tan lines.

    • flan says:

      Don’t get the sunbathing, period, sorry.

      You can really see the difference once women turn 35; the ones who sunbathed look a lot older generally.

    • MsGoblin says:

      Sunbathing topless feels FABulous. I joined the locals in doing so when in Nice a few years ago. The sun beaming down on parts that have never been exposed is delicious.

      It’s absolutely not a cultural faux pas in Europe. One has to keep in mind that the US was founded on a very Puritanical mind-set.

    • kibbles says:

      This might be one of the reasons why she and her sister look much older than their actual age. Smoking, excessive drinking, tanning…all of this comes back to bite you after 30. I also have never sunbathed in the nude and I’ve lived abroad in countries where getting nude in front of others is normal. I’ve gotten nude at saunas, public baths, locker rooms, public showers, etc. but not outdoors. Even as a non-famous person, I’m scared of being photographed considering that everyone has access to a cell phone camera or high powered lens and there are so many perverts out there.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        So we all know I’m 43 and a native SoCal girl. Been sunbathing/on the beach since I could walk.

        Maybe it is because I have olive skin, but there is no crepey skin or horrible effects on me.

        Sunbathing topless is great-as long as you are alone, alone and/or with your partner. I don’t burn though and don’t smoke at all and rarely drink. Genetics.

        Stop the tanning shame, please. If you live where it is hot all the time and you love the outdoors and the beach you are going to get sun.

        Oh, and please don’t insult us 40 somethings, I’d die before I wore such a buttony dress! I hate buttons.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Go Tiff!
        I enjoy the sun too-so f*cking sue me.

      • Suz says:

        My dermatologist just told me that – unfair as it is – tanning/sunbathing is a ymmv (your mileage may vary) thing. It all depends on your skin. Fair people will wither and age in the sun/wind and those with darker skins can tolerate a lot more. So no need to feel defensive about tanning. Just know who you are and what your skin can take.

        That said, the Middleton women all look older than their age and I can’t figure out if it’s the livin’ – the sunning and tanning – or if that’s their genetic bad luck.

      • kibbles says:

        Exactly, Suz. Those with darker skin can get away with staying out in the sun and not even wear sunscreen. Those with fair skin will end up looking withered and wrinkled long before someone of the same skin tone who stays out of the sun. It has nothing to do with shaming. It’s called common sense. That is why people who stay out in the sun like Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Aniston pay the price in their late 30s/early 40s. Aniston has admitted to doing all tons of stuff to reverse the signs of sun damage.

      • Genevieve says:

        @ OTiff…

        LOL. Preach it, girl. We’re both in our forties, I grew up in a “beach” state, and remember the days of tanning w/ baby oil and iodine :0

        OK, we’re all a little more educated now. Tanning shame…where is the twelve step group for US? 😉

        Unfortunately for me, I am a fair-skinned, green eyed blonde. I use SPF 50. My friends say I look 10 years younger than my age, thank God. But, I loves me some rays. Great comment, lol.

        The Waity topless pics…kind of a non-story. With all the bombings taking place all over the world, WTF? Really?

      • Amelia says:

        OTiff, I’m so jealous of you right now -_-
        Originally Norweigan, living in Britain, so if I go out in the sun for even a half hour without sun block I’ll be doing an impression of a lobster.
        On the bright side, my Mum rarely sunbathes, she’s in her 50’s and people think she’s in her late 30’s.
        So, swings and roundabouts 🙂

    • rumbleseat says:

      I’m kinda with you, I always imagine that you would burn your nip nips, LOL. I live in FL though, where the sunlight doesn’t mess around, even at this time of year.

      • Cazzee says:

        If you live near Land ‘o Lakes, there are a ton of nudist resorts in that area. You should try it, having the sun all over your body feels wonderful! 😉

    • Mel says:

      “I’ve never done it so perhaps I don’t know how good it feels or something? I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of it.”

      Fair enough.
      I’ve never sunbathed per se – that is, I never went out to get a suntan, let alone lie on the beach for hours – but I adore the feeling of my body, my skin, entirely exposed to the elements.
      (It’s not just the sun – there’s also the mind-boggling pleasure of being enveloped – naked – in water, of the wind on your body, of the RAIN on your bare skin, all over.)

      There is a warm softness to it that I cannot explain, but it is one of the great pleasures of (my) life.

      I thought I could explain it… Turns out that I can’t. 🙂

  9. Birdie says:

    That is the revenge for being on vacation all the time,lol. But I feel a little bit for her, just a little.

    • NYC_girl says:

      I heard her give a little speech yesterday and she sounded nervous, but good. I love posh British accents!

  10. littlemissnaughty says:

    Oh my god, boobs!!! Escandalo! *zzzzz*

    It would be a scandal if it was Camilla or the Queen. But this is a young woman who won’t be Queen for a long time, who gives a fart?
    I think the scandal is her dress. She looks so much older than she is … always. Ugh. William too, btw.

    • KellyinSeattle says:

      Agree with everything, littlemiss. I call Double Standard…yes, I know she’s supposed to be more responsible than Harry, but photos of him naked, and these are considered bad?

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        +1. And I love “escandalo!” I shall use that in the future.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        LOL I’m sure I stole that from somewhere but I can’t remember where. 🙂

        I have to admit, I love how suddenly the Royals can’t keep their clothes on. It makes them fun and it also makes for great gossip of course. I do feel bad for them that it’s always such a SCANDAL when you see some royal skin. However huge this boob scandal will be, I agree that it’s a double standard but I think both Harry and Kate have a hand in this. Harry is expected to be the wild child and people love it while Kate is working hard on that poised, elegant, boring, and slightly frosty image. So when Harry flashes his crack … eh. When Frosty flashes boobs … whoa.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        MichaelK loves the word escandoloso. Maybe Dlisted?

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Ooohh yes, he does. But it wasn’t him, I think it was a high school friend who used it in reference to stupid gossip and drama after we started learning Spanish. 😀 I love it, it’s so fitting for everything that deserves a massive eye roll.

  11. Aud says:

    Why is it a terrible breach of privacy? When a celebrity or actor is photographed topless, it’s a story, but somehow royals are out of bounds because of their ‘special’ status?
    She should have known better, that all eyes would be on her.

    • Anne de Vries says:

      Private estate + massive zoom lens and STILL getting very blurry photos means the photo was quite possibly made from half a kilometre away… possibly by somebody who’d climbed up a tree to photograph over whatever fence/wall surrounds the estate.

      And I still think it’s a breach of privacy when it happens to actors.

    • Ally says:

      In response to your comment, royals aren’t the same as celebrities. They work for the state, for the people. For example, William didn’t choose his life, it’s not a career path he’s chosen. I think he, his wife and his future children are entitled to some private life, especially when they are on private property. There has to be a line.

      • Milla says:

        But they are not future king and queen of the world, for me or for the french magazine who published the photos they are just famous people.

        i don’t like paparazzi, actually i pretty much hate them. they shoot dead celebs, their funerals, they shot JRM while he was burring his mother. but, if there are no laws for others, why would it be different for K&W?

        anyway, topless sunbathing increases risks of breast cancer. that is the only thing why i dislike that Kate was not wearing her top.

      • charlie says:

        Ally, it’s very true Royals are not the same as celebrities. The fact that they work for the state (I won’t get into the Royal’s slacker definition of “work” right now) is the very reason they should not expect privacy and should keep their private parts covered when outside. Celebrities earn their own money and therefore have a right to do what they like; they should expect some privacy. Royals, on the other hand, live on the dole (welfare), and they are or should be beholden to the public. In exchange for their lives of indolence, riches, and privilege, they lose their privacy. Keeping your bikini top on is a small price to pay for a life of vacations, red-carpet appearances and tea-tastings called “work,” and access to vast fortune, courtesy of the public.

        And besides, while Willy may not have chosen this lifestyle, Waity pursued it with a chilling intensity and a single-mindedness never seen in her before or since. She craved this lifestyle desperately. So suck it up, Waity. Tough titties. You can’t be selective about your media attention.

    • Tory says:

      Who are these people? The result of a lucky sperm and egg who happened to be deemed special by some arbitrary set of circumstances and, therefore, graced with wealth and status? Get over yourselves, royals, and quit pretending that you are entitled to being treated as deities because someone hundreds of years ago gave your ancestors a title — probably because they were better than others at subjugating (and most likely worse) the poor.

      • Suzie says:

        Well said. Enough of the RF already. I can’t stand the thought that these twats are/will be on my money. Let’s give that to someone truly worthy like Terry Fox.

      • bluhare says:

        There’s a documentary available on YouTube that’s hosted by Tony Richardson (Baldrick on Black Adder for any old people out there) which claims that due to some shenanigans back in 14somethingoranother, the correct royal line was shunted out and the Tudors took over. Apparently, the real monarch is King Michael I who lives in Australia.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – just answered your email…..

        Prince Ernest of Hanover probably has a stronger claim than our current Queen, Australian Chap not withstanding. The law was changed in favour of Victoria otherwise we would be sufferring through his many, many embarrassents. He is Caroline of Monaco’s current husband.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        It’s true. Henry the VII, kinda stole the crown during a battle.

        Isn’t that the way of the world back then, though?

      • Mira says:

        @Tory – ITA. I don’t understand all the cry about how their privacy was breached. Harry’s privacy was breached because he was after all getting naked in his room and not in the hallway. Never mind that he and his entourage were stupid enough to let people in with their phones. When it comes to the royals, the argument is about how their privacy was invaded. It’s not the same for other famous people though – actors et al. Will and Kate are royals but they are also famous people who will continue to generate interest about their private lives, their fashion sense etc more than their work. There’s no reason why the royals should be subjected to different laws when other famous people get busted and crucified for their shenanigans.

      • Amelia says:

        I’d hate to be part of the Royal family. Who’d want to be able to say that you’re distantly related to Henry VIII? What a bastard.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        They are all descended from Edward III through multiple lines do what’s the diff.

        Henry VII may have had a weak claim but Henry VIII had a stronger claim through his mother.

      • LAK says:

        @Amelia – Henry 8 was no better or worse than his compatriots. The book, THE PRINCE by machiavelli is based on standard Princely behaviour. It was a dog eat dog world.

        Can’t really judge it by our standards of morality and ethics.

    • L says:

      If she was on a topless beach, then yea I’d say as a public figure she should know better. Same goes for actors

      If she was at a house in LA/London (like some celebs/actors) and someone peeked over the wall, then yea should know better. When it happened to Fergie she was in a backyard outside of London.

      But out in the middle of the remote country in France with just her husband around? Where the picture is taken from nearly a half a mile away? Total invasion of privacy. Sure, the argument can be made to be ‘careful’ but who wouldn’t walk around with the husband topless out in the middle of no where? I’m sure they thought they were in a private secure environment. And he’s her husband, so I don’t think she has anything to be ashamed of there.

      And money or not-a creepy guy hanging out of a tree from that distance with a zoom lens and having a newspaper pay for it is creepy as shit.

      • LAK says:

        Not true about Fergie. She was on holiday on a private estate in France when those toe sucking topless pics were taken.

        It was as private and secluded as Kate’s holiday villa. Photographer used a zoom lens to get her pictures. Photographer also said he had been tipped off, and it wasn’t an easy location to find.

  12. Ally says:

    It’s a massive story over here in the UK. I don’t think it’s the fact she was sunbathing topless, it’s the intrusion in to their private lives, stepping over the line. William’s fuming apparently, he hates the paps because of what happened to his Mum and it’s France too.

    My first thought was this could be good for Nahla and Gabriel, more proof the french paps and publications aren’t any better than the US ones. I know their laws are stricter but that obviously doesn’t stop them and is Halle going go to court every time there’s an incident?!!

    • brin says:

      Good post and good points.

    • carrie says:

      The difference is in France,the faces of kids are hidden and the law protects your private life so the paps,the gossip mag can be fined (very expensive and they must pay the other lawyers)

      • Milla says:

        Any celebrity can demand that. Ewan McGregor, Kate Moss, Jude Law and others had their battle, so you cannot see faces of their kids anymore. Sad thing is others don’t care. Some of them even use their kids for that extra exposure.

  13. LeslieM says:

    I just spent a ing time defending Kate who was mentioned in the Kate Gossilen posts. Still I think it is ridiculous to put the fault on the magazine or photographer for taking and publishing to photos. Kate and Wiiliam should be aware they are only hidden from the press when they are inside completely away from view. I went topless once in Jamaca with my boyfriend and even let him take a picture of me that I thought was artsey and very beautiful. We were on a private beach way up in the sand under a palm tree. No one could really see us or take notice of us. It was completely private. I don’t believe in going topless in front of anyone but your mate. It’s just to sexual and I think the beauty of it is lost. I think Kate looks great in the photos above however and don’t think these pictures coming out are any big deal.

    • Anne de Vries says:

      No, it was private because nobody really cared enough to go to the crazy lenghts photographers go to catch photos of these people. If somebody had really wanted to, they would have manged to get a shot of you too.

    • Erinn says:

      You can’t say that you were out on a beach, and call it completely private. You can say it was very sheltered, but not private.

      It’s a shame that these people should have to hide away in a house to be away from the paps. I think this was an invasion of privacy.

  14. Anne de Vries says:

    Private estate + massive zoom lens and STILL getting very blurry photos means the photo was quite possibly made from half a kilometre away… possibly by somebody who’d climbed up a tree to photograph over whatever fence/wall surrounds the estate.

  15. Mava says:

    Oh noes! The Royal family have boobs and dicks and normal body parts! THE SCANDAL! THE HORROR!

    Seriously, who cares. She was on private property and some creep took pictures of her boobs. That photographer would be considered a pervert and a creep if she wasn’t famous. I understand that she should be more careful because she is representing the monarchy, but seriously – creepy dude in the bushes snapping pictures of your boobies. Can we focus on that part of the story?

    • jenna says:

      Yes, this really is pretty creepy, imho. I personally was way more “scandalized” by the Harry photos because of the behavior they showed him engaging in (getting nekkid and wasted with complete strangers vs. taking off your top when the only other people around are your husband and possible the “help”? Very different situations). Also, Harry & co CLEARLY failed to take some very basic precautions (like, don’t invite randoms into your room, confiscate all phones at the door), while this seems more like someone going to a hell of a lot of trouble to get a photo in a situation where it would not have been unreasonable to expect privacy. It’s not like she was stripping off in the backyard at Kensington palace. I’m no Kate fan but going topless in this kind of situation is neither wrong nor scandalous.

      I do not sunbathe a lot (pale skin!) but when I got backpacking I love squeezing in a little naked sunbathing time at the end of the day, it feels soooooo nice. If someone was photographing me from a half a mile off I would be livid.

  16. MoxyLady007 says:

    @someone – it’s for comfort and tan lines. It just feels better.

    It’s incredibly common in Europe. Furthermore she was at a remote private location alone with her husband. It’s completely understandable to be topless – for sunbathing or just because. Good lord.

  17. GoodCapon says:

    SHE’S NOT PREGLANT! (I miss Rome…)

    They should know by now that the press will follow them EVERYWHERE. They can’t call the paparazzi for publicity stunts and expect that the paparazzi wouldn’t follow them elsewhere.

    As for the dress… I don’t know what makes me sadder, the fact that it looks mighty dowdy and can’t be pulled by anyone in the world, or the fact that it was made by MCQUEEN.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      Love the reference to Rome! I miss it too; miss it terribly.

    • Fudge you, I'm going to Guam! says:

      Rome? What? Is this some kind of Will&Kate secret stan lingo?

      • EscapedConvent says:

        HA! It’s not-secret “Rome” lingo!

        GoodCapon, a question: Was Titus Pullo hot, or was he hot? I used to hear that the movie was really going to happen, but that seems to have faded. The main actors wanted to do it. A real shame, that is—I was hoping to see more of it.

        Also, you can see both seasons at “watchseries.eu.” It was the greatest thing on ancient Rome I’ve ever seen.

      • Christina says:


        Titus Pullo was hot, but Mark Antony was way, way hotter. And not shy about showing us what he had to offer either…..

      • Christina says:

        James Purefoy should have won awards for…. all sorts of things!

        Yeah, they had to rush the Anthony and Cleopatra storyline because they were told the series would be cancelled (sob!) TBH, I really disliked the way Cleo was portrayed as this manipulative, squeaky voiced junkie. Quite an insult to one of the most fascinating women in history. I also wished they had given up on the silly Atia/Servilia storyline is Series 2. It became very tiresome, and there was so much else that could have been covered. I’d love to have seen more of Brutus’ (who I found oddly attractive) storyline, and I wished they had had time to cover Octavian’s first marriage. Apparently, the actress who played Jocasta was originally cast to play his first wife, Scribonia. And I’d have loved to have seen more of Livia – she was quite wonderful!

      • Genevieve says:

        OMG…did y’all just say James PUREFOY?

        My non-uterus just had a phantom flip at the mere mention of his name.

        God, that man is…FULLY. HOT. <3

      • GoodCapon says:

        OH TITUS PULLO WAS HOT. WAAYYYYY HOT. 100% hot-blooded male. Ray Stevenson is proof that you don’t need to have a six pack and bulging muscles to exude sexiness.

        I stopped watching Dexter a long time ago, but I’m thinking of picking up the new season because he’s in it.

      • Christina says:


        Yup. He’s so hot it almost hurts to watch him. Brilliant actor too.

    • Christina says:

      ‘Rome’ was fab but the actress playing Eirene was embarrassingly bad. The character bored me to tears too. A shame that so much time was wasted on her and her boring marriage, especially when it took time away from Antony, Cleopatra and all sorts of other deliciousness.

      • EscapedConvent says:

        Deliciousness….Pullo….yes, please.

        I read that there was a lot more Antony & Cleopatra planned, but when the producers decided to end the show, they had to wrap it up quickly & rush through so much of the story. I could certainly have watched more of that storyline. And I’m still wondering how James Purefoy did not win an Emmy for Antony.

      • EscapedConvent says:

        Christina, I just saw your comment about Marc Antony! Yep, he was scrumptious all right. I thought of posting “Who would you rather…Antony or Pullo?” & then noticed that I had wandered far afield from William & Kate.

      • Christina says:


        Yeah, just wrote a long reply to your previous post but posted it in the wrong place!

        In answer to your question, I’d deffo go for Antony, but it’s an embarrassment of riches where the men in ‘Rome’ are concerned. I don’t think I’d say no to any of them!

        Oh well, back to KAte and her boobies…

      • GoodCapon says:

        James Purefoy could totally rock the eyeliner! And he was very good as Mark Antony. I was hoping he’d be cast as Mance Rayder in Game of Thrones, but Ciaran Hinds got the part (not that I’m complaining…)

        Brutus is also going to be there, and since you found him ‘oddly attractive’ Christina, I suggest you keep an eye out for him 😉

      • Christina says:

        I’m really hoping to see Purefoy cast as Cromwell in the upcoming adaptation of ‘Wolff Hall’. But it probably won’t happen. Given how hot and how talented he is, we don’t see nearly enough of him (mind you, we saw quite a bit of him in Rome!)

      • EscapedConvent says:

        Hmmm…can’t find a reply button to put this in order, but…It’s good to see all the James Purefoy appreciation here! I didn’t know Ciaran Hinds & Tobias Menzies would be in Game of Thrones! (I dropped HBO.) I thought Brutus was fab too. So…Caesar & Brutus–together again?

        And did you say Ray Stevenson is on Dexter now? May have to start watching. Thanks for the tip!

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        So so glad to hear from fellow Rome lovers!! My fave show of all time. Such amazing actors! Pullo & Vorenus best buddy movie ever.

        Also loved Purefoy, Hind, and that lovely boy who played young Octavian wish he would act again.
        Thought Cicero & Posca were portrayed fantastically well.

      • Christina says:

        I agree.

        The amazing thing about ‘Rome’ was that even the minor characters were so well played and scripted. Even the slaves – that grumpy woman who followed Atia around was wonderful, even though she barely spoke more than a dozen words in the whole series.

        The only dud notes were the awful Eirene (as described above) and also I thought that, especially in the second series, it became a bit sexist. It seemed that none of the female characters had anything to do but plot against one another. And you had that nasty virgin/whore dialectic between Eirene and Gaia. All that aside, it was the best thing on TV in many years, and it’s a tragedy that it was cancelled so soon.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        The writers were def better with the men than the women though I felt the relationship of Atia and her daughter felt so real to me. In the beginning, overbearing interfering mum, angry daughter but in the end they are each others only real companion. Loved it when Octavia said at the end “if you let down Mother I don’t know how I can bear it”. Polly Walker was great. Hey fans–suggest you check out Hinds, Purefoy & Walker costar ring in The Mayor of Casterbridge.

      • Christina says:

        Yeah, the story arc for Atia and Octavia was cute – they were mortal enemies for all of Season one, and then gradually realised that they were the only real friends the other had. I do think that it was very anachronistic though, like the whole of the Atia storyline. More 21st century AD than 1st century BC. In reality, Octavia would have been married off very quickly, instead of moping about her mother’s house, using drugs and hanging out with unsuitable people. Aristocratic Roman women simply did not stay single for any length of time – it just wasn’t done.

        I’m a bit of a Roman history nerd so I do focus on these things, but at the end of the day it was a great series and these are all minor complaints. Rome was still head and shoulders above anything else on TV.

        Thanks for the tip re Mayor of Casterbridge – Hinds, Walker and Purefoy together again. Sounds unmissable!

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @roman history nerd! Me too! Of course they took huge liberties with the truth — the Atia character in particular historically inaccurate (though based on a real woman who was a member of the Claudii family).

        Assume you have watched I Claudius? A must see.

      • Christina says:

        Yeah, the scriptwriters say they partially based Atia’s character on Clodia Pulchra, who was a bit of a wild child, in contrast to the real Atia, who was very boring – at least from what little we know of her. Kind of makes me wonder why they chose to have her family as the centrepiece for the series – they were nobodies until Octavian was adopted by Caesar, and he was constantly mocked for his lowly origins. And yet in the series, Atia is portrayed as an aristocrat, on a par with the haughty Servilia! Oh well, it’s a drama, not a documentary, I suppose.

        And of course I have seen I Claudius. It is a bit dated now but still a must-see for anyone interested in Ancient Rome. Derek Jacobi’s performance is one of the greatest in TV history. And Sian Philips was also magnificent as Livia. I’d love to see the series re-made. My pick for Claudius would be Ralph Fiennes!

      • GoodCapon says:

        You guys lost me with all the Roman history stuff 😉 Although I do know that the show wasn’t historically accurate.

        I do feel sorry for Atia. She schemed, she maneouvred a lot of people and in the end she got what she wanted but at a great cost. It’s very lonely at the top.

  18. Phil says:

    Invasion of privacy. Seriously, she was on vacation with her husband. Oh I don’t really like how many people are judging her taking vacations. Are you a dutchess? Do you know what it’s like to be in the public eye and scrutinized every minute of your life? Just leave her alone

    • TrustMeOnThis says:

      +1. It is what it is – this is the deal for them. Knowing your every word and action will be scrutinized by all has gotta suck. And you can’t even go on vacation at a private estate without some jerk taking photos of your boobs. I wouldn’t sign up for that. I think she must really love him.

      Also they may as well vacation while they can, before they have kids and everything becomes 1000 times more complicated.

  19. andy says:

    i mean seriously guys… what the h*ll is she wearing lately??? it’s getting more and more ridiculous!! that long gold-ish dress reminds me of something you would wear when going to a halloween party and wearing a short dress or skirt when visiting a mosque?!? i mean, seriously????!!!
    is there really nobody, who is telling her what is appropriate and whats not?
    moron or not, waity or not- right now she is a person of public life and she is representing something. so why isn’t there anybody to tell this girl what the f**k to do or to wear in public!?! it is such a shame!

    • Merritt says:

      The gold dress according to the reports I saw has the state flower of Malaysia in the design.

      And how is the dress she wore to the mosque short? It covers her knees. One is not required to where a floor length dress in a mosque. She covered her hair and removed her shoes while there.

    • Riana says:

      That’s an impressive amount of anger over a dress another person wore.

    • Jaded says:

      What she wore was perfectly appropriate in both locations – did you forget to take your meds this morning?????

  20. Gine says:

    Eh, I think most people will be on her side about this–who even cares that she went topless on vacation? The magazine acting like it’s some crazy sexual thing (“Kate forgets everything!”) is what’s gross.

    That blue-ish dress is dowdy, but I assume dressing conservatively to visit a mosque is the norm.

  21. Madison says:

    It was bound to happen sooner or later. When you are as famous as she is you have no privacy not even in a private villa, yeah it sucks and it’s not right but that’s the price you pay.

  22. Mia 4S says:

    Hey Halle Berry, what was that about the paparazzi situation being better in France?

  23. FreeSpiritedGirl says:

    It’s totally ok. Everybody goes topless while sunbathing (I hope she was just sunbathing and her husband was around her). Just because she is now a part of a royal family, media should not make a big issue of it. Guys, just go to some beaches and see 100s of topless women. What’s the big deal?

    • bluhare says:

      The big deal is she’s the future Queen of England.

      But I agree with you. I wonder if someone’s gonna set up a facebook page for Kate like the soldiers did for Harry.

  24. C72 says:

    sorry for my opinion…..but, beatch please, u r the future queen, have some class….GROSS

    (does she even have any boobs anyway? she looks like a boy)

    • Amelia says:

      Queen consort, actually ^^

    • dee says:

      you do have a lot of feelings about this, don’t you?

    • Marilyn says:

      I personally think that it’s an invasion of privacy but I can see where you’re coming from.
      But body shaming her and saying that she looks like a boy is really uncalled for. Plus how do you think that someone with a similar figure to her would feel if they read your post?

    • jenna says:

      Oh please. I am pretty conservative, not a flashy dresser, etc. and you can bet if I am in a secluded location on my own or with just my boyfriend and its hot, the top comes off. Try it sometime, it feels fantastic!

  25. Talie says:

    Oh snap, I just the saw the pics on Twitter…that cover is right in your face. Her boobs are surprisingly perky, fake?

    • C72 says:

      eww, i just saw it too, her boobs are icky…

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        Did Wills dump you for Kate or something? Give it up. Let them live.


        Also, it is a topless pic, oh clutching my pearls now. Good lord, some people need to let loose a bit.

        AND stop body shaming other women. Women who body shame can suck it. Let your tits fly Kate!

      • Marigold says:

        Have some class? Seriously? She’s with her husband. Married people or people in long term relationships are pretty consistently nude around each other. And in many countries, going without a top (and/or bottom) is not considered trashy or classless. Way to come off like a sheltered conservative douche. And not everyone has giant boobs. It doesn’t mean they look like a boy. Bashing her femininity based on some male centered stereotype of what looks attractive? HAVE SOME CLASS.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @OTiff-It is clear to me that I need to give one massive “+1,000,000” to all your posts on this thread.

      • Izzy says:

        @OTiff, OKitt, I second you on all your posts!

      • Genevieve says:

        Oh, FFS…:(

        I’m totally pearl-clutching, as well.

        Let ’em hang high, Kate!!

      • ohiogirl says:

        I just saw them and I think her boobs are great! And she has gorgeous skin!

  26. Cathy says:

    I kind of like the gown. I think she looks nice in it. As for the topless pictures, who cares. I say sue the shit outta the magazine a photographer. The royals are entitled to some privacy.

  27. ahoyhoy says:

    As far as her boobs, who cares. But you know this really bothers poor William, and makes him feel hyper-protective of his wife.

    That’s what bothers me about this: William having to be stressed out & being reminded of his mother’s constant hounding & death.

    • Rory says:

      This^^ Is it not enough that Prince Williams mother was hunted to her grave in France, now his wife has to be spied on and humiliated? I hope they sue these people into bankruptcy and debtors prison.

  28. andy says:

    isn’t it a lack of intelligence to go half naked sunbathing in the country where your mother-in-law was “killed” by a bunch of ruthless paparazzi’s hunting here to get pictures of her? is kate really that stupid?

    • GoodCapon says:

      You don’t even have to go as far as Diana’s death.

      Harry just had a similar mishap recently – you’d think they’d have learned something from that. Cameras are everywhere; and especially for a popular couple like this two, they will never be safe from prying eyes.

    • Liv says:

      I don’t think so. I assume the chateau is in the middle of nowhere (I don’t know though) and they stayed at a private house. Where is she supposed to feel free when not in private?

      • andy says:

        you are never in PRIVATE, when you are outside! specially in a country like france with paparrazis from hell. when you are in public you have to reckon that they will somehow get you. thats their “job”!

      • Tory says:

        Don’t most “normals” know that if they walk around outside with no top on it’s possible for some perv to photograph and share their state of undress with others? That’s why I don’t walk around without MY top on…and I don’t have people constantly trying to photograph me wherever I go. Call it an invasion of privacy, but they can’t reasonably expect to be “private citizens” when it suits them and then have their butts kissed and people bowing and scraping when they decide it’s necessary. She took her top off, being photographed was a possibility, it’s happened. Period. Anything you do in life has consequences, good or bad, so deal with it. (P.S. My five year-old knows that!)

      • kibbles says:

        Bingo, Andy and Tory. I mentioned that even I’m too scared of going outdoors in the nude because there are too many pervs just waiting for their chance to expose innocent women on the web. You no longer have to be a celeb to have your privacy invaded by amateur photographers.

  29. ANGELIC 20 says:

    i am going to defend kate for the first time in my life:
    this is an invasion of privacy , it’s violating and wrong on so many level. it’s well know on this site that i don’t like her at all but even with her 10 vacations a year and 64 public engagements, she still have a right to go top less with her husband on a private estate just like harry had a right to play strip billiards with consenting adults in his private bed room. i felt sorry for him and i feel very sorry for her as well. it was a security breach in both the cases and both of them should have been way more careful especially after harry’s photos and pippa’s topless photos as well. imo they both were careless to expect that these photos will not be taken or published , both of them have a right to privacy and i feel sorry for both of them.

    what on earth sarah burton is doing with mcqueen brand, that golden dress is even worst then costumes in Bollywood movies. that is like a Bollywood costume from 10 years ago. sarah is ruining mcqueen, if she continues to do this he will haunt her. i feel bad that his life long work is completely ruined by a designer with absolutely no imagination, did she not learnt anything from him while working with him? it’s really tragic.

    • bluhare says:

      Angelic, totally agree with you. Except for the dress. I liked it. I think I’m a minority of 1 on that topic, but I thought it was a great choice.

    • LAK says:

      That dress is NOT McQueen. Sarah Burton should be very very ashamed of herself. In what world is Temperley/Amanda Wakeley looking dress McQueen.

  30. Zimmer says:

    @Αlly. Kate did pick this life for herself, however. If she wasn’t up for it she shouldn’t have married William.

    • Ally says:

      Yes she did choose her life with her husband but they are entitled not to be photographed when in private, as everyone is here in the UK.

      I do think the line between celebrity and royal has started to become fuzzy in this age of the internet. But, they’re not the same.

      • ataylor says:

        For people who live in countries without a monarchy, it is EXACTLY the same. That royal “specialness” means JACK SQUAT to anyone else other than their loyal subjects. My ancestors didn’t come over from England, my ancestors come from various other nations. I’m American – European royalty mean absolutely nothing to me.

        And it’s common sense: if you don’t want to get caught with your pants down, don’t pull ’em down when there’s a possibility others can see you. Like in broad daylight. Lesson learned the hard way for Kate.

        And what is WITH everyone placing the blame on the papparazzi for Diana’s death? She’s dead because her driver was stupid enough to get behind the wheel DRUNK AS A SKUNK. Let’s place the blame where it belongs. This whitewashing of Diana’s life story is getting ridiculous.

  31. pretty says:

    This is the photos.
    She looks happy.
    + Zoom in the photo. Look at her abs 🙂 wow. she is in a good shape.lol

    • TG says:

      Thanks for the link I couldn’t open the french magazine link for some reason. She looks fabulous though I do think it is low of them to do this. These paps should join the CIA or some other elite force since they seem to be very good at getting impossible shots and not being seen.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        Geez, so much ado about nothing. A topless pic of a married couple in France.

        FFS! I feel like taking a topless pic of myself and putting it on my gravatar. They are just boobs for goodness sake! You’d think they just released a porn video.

        She won’t be Queen consort for many a decade anyway.
        OK, I am going to go walk around my house naked now. 😉

      • Chatcat says:

        Good God, this woman was on vacation. Can’t everybody just leave her boobs and uterus alone! It’s not like she went to the Queen’s jubilee flashing titty, she was a woman literally hanging out with her hubby suning and funing while on holiday. Hmph!

  32. JulieM says:

    I have no respect for this woman, but please, who cares if she’s topless or not. Not like she has anything to show. Notice the padded bust on the white evening dress. She has the figure of an ironing board. Bollywood, exactly.

    I can understand the invasion of privacy point. But another holiday. Geez. It’s going to take her six months to recover from this trip.

  33. DanaG says:

    They probably thought they were safe. The property is owned by the Queens nephew and he has owned if for over 13 years and they have never had a problem. Kate needs to be more careful she is a future Queen mind you after Camilla anyone’s going to be better and classy. Of course her boobs are real she is 30 works out and has never had kids. William has always been protective he makes deals and usually they have been respected. This really should be a blow to Halle Berry and her the French are so much better. Clearly they aren’t.

  34. Suz says:

    I don’t know, Kaiser, the Malaysian woman walking in with her has a similar dress on so perhaps the gold and white dress is a traditional Malaysian outfit.

    The white dress she wore to the mosque is simply dated. I had one much like it in 1982. She is properly velied, though. And she looks good in a veil.

    Kate sunbtathing topless – no biggie.

    Paps falling out of trees taking photos a mile away – pretty invasive. Unfortunately, Wills and Kate will have to get used to it. Unless they are hunkered down in Balmoral or on some private island.

    Edited to add: I just saw the photos. She’s in good shape but I gotta say if she’s pregnant it’s very early days.

    • deehunny says:

      yes, the white dress looks dated but that is because she has to cover her elbows, knees, and hair. so, i actually think it is a rather pretty conservative dress

  35. MsMileHigh says:

    Sometimes she is so tacky. I am not talking about the topless thing – she deserves a little privacy and lots of Europeans do the topless sunbathing thing. I am talking about the PANTYHOSE thing! It strikes me as soooooo old fashioned and tacky. Every time I see her in pantyhose, I imagine she is making sure the toilets in the palace all have blue water and that she has really stinky feet.

    • ladybert62 says:

      What is wrong with pantyhose? What is she suppose to wear – nothing on her legs and feet?

    • tmbg says:

      Well, I hadn’t thought of the blue toilet water aspect, but my gosh you are right about the hose. She would look a million times better with no leg covering because she has good natural coloring and nice legs, but this isn’t a choice for her. The Queen no doubt enforces these things because they all wear them.

      Look, if you *have* to wear the damn things, do as Dita von Teese does and find the ultra sheer, pale ones rather than the shiny L’eggs egg ones from The Queen’s mothballed collection. No doubt Kate’s stylist dips into a vast supply of hose from 1982 that the Palace got a deal on.

    • LAK says:

      Pantyhose is a PROTOCOL thing. Perhaps you never noticed until Kate came on the scene that ALL royal ladies wear them. From The Queen down to Lady Louise!!!!!

      And if you should ever go to BP to meet The Queen, you are required to wear them.

      • tmbg says:

        If I met The Queen (which I would never want to do), I’d be wearing a pantsuit with a nice patterned trouser sock or a long gown where you couldn’t see anything. No sir. I know Kate has to, but if you’re going to do it, this is the way to wear them (RIP, Carolyn Bessette – there will never be anyone else with her kind of style):


        See? Barely there! It looks like she’s wearing nothing. Dita von Teese wears those too. That’s the way to do it if you must.

      • Suz says:

        Sigh. Carolyn Bessette.

        Now there was a style icon. Someone who could really really dress well.

        I need to find some pantyhose like that. Then I need to find a body like that.

      • tmbg says:

        Suz, I’m pretty sure Wolford makes a very sheer version. I think I read it somewhere in InStyle or Bazaar.

        No, there will never be another Carolyn. Briefly I had hopes for Kate, but she’s under too many restrictions. Yet look at Grace Kelly. She retained her style even once she was princess. Ah, another one gone too soon. 🙁

  36. The Original Mia says:

    Eh. Hard to feel sympathy. Celebs have been photographed naked before. Harry was photographed naked. Their security should have locked down their location just as they’ve done on most of their vacations over the last 2 years. Guess this puts the pregnancy talk to rest for the moment.

  37. ladybert62 says:

    Both dresses are pretty – the long one is a little over the top for her style but it seems appropriate for the event and the country. I like the second dress very much.

    She should know that nothing is private when you are a royal and especially outside – even if it is a private estate. She is learning and wont do it again!

  38. mln76 says:

    I agree with everyone that its a breach of security and an invasion of privacy and she should have the right to be naked with her husband on a private estate with zero repercussions. HOWEVER now that the pictures are out this is a major scandal. This is the future Queen consort people will always be able to Google her tatas its serious.

    • LAK says:

      Seeing that we can already google her crotch and bottom pics, this just completes the set.

      Ditto being able to google William’s peen.

      Let’s not forget her two bikini shots walking down a catwalk to ‘hook’ William. Press self-censored to show only the black bikini with a lace dress cover.

      As people pointed out on the Harry threads, and any other nude celebrity [non intentional like this one] threads, privacy is expected BUT it isn’t going to happen so don’t put yourself in that position.

      • bluhare says:

        For everyone who wants to see William’s peen (equal opportunity and all that), Michael D’s got a link. Not that I clicked on it. Yes I did. He’s taking a leak outside.

  39. G says:

    The dresses are lovely appropriate for diplomatic events. A vast difference between that kind of event a a film premiere.

    They should sue the magazine and paps. Set boundries sooner rather than later.

  40. karen says:

    Boobs are boobs. Nothing special. We’ve already seen her crotch so I suppose it completes the set. It sucks they get their privacy invaded, but they wouldn’t be on there 4th extended vacation of the year if it wasn’t for the privilege they get that comes with the press. Im annoyed they missed the paralympics because the “previous engagements” was tanning in a villa.

    • LAK says:

      This was the 5th or 6th holiday for them as a couple. They went to Scotland x2. PLus they looked suspiciously tanned at the Olympics, and i don’t think William is a fake tanner. Whatever the final tally, William has two foreign holidays more than Kate…Falklands [he had a solo holiday after his posting] and Spain [with Harry].

    • GoodCapon says:

      Heads-up then: the next time they say they are preparing for a tour, it’s lazy code for going on a vacation.

      • LAK says:

        Also when they say they have a ‘prior commitment’. It’s turned out to be a vacation every time they’ve used that phrase.

  41. D1 says:

    My understanding of French law is that this publication will undoubtedly be fined for taking pictures at this private residence, but the fines will be small compared to the income these photos will generate, so it’s worth it to the magazine.

    Which is why, btw, I don’t think this will affect Halle Berry’s case at all – it isn’t worth it to French magazines to risk fines for printing private photos of her, as the level of public interest in her isn’t high enough to make it financially worthwhile.

  42. Lindy says:

    It was a private vacation on a private estate with her husband. I really fail to see what is so damn scandalous about it. I mean, there’s plenty to pick on with Waity, but that’s not it.

    Also, I have no issues with the fact that she only wore the headscarf while visiting the actual mosque. That is appropriately respectful and culturally sensitive without ceding her own identity as a non-Muslim, western woman.

    (I say that as someone with a PhD in religion–philosophy of religion–who has spent years involved in inter-religious dialogue, so I’m not trying to be cavalier.)

  43. melanie says:

    Topless? Interesting…Was she still wearing one of those uber padded bras?

    • gg says:

      Listen, I would kill to have her shape, including the small boobs.

      • menlisa says:

        Why on earth would you want to have an anorexic like body?!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        You have proof that she’s anorexic?

        She is thin, small-boned with a petite frame.
        I think you do a disservice to people who suffer from eating disorders by accusing every thin woman of having anorexia. That, and it’s just an ignorant, unfair thing to say.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        Stop it with the freaking body shaming. Go to skinny vs, curvy or something.

        I am so sick of this. I am sure you are perfect, but I have news for ya. Women come in every size, shape and color as do their breasts and I say they are all great. Viva le difference!

        Long live boobs of every size. People are frigiing going insane in the middle east and you’ve got to bag on Kate’s tits? Surely we have more good stuff to snark on, like the antics of Blohan or Bynes. Not blurry pics of a married couple on vacation.

        I am now damned glad I ran around completely naked on a deserted beach in Hawaii.

        Who’s joining me in the topless cracktini pool party?

      • Nymeria says:

        @ TheOriginalKitten – “Petite” refers to height only. This woman is not petite.

      • TrustMeOnThis says:

        I’m in for the pool party! I have a new beverage – a pitcher of scrutinis! They make you appear perfect to everyone around you. 😉

        BTW “petite” only refers to short *in the context of garment sizing* where you can have, say, a petite plus. Outside of that specific context, using it to mean “generally tiny” is perfectly fine

      • ronnie says:

        big boobs are not the be-all, end-all, but you gotta admit, she looked way better before the weight loss — athletic, lean and healthy. that’s all.

        p.s. someone needs to consult a dictionary re: the meaning of petite. it means small in stature. Kate is clearly underweight, I’ll give you that, but at 5 foot 10 she is far from petite.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Tiff you are KILLING me today.

        Scrutinis sound incredible!
        I’m going buck-naked to the pool party and I’m inviting Harry.

        Regarding The Petite Police-kindly get off my ass. My best friend is 5’8″ but very thin and shops in the petite section. Should I tell her she’s not allowed in there because according to y’all it’s for short chicks only?

        I’m 5’4″ and ALWAYS shop in the petite section of Macy’s, never considered myself short, just average.

      • Chatcat says:

        In fashion terms, you can be considered petite up to 5’8″, which is the height I thought Kate was reported to be and be slender and “small boned”. So a 5’8 woman whose is small boned and thin/svelte could be considered petite and a 5’3” inch woman who is bigger boned and has voluptuous build would not be considered petite simply because of her height.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Exactly, Chat. It’s a French word meaning “small”. I call my thin friends “small” or “tiny” or “PETITE” all the time.

    • Chatcat says:

      @Nymeria – WRONG. The actual definition of petite is “a garment size for short or slender women”. And being or is another word for “either” it is correct to refer to her physique as “petite”.

      @Kitten. I can’t figure if people hate her figure because they are jealous of her being thin and svelte or their just unhappy about themselves period.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Completely, Chat! I am honestly at a total loss as to why people have such a hate-on for her.

      • Nymeria says:

        It. Refers. To. Height.

        Irony is lost here.

      • Mel says:

        “I can’t figure if people hate her figure because they are jealous of her being thin and svelte or their just unhappy about themselves period.”

        I couldn’t possibly speak for others – and God knows I don’t “hate” her figure or anything about her, or about anyone else, for that matter – but I find her figure quite unimpressive. She has no waist whatsoever and is quite shapeless.

        However, like I just said in another comment, there is not much she can do about it. And it certainly is no crime, nothing to hold against her.

        I do like my own figure – a lot – but I am also aware that I have no merit for it, other than trying to maintain it in good shape. The rest, the bone structure, is genetic – in my case as in Kate’s and everyone else’s.

      • Lo says:

        Sorry, I’m a fashion distributor and a ‘petite’ size refers strictly to height, usually under 5’4. A simple Google will change your mind.

    • una says:

      I’m with you on this one, Menlisa. Skeletal and emaciated is not something I aspire to.

  44. Suz says:

    The game has changed a bit for these two crazy kids. You would think William, of all people, would understand that having seen what happened with is mother.

    They had a bit of privacy when they were in school and then dating. They could take their (many) vacations, drink, lounge about, shoot, take off their clothes in public and sunbathe, and be left alone for the most part.

    But as a married couple lined up in succession to the throne, everything they do is going to be documented. And they have to change their behavior because the paps and the public will not change theirs.

    • gg says:


    • The Other Katherine says:

      Or, you know, Kate could say, “Yes, I’m a grown woman. I have breasts. I’m not ashamed of my body, and sometimes when I’m at a private beach I go topless, because wearing constricting clothes on your upper body all the time feels like crap. And all y’all who want to make this some kind of scandal? Are cordially invited to suck it. Kiss my royal ass.”

      THAT I’d enjoy. Shame it’ll never happen.

  45. Samihami says:

    The gold and white dress were perfectly appropriate for the occasion. She was expected to wear a long gown and have her upper arms covered at the Malaysian state dinner. Also, the gold design are hibiscus flowers, the state flower of Malaysia. Her dress was perfect.

    • gg says:

      I like the gold dress, and I adore that fabric.

      But the white dress looks like she fished it out of the bin at the charity consignment shop.

    • Rory says:

      Exactly. People forget that Kate is not a movie star. The rules of dress are different for her. What she wears must be in keeping with her position as a representative of The Queen and the government. At the same time she must wear clothes that don’t offend the people she visits by breaking their rules of modesty. The Duchess is an ambassador for Britain, not some vag flashing Hollywood starlet.

  46. irishserra says:

    I like that she’s doing something a little different with her hair and her makeup. Very subtle changes, and she still needs to tone down the makeup but I do like to see something a little different.

    As for the photos, I think it stinks that they were taken. Not necessarily because she was topless, but because she was on vacation and I think everyone deserves some privacy now and again. I do like how she and William seem to be affectionate in the photos.

  47. Sookie says:

    Who cares. She should be entitled to go on vacation with her husband and being topless in Europe in no big deal.

  48. EssJjay says:

    This is becoming not just an invasion of privacy BUT more more of a security breach. When Harry’s “buttgate” happened, my awful thought was: what if any of this girls had been a taliban spy/killer or instead of camera phone, what if the phone had been a killing gadget disguised as a cellphone. l think its about time the royals take this more serious before it gets nasty…

  49. gg says:

    Sunbathing is not a smart thing to do, full stop, let alone exposing parts of you that never see the sun. And I would bet those parts are more susceptible to skin cancer.

  50. Jaded says:

    I was in France shortly after Diana died and every French person I spoke to was absolutely mortified by what the paps did. You’d think the accident would be a legacy against that kind of hurtful and dangerous invasion of privacy, but paps are lowest scum of the earth and will stop at nothing to ruin someone’s life.

    This time I’m totally on Kate and William’s side, they were in a private location on holiday, not on official tour, and niaively believed that the area had been locked down by security.

    For God’s sake, she’s with her husband on vacation – I did that enough times with my husband when I was married.

    This stalking amounts to serious harassment, and the magazine should be shut down and the photogs given prison sentences.

  51. Anne says:

    It’s not like there was much to see anyways.

  52. Holly says:

    I’m sorry, but she wanted this lifestyle. She waited around on William for many years. She gave up her right to privacy by becoming a public figure, just as a politician does.

  53. Lady LaLa says:

    well, if you don’t want TAN LINES, lol

  54. menlisa says:

    Maybe she should try working instead of constantly going on vacation.
    The paps were intrusive though. I feel bad for her on that part.
    But she is so lazy.

  55. Fried eggs says:

    After the name calling and shitstorm that came down on Prince Harry for photos taken in his private suite, while partying naked, I DON’T FEEL ONE OUNCE OF SYMPATHY FOR KATE, #1. She must be really stupid to go sunbathing nude a WEEK or so after the Nude Scandal with Prince Harry.#2 This is most likelly not the first time she has bathed nude outside, but the British Press has been protecting these two for ages, I see nothing wrong with bathing nude , but if you are a Royal why the heck do it a week after Harry’s scandal, THAT’S JUST STUPID. Kate modeled underwear at school to let William know she was game, she and William are probably doing a lot of stuff that doesn’t get reported by the British press. If the press was not so hard on Harry when it happened to him, I would for sorry for Kate, but since Harry got a shit storm thrown at him by many of the british journalist and columnists, I say Kate should get used to this life, she asked for it, she begged for William to marry her. I feel no sympathy.
    Fried Eggs with prunes in center.

    • Anne de Vries says:

      I do think there’s a bit of subtle difference between these two things:

      1) partying in Vegas, inviting randoms up to your room, not making sure they don’t have cameraphones, then getting drunk and naked… and having up-close photos surface of your drunk and naked ass


      2) being on a remote private estate, with your husband, sunbathing topless and having blurry photos surface that were quite possibly taken with a massive zoom lens from 500 metres or more away by somebody who’d climbed a tree and sat waiting all day.

      It just doesn’t seem quite the same to me, you know?

      • GoodCapon says:

        It’s not, really. But they were both extremely careless (and stupid on Harry’s part)

        Like I said above, Kate should expect by now that cameras will be everywhere they go… even on vacations. That’s the price she paid for marrying William: with all the luxury and endless shopping comes constant intrusions to her private life.

      • Fried eggs says:

        This is good fOr all those who bashed Harry non-stop, nude photos came out of the Duchess, someone is Definately playing gotcha games.

        Oh there is no difference
        Both went on private vacations.
        Harry was in his private suite, partying.
        Kate was on a private Estate whch can be rented out by the public as a hotel also, vacationing, with her hubby and if you see photos there are other people there too, so does Kate get her bikini off in front of his friends r other’s on a regular basis? Also the Closer editor says he has even more photos. Can’t wait, can’t wait.

      • Suzie says:

        Apparently, the area where Waity was sunbathing could be seen from a public road.

        If true, she’s either stupider than she looks or more of a famewhore than anyone thought.

      • Anne de Vries says:

        No, if Kate’s photos had been made by somebody she’d invited into the house, THAT would have been the same.

        And apparently, this is a photo of the chateau relative to the position of the photographer. You can’t even see people walking around at that distance, I think she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.


    • Jaded says:

      They were actually in France vacationing before Harry’s Buttgate.

      And taking a private vacation together as husband and wife and doing a bit of topless sunbathing is entirely OK. Cavorting drunk and butt-naked with total strangers is an entirely different matter.

      • egoliterate says:

        She’s dumber than I thought, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that papz will be waiting to pap you in the nude, even on a private estate “outside in the open air sitting around a swimming pool” and I now wonder how many times William’s security has seen Kate topless, it’s just s dumb move for her, especially after Prince Harry’s nude photos were sold from inside his private suite.

    • bettyrose says:

      I think the Vegas pics made her jealous and she she was sending Harry a message.

  56. Mich says:

    Eh. Whatever. She did nothing wrong. Shame and both the pap and the pub that published the pictures though.

    I will say that she and her husband seem quite close in the pics which kind of sucks from a gossip standpoint. Speculating on problems is so much more fun.

    After looking at these pics (on this page – not the topless ones!) I am so totally on board with getting my eyes done! She is a great poster girl for blepharoplasty!

  57. Hmmm says:

    Is everyone naive enough to believe that there were no servants/staff/underlings on the property and no security men? That somehow Dolittle managed to walk around semi-naked without encountering them? Did they all have to wear blinkers? Some “invasion of privacy”.

    What’s striking is how cozy Willy and she seem to be. Seems to put to the lie that their marriage is adrift.

    • Fried eggs says:

      Yes they do look quite cozy with each other. He’s probably been seeing her in the buff since University hookup. It’s good to see they are comfortable, but doesn’t William mind others seeing his wife in the buff? There are other people arund and even on a private estate which is run as a hotel too, it’s still interesting leting yr wife hang loose.
      Also some photos do show other people around while Kate is topless, I’m not sure if they disappeared from the internet yet, but the first photos I viewed there were there people in the hot tub or pool near them.

      • bluhare says:

        My guess, and my guess only, is that William’s more angry about this than Kate. I don’t think she’s happy, but William’s a man with that wife protection thing going on, along with memories of his mother. Oh, he’s furious, no doubt about it.

        I bet she’s sweating more about whether the photos of her smoking are published.

      • Hmmm says:


        Yeah, I don’t think she cares, maybe is secretly thrilled. She does seem to be an exhibitionist.

        Willy, on the other hand, seems to be traumatised. This certainly gives Dolittle a lot of fodder and leverage in emotional manipulation. Score one for Waity!

      • Christina says:

        By all accounts, William is absolutely furious. He HATES the press and was determined to protect his wife from their intrusions. I bet he’ll sue.

        BTW the editor of ‘Closer’ said that there are also more ‘intimate’ pictures out there. She said that although her magazine didn’t publish them, she expects that someone else will. This might just be the beginning….

      • Suz says:

        @ bluhare

        I agree. William is known to have a temper and I’m sure this has sent him into a fit. I’d hate to be touring Malaysia with him right now. I’m sure he’s not angry with his wife, but he’s also probably a bear to be around.

        And Kate, if there are photos of her smoking, as rumored, is probably a lot more worried about them. After all, she is supposed to be gestating the Windsor heir now – or soon – and that will set off public condemnation far more loudly than a couple of naked boobs.

      • bluhare says:

        Hmmm: I don’t think Kate’s happy about it, I just think William is probably more angry than she is. If it were me and my husband, I’d be pissed off, but he’d be ready to rip someone’s head off.

        Suz: Totally agree; the shaming she’d get for smoking while trying to get pregnant would be way worse than the mock outrage over the photos.

      • Mel says:

        “the shaming she’d get for smoking while trying to get pregnant would be way worse than the mock outrage over the photos”

        And, as with most “shaming”, it would be unspeakably stupid. Cigarettes have never had any effect upon conception of children.

        (Not to mention the politically-oh-so-incorrect-but-true fact that that most of those who were conceived and born at a time when half of the population, often including the mothers, smoked all the time seem to have grown up so much more healthier than today’s tots who are vastly overweight and allergic to every other thing.)

        People really are easy to wind up… 🙂

  58. Nix says:

    I love love love the white and gold dress. I want it.

    I, for one, think the topless photos are a huge invasion of privacy and I will not be clicking through any sites to look at them.

  59. Scorellini says:

    OMFG you’d think she’d take off the panty-hose if she knew she’d be going barefoot. I mean, that’s just gross.

    • LAK says:


    • bluhare says:

      Why is it gross? I just don’t get you young whippersnappers’ take on pantyhose. Frankly, more people ought to wear them. Nothing like close ups of people’s ugly veins and cellulite.

      I swing both ways; hose when it’s cold and none when it’s warm. Kate has to wear them as it’s required when she’s working.

      • OriginalTiffany says:

        I hate them because as someone from a HOT climate they are so uncomfortable. Most people can’t pick out a good stocking to save their lives.

        If I have to I do a super small fishnet in nude-would that meet protocol?

        I save the black fishnets for sexy nights. Actual hose? Not going to happen.

      • bluhare says:

        OT: I don’t love them, but I live in the Pacific NW where it’s cold three out of four seasons (at least my definition of cold!!) and I’d freeze without hose or tights. If I lived in a hot climate I wouldn’t wear them unless I had to either.

        But when Kate went barefoot at some Olympics pre-event, everyone ragged on her feet. Now she has to go without shoes and is wearing pantyhose and everyone rags on the hose. She can’t win!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        “Hose” are like nylons right? Tights?

        I’m torn on this-I NEVER wear them but I honestly feel like I’m getting a bit too old to avoid them, especially in the professional environ that I work.
        I just HATE the way they feel and I think they look dumb on me. Maybe I just need to get used to them? Meh.

      • bluhare says:

        Kitten: I had a bad choice of words there. Hose incorporates all styles, and I meant nylons vs. opaque tights.

        I agree she could go for something a bit sheerer, though. I prefer the lighter sheer kind.

      • gg says:

        Dresses for me are a big fat NO, so I wear neither hose, tights, nor stockings. 🙂

      • Rory says:

        Yep. Wait till these young whippersnappers are in their 50’s. They’ll be happy to find a great brand of sheer hose to cover their painful and ugly varicose veins. In fact, wearing good hosiery can even prevent them from getting worse. Not to mention that in colder climates, they’re a blessing. Diana wore some really great stockings, all different colors and some with seams down the back and butterflies on the backs of her heels. They were lovely on her. 🙂

    • Suz says:

      Honestly, I think Kate does a good job with her pantyhose. They seem sheer to me, not particularly thick.

      In fact, I’d like to know where she buys them. I would buy a few pairs for the few times a year I need to wear them myself.

  60. Reece says:

    OT: Last night I was watching Hunger Games with my friends and during the reaping scene my gay bf said “the district 12 ppl look like they raided KM’s closet.” We had to stop and rewind for the OMG’s!
    The pics: Big Deal. Naked is natural. Yes I think it’s an invasion of privacy as they were on a private estate. But it can/did happen. My question is will The Sun publish these too??? Probably not.

    The dresses: The dinner dress is pretty. It does look more Bollywood than Malay despite the flowers. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that a lot of skin for Malaysia though? Chest wise. Aren’t they pretty conservative in Malaysia?
    The mosque is the best so far. Maybe due to the lack of hair flying around. It’s my favorite.

  61. GoodCapon says:

    phil dampier ‏@phildampier
    If Closer Editor is right and terrace where Kate sunbathed was visible from road then security should have warned them – no excuse though!


    • bluhare says:

      If the terrace is visible from the road, you wouldn’t think they’d need security to tell them.

    • bluhare says:

      Just saw a shot of where the photographer was taking those photos. There’s no way I’d have thought someone was sitting there taking my photo. It’s really far away. He must have had a great camera with a huge telephoto lens. That being said, the house is not shielded at all.

    • PleaseICU says:

      Based on where that pap was located that balcony, and what Kate and William were doing on that balcony, were visible only through a long range telephoto lens.

      There’s a photo, I believe from the Daily Mail, showing where the pap was located and where the chateau was located. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_macpir26cr1qbl67wo1_1280.jpg

      The Closer’s definition of visible and mine are different. The pap has to have been a half mile to a mile away from where William and Kate were.

      • LAK says:

        The chateau is very visible from the road.

        We can get closer shots of the Brangelina Chateau, and they’ve planted trees so that long distance one can’t see the chateau from that distance. The distance of the chateau from the road makes me think that someone knew they were there rather than a lucky guess.

        It makes my tin hat conspiracy tiggle. I wonder who the pap was/is?

        However, as Diana once said,’you never know where the camera is going to be…’

      • L says:

        Wow. Yea that’s far, who would have even though anyone could get a shot from that distance?

        Saying, ‘its a public road close by’ has me envision a road right next to the property. That’s far, and thinking you were able to have a private moment from that distance isn’t unreasonable or naive.

      • LAK says:

        EDIT: The chateau’s website has been taken down but apparently there is a road closer to the chateau than the one used above. The one being used in the tumbler to illustrate distance is apparently the wrong road. Even so, not putting up trees around the Chateau is an invitation. That building is very clearly visible from this road in the tmbler image. A sniper can get anyone from that distance very easily, let alone a photographer.

  62. egoliterate says:

    …or Kate could have used her smarts and perhaps just gave up the idea of nude sunbathing for this trip.

  63. Jen34 says:

    I was under the impression that topless sunbathing in Europe isn’t as popular as it used to be. I did it in my younger
    days, but now with cell phones, I would never want anyone to take my picture. Look all you want, but no photos.

  64. Suz says:

    I just read on Lainey that there’s a rumored photo of her (not published, though) in the same set smoking a cigarette.

    I find that more shocking than the topless spread!

    • ronnie says:

      the smoking is one rumour i would be inclined to believe as she has been spotted numerous times with a cigarette

    • Rory says:

      William, Harry and Kate all smoke. The Queen doesn’t as her father George VI died of complications from lung cancer brought on by chain smoking.

      • Mel says:

        “George VI died of complications from lung cancer brought on by chain smoking.”

        I am sure it didn’t help, but the actual cause was more than likely genetic.
        His mother, Mary of Teck, not known to have been a smoker, also died of lung cancer.

  65. melmel says:

    I think the bigger scandal is they were on holiday rather than be at the closing ceremonies for the paraolympics.

  66. egoliterate says:

    smoking and drinking probably

  67. Christina says:

    BTW the Palace has just confirmed that Kate and Wills have started legal proceedings against ‘Closer’.

    That didn’t take long. Wills is clearly majorly p1ssed off.

    • bluhare says:

      Just saw that they’ve sued. That’s fast. Really fast.

      • Christina says:

        From what I’ve heard, the maximum punishment for the magazine is a fine of about 20,000 Euros. Given that ‘Closer’ is owned by a big media conglomeration owned by Silvio Berlusconi, I doubt they’re overly worried. 20,000 Euro is probably peanuts to them.

      • bluhare says:

        Christine: I don’t think it’s the money. It’s the invasion of privacy angle and the precedent setting for the future they are concerned about. It’s the equivalent of the shot across the bow.

      • Christina says:


        I know what you mean, but the fact is that the maximum penalty – 20,000 Euros or so – is loose change to the Berlusconi media corporation. Also, the court case is going to generate tons of publicity for the mag, and also keep Kate’s boobs in the headlines for possibly months on end, when otherwise it would have faded away quietly – it’s not like a woman going topless in private is a massive scandal or anything.

        So I’m not sure if it’s a wise move. I can understand why Wills would do it, from an emotional point of view, but I doubt it will stop such incidents happening in the future. The fact is that there is a huge market for this kind of thing, and the magazines will be willing to take the risk of what are relatively small fines, when the potential gains are so huge.

      • bluhare says:

        Christina: You’re right. 20,000 euros isn’t enough to stop any major publication. Unless William can get an injunction against any photos while they are on private property, and not working.

    • Suz says:

      Yeah – I’m sure the magazine will just settle and pay. Then continue on…

      I’d be mad if I were the Cambridge duo, too, but they are fighting a losing battle.

  68. Kloops says:

    I actually think these photos help her image. It softens them and makes them look like a normal couple.

  69. Sway says:

    Poor Kate.

  70. tmbg says:

    I think the whole thing’s ridiculous. If you walk on a European beach, you’ll see plenty of topless women. She was just minding her own business, and even though she probably should have known some idiot was hiding in the bushes, she still shouldn’t have to be on guard 24/7 during a private vacation with her husband.

    I suppose what I’d do is leave the top on, lay down, unhook it, and bunch up a towel under me around the sides of the boobs so no one could get any naked shots. She still shouldn’t have to do it though.

    The paps are a**clowns and always will be.

  71. Lushus L. says:

    My gripe is with Kate’s dinner dress in Malaysia. Everyone knows that Malaysia is super conservative. Add to that, her hostesses were older ladies and very petite. She not only wore a plunging neckline, she wore 4 inch heels when she is already tall! I think it was kind of inconsiderate to her hostesses. Does no one advise her?

  72. Elizabeth says:

    I think these pictures could do a bit of damage to Halle Berry’s claim that the paparazzi in France aren’t as bad as the psps in the US! So I guess Kate’s topless photos could help keep Nahla in the US and close to her dad. Ironic.

  73. Fudge you, I'm going to Guam! says:

    Apparently there are scans out there that show more pics of Kate topless and one where she bends over with her bikini bottom down and William putting on sun lotion on her butt.

  74. C72 says:

    TMZ says Closer claiming to have sex pics as well…..

  75. Luffy says:

    Just because someone is a public figure doesn’t mean that the public has a right to see into their private lives.

  76. candice says:

    In one of the images – she is sitting and slightly leaning over – you can see every bone in her back and loose skin in front (not the boobs). Thing is, the boobs are pointed towards the sky –obviously she’s had work done, or they’d be all withered looking due to the weightloss.

  77. Cazzee says:

    I feel bad for her.

    In the most recent photos of Kate Middleton from their Malaysia visit, she looks like she’s been crying.

    • C72 says:

      i’m looking at all the photos on Getty….she’s looks perfectly happy to me

      no tears! she must not care

      i would be mortified, but then I would have never allowed this in the first place

      • Cazzee says:

        Her eyes are puffy, covered with makeup. “Smiling through the pain,” after all they are British,

        Personally speaking, I love nude sunbathing, and couldn’t care less if there were topless photos around of me looking that good! But she made a deal when she married royalty that she would act in certain ways, and this is definitely not one of them. Don’t see why it’s such a big deal myself…she looks fine. A bit thin, but whatever.

  78. bettyrose says:

    The act itself isn’t shameful but the likelihood that it was deliberate to get papped seems oddly rebellious of wait.

    • bettyrose says:

      er, Waity, that is. And, yeah, it’s probably time that the royals accept kids will be kids (and people are really kids eternally these days). Won’t matter once the old guard passes and the youngins inherit the store, but Waity did sign on for a life of constant scrutiny, so if she didn’t do this deliberately, she’s unforgivably naive. Thus, I vote for deliberate act of defiance.

  79. rumbleseat says:

    Well I’m happy that the Brits aren’t buying into this one as anything shameful on her part.

    Also, I think her dress is literally the first thing she’s worn that I actually said -Wow, she looks really nice! It’s appropriately dressy for a state dinner, and very pretty to boot. I agree with some of the other posters that it’s not a McQueen-looking dress.

  80. Swethaa says:

    As soon as I saw the 1st dress…I was like Why is she wearing a dress designed out of a saree? I am Indian and the dress is totally Bollywood n Not Malaysian at all….

  81. Stubbylove says:

    Finally she does something somewhat interesting! Not staged with her perfect smile, boring/conservative clothes, hair, racoon eyes, etc. No big whoop sunbathing topless with your husband privately while on holiday – it actually makes me like her more.

    If you go to closer.com it’s “temporarily unavailable” and then a comment from the publisher with legal babble. What a bunch of idiots.

    • the original liv says:

      actually the french version of the closer is up and running. it’s the british version that went offline.

  82. Miss Kiki says:

    Ok I’m not sure if a) People are still commenting on this thread cos time zones confuse me waaaay too much and b) Anyone mentioned this up thread.

    I’ve read today that they’re officially taking legal action.

    I’ll ask the usual Royal commentators i.e. LAK, Saachi and Bluhare (anyone with a working knowledge of the RF also feel free to reply) Any history of this happening before with other members of the RF? Also, what’s the worst that could happen to ‘Closer’? Just a case of paying a few quid in damages and no longer printing the pictures or could DD and Willy actually get the publication shut down if they pursued it? That probably sounds like an obvious question but I’m still surprised as to just how much power/clout the RF actually have. Thanks in advance.

    • LAK says:

      This has happened in France before with other royals. Charles, Andrew, Fergie. Many moons ago a pregnant Diana, although in her case she had her top on but a pregnant belly was mui scandalous.

      CLoser will get a slap on the wrist. Reading up on french law, they’ve weighed the fine vs profit from this and have gone with profit. Law says ceiling for the fine is 20,000 euros which is really nothing.

      As for Royal family clout, we shall see how effective they really are.

      However, what you are seeing in motion is deflection because these pictures are undeniable proof that WC were on holiday when infact officially William was back at the RAF and Kate was prepping for the tour which was the excuse given for their non attendance at the paralympics.

      Also, proof of RF clout will be how long this story remains in the media as in how quickly they can kill it so that nobody talks about it anymore. It’s how they handled Andrew’s pedo friend scandal. Story broke on a sunday, and by wednesday was completely off the airwaves in all media.

      • LAK says:

        Also forgot last month’s highland games in Scotland where pap took up-skirt pic of Prince Philip. Let’s just say, he is a true scotsman. Photos were published abroad.

    • Sachi says:

      LAK already answered with regards to the Windsors, but I’ll add in about other royals as well:

      Princess Caroline of Monaco has a history of filing injunctions against the German paparazzi.

      You can read more about it here:

      Some cases she’s won, some she’s lost.

      Also, Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima of the Netherlands filed a complaint against the Associated Press.


      The Dutch RF usually have a rule in place when it comes to the press: they schedule photo shoots every year (several, in fact) and invite the media to take their “quota” of photos. In return, the press would leave the royals alone, especially the children, when they are at school, at a park, or other private, personal occasions where the presence of the press is unauthorized. The Dutch press respects the rule. But in this case, AP is an American agency, so they probably didn’t feel like they were under any ‘code’ so they could publish any photo they wanted.

      The Dutch royals won the court case, but nothing more is known. AP most likely took the photos down as as asked by the Dutch government.

      In Spain, the magazine “El Jueves” published an obscene cover of Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia. The drawing/cartoon depicted the future King and Queen of Spain in a sexual position. The magazine was well-known as anti-monarchist. The royals themselves didn’t sue nor publish a statement, but a government lawyer filed a lawsuit against the magazine. A judge ordered all the magazine copies to be taken and the cartoon was banned. The magazine’s website was briefly closed and the cartoon’s artists were fined 3,000 euros each.

      But the magazine itself is still in publication. The latest is that the artists are counter-suing.

      In these previous royal cases, many people are torn on the subject of free speech and its limits when it comes to royals and “special treatment”. In Princess Caroline’s case, the court had ruled both in her favour and against, and the usual reason for throwing out the injunction is that the press is allowed to publish whatever photos of royals they have.

      We’ll see what will happen with this latest issue of “scandal” in the next few days. The Windsors and their teams are capable of killing stories and shutting down the media when the press gets too close.

    • Sachi says:

      @ LAK, I wonder if they truly would publish them, especially if they already have a lawsuit against them.

      Unless another agency buys the photos, like an American/Australian agency and the Palace can’t shoot the stories down, I don’t know the extent of the photos that will be published.

      I only heard that there were pics of Kate smoking. I read some site saying “Closer” also has some ‘sex pics’. I don’t know if William and Kate will be that stupid as to engage in sex no matter how private they thought the estate to be.

      But if there’s ‘worse’ to come, I don’t know how the Palace will deal with it other than to shut down the publication completely to make an example out of them.

      British papers may comply with not publishing the photos, but everyone would have seen Kate’s topless photos by now, just as we did with Harry’s.

      Now what will this do to William and Kate’s image remains to be seen.

      Frankly, I think these photos are enough. Any more pics will be obscene and revolting on the part of the magazine. Royals should be criticized for many of the things they do, but not this one. I’m more annoyed that they were on holiday instead of attending the Paralympics closing ceremony of which they are ambassadors.

      Kate going topless, no matter that photos exist and could’ve been taken from a nearby road, shouldn’t be a big deal except for privacy laws and proof that she and William were skipping off could-be royal duties at the Paralympics for a “prior commitment”.

      She has breasts, so do I. Mine’s bigger. Call the police! 😉

  83. Nikita says:

    i realy love gossip and nice pics but i totaly hate this kind of gossip and pictures. i think celebs they have the right for their privacy and sitting on a tree to get a good pic is totaly wrong and should not be allowed. this shows where our society is now, its all about the money. they are as bad as the financeindustry

  84. skuddles says:

    I know it’s probably unrealistic to expect that Wills and Kate will be afforded any real privacy in their lives, but nonetheless, it seriously p*sses me off that some photog scumbag went to such lengths to exploit what was, CLEARLY, intended to be a private moment.

  85. lrm says:

    It’s not the same as Harry at all. With Harry it was someone INVITED to the party-
    With this, I’m horrified-someone had to hunt them down, scope out the shot and invade their privacy-what’s next? wire tapping?
    I agree that topless bathing and smoking a cigarette are not a big deal, but on principle, the paps and people in general, should not be allowed to invade private lives in this manner. Celebs, royals, civilians-it does not matter…It’s a bad precedent, that I know was set along ago. But still….there should be uproar and possible legal action-to keep the paps on their toes and not have this become standard protocol.

    With Harry, yes, security could have stopped it, and you hope the ppl you invite won’t sell you out-but he chose a public venue with strangers invited. I just don’t see how it’s even remotely parallel,tbh…

  86. u marry a tart says:

    I don’t feel in he least bit sorry for her and her image is tainted, no matter how much William sues, besides William is the one who allowed his wife to run around out in the open naked and thougght it was fun, so now Reality has smacked him on his ass and he sees what Harry has to go through with the tabloids not giving a crap about his or Kate’s image….well boo-fricking hoo, these two are crybabies, if you take your top off and you do outside where papz can get a glimpse, they will take photos. It’s amazing the hypocrisy some have, Harry was in his room a private room with friends, partying, someone sold photos. Kate was at a chateau which is a rental, even if owned by William’s cousin, it is a hotel with staff and guests. Kate got naked, Harry got naked, someone took photos and sold them. Yes it’s invasion of privacy on both but both got naked in private areas, but you take your chances when you walk around naked , Kate is no better than anyone else. Kate is the tart that Pr.William first decided t date when he saw her modeling underwear and these photos aren’t the first ones I’ve heard about, there’s been much n Kate the british press keeps on the downlow because she married William.

  87. once a tart says:

    It’s worse because Kate is the future Queen walking around naked in the open air, is she really that dumb, that she didn’t think a papz wouldn’t be watching the place, it’s right near a road So now everyone can see what a tart William married.
    William first dated her when he saw her mdeling underwear, I’m sure that was a big part of her appeal, her willingness to go all out. He’s the one who watched his wife parade around naked in the open air, so he and Kate both need to stop boo hooing. The cat is out of the bag, everyone has seen her tata’s and from what I hear there’s more to come.

    • flan says:

      Just being topless does not make her a tart. The hate for women’s half (!) naked bodies sometimes is astounding.

  88. SolitaryAngel says:

    I LOVE the white/gold dress! Also, if Duchess McBoobies wants to sun her girls, then LET HER. My God, she and William are forced to be so reserved all the time, I imagine they DO let it all hang out when they can. I hope they sue the shit out of whoever took those and sold them.

  89. Jaycee says:

    Her face does look like she does quite a bit of sunning. Looks a little old for just 30.

  90. Jess says:

    I don’t think she’s very bright. First off, if you’re going to visit a conservative muslim country, you don’t go around showing your cleavage because that is deemed disrespectful.
    Secondly, if you’re like the #1 most papped person in the world, don’t go topless while sunbathing unless you don’t mind your photos on tabloids for everyone to see. That’s just simple common sense.
    Didn’t she learn anything from Harry’s recent royal jewel’s scandal?
    I’m pretty sure the queen is not happy that a second member of their family got photographed naked within a month or so.

  91. Christine says:

    If not, then I’ll apply to the Queen’s special council for an updated spelling instead ie- the new Duchess of Camebridge 🙂

  92. lulu says:

    But where are the pics???

  93. charlie says:

    Royals are not the same as celebrities and don’t deserve to be treated the same. The fact that they “work” for the state (I won’t get into the Royals’ slacker definition of “work” right now) is the very reason they should not expect privacy and should keep their private parts covered when outside. Celebrities earn their own money and therefore have a right to do what they like; they should expect some privacy. Royals, on the other hand, live on the public dole (welfare), and they are or should be beholden to the public. In exchange for their lives of indolence, riches, and privilege, they lose their privacy. Keeping your bikini top on is a small price to pay for a life of vacations, red-carpet appearances and tea-tastings called “work,” and access to a vast fortune, courtesy of the public.

    And besides, while Willy may not have chosen this lifestyle, Waity pursued it with a chilling intensity and a single-mindedness never seen in her before or since. She craved this lifestyle desperately. So suck it up, Waity. Tough titties. You can’t be selective about your media attention.

    • ShugAveryPee says:


  94. charlie says:

    And for all those who are crying foul because the nudie photos are an invasion of their privacy, you need to realize that it’s not about privacy at all. It’s about money, which trumps privacy any day. It’s about consumerism. It’s about capitalism. It’s about supply and demand. The masses want nude photos of Waity, and the magazines, media outlets, and photographers want to make money. The masses get their naked-Waity fix, and the mags and photogs that provided that fix get their money. If people like us didn’t inhale this sort of stuff, then the media would have little inclination to go after it and publish it. It’s simple economics, Western style. Like I said, supply and demand — that’s the cold reality.

  95. TG says:

    I just went on to the French magazine Closer and searched Halle Berry’s name and look at all the articles that come up about her custody fight. Guess she won’t be safe from them over there. She can’t pretend no body is interested in her.


  96. blonde on the dock says:

    It’s an invasion of privacy. I can see why they want to sue considering the past with Diana. BUT she looks damn hot in those pics! I think she’s gorgeous and carries herself with poise and grace. Love the white and gold dress on her. Nice looking couple. I dont get all the hate.
    co sign with charlie

  97. Suzie says:

    If anything is “scandalous” it is these intrusive, thick skinned paparazzi peering unwanted and uninvited into the Duke and Duchess’s life while on a private vacation. This sort of behaviour by paparazzi is precisely what drove Princess Diana and Dodi to their deaths: they had to make different snap-choices and take a different direction to try to escape these photographic predators. Diana and Dodi even had to change their appointed chauffeur to drive what turned into a “getaway car” to get rid of these s.o.b.s. I hold these predators with cameras directly responsible for Princess Diana’s death.
    Pity the Palace cant position sharpshooters with buckshot to lie in wait on the periphery for these paparazzi scumbags, and then let them have it.

  98. Shannon says:

    I hope the royal family sues their asses for big time money.

    I know she’s a royal and people want to see her and take pictures, but there has to come a point where a line is drawn. She has an expectation of privacy. This means someone with a high powered lense shouldn’t be skulking near the property trying to take photos.

    Just think if you’re out at a private estate sunbathing, topless or not, and someone post pictures of you all over the internet. What if they posted it on some porn site to make money?

    No matter how you look at it. It’s wrong!

  99. lisa says:

    No one told her to take her top off. Memo to ALL royals, stay fully clothed.

    • Shannon says:

      That’s utter bollocks! If the paps had taken a photo of her taking a dump would you say she shouldn’t go to the bathroom?????

      Again, she has an expectation to some privacy. Yes, she is a public figure so not a lot of privacy is afforded, but still there is a line to what is decent and what is not decent.

      • Benny says:

        I don’t get the analogy. Taking a dump isn’t really optional, and you usually don’t do it outdoors. By contrast, taking your top off outdoors isn’t exactly a life necessity, is it? It’s pretty easy to refrain from taking your top off outdoors. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with taking your top off outdoors, but it shows poor judgment, given their circumstances (being members of the royal family and being constantly photographed).

  100. Suzie says:

    Paparazzi should use much more common sense and discrimination when choosing their intended targets. William and Kate’s behavior and conduct have been nothing less than honorable and decent. Why punish them in this way!?

    • LAK says:

      These people are not honourable. All this fuss is because they have been caught out in a lie. William was supposed to be back at work with the RAF whereas Kate was busy prepping for the asian tour. That was the official explanation for their non-attendance of the paralympics. They put in a cursory 2 days and then disappeared. Now we have undeniable proof that they were on holiday. The noise they are making over these pics is disproportionate to the ‘crime’ or even content. If WC had a sense of humour, they’d laugh about it.

      AnD before anyone says they were only suppposed to be at paralympics for a limited time only, consider that

      a)the same was given out for their attendance of the Olympics and yet they were there everyday.

      B) They were Paralympic GB ambassadors.

      C) they made a big thing of the other work that was calling on their time which turns out to have been a holiday.

      These people are not honourable. And now dragging a dead woman into this to cover their behinds!!!!!!words fail me.

    • Ross says:

      not only paps but papers and magazines… even more them than paparazzis

  101. Dragon says:

    I wouldn’t sue the paparazzi or the publishers. I would get them where it really hurts and set private detectives on them, who document everything they do, everything about their families, children etc. Every financial transaction, every affair, every drug taking, everything which is just about slighty beside the law and then I would publish it on the Internet. Maybe in future people like that will think twice before they take photos of me. 😀

  102. No biggie says:

    So what? We make WAY too much fuss over bare breasts in the “civilized” world. It’s even less of a big deal considering her bust size, pun fully intended.

  103. Benny says:

    They were outdoors. It’s hard to argue “invasion of privacy” when you’re outdoors, even if you’re on private property. At least in America, the police are allowed to spy on you from a helicopter using binoculars or other enhancement devices, if you are outdoors, even if you are on private property. As I posted in another thread, if they had been selling drugs instead of sunbathing, and the cops took a picture of it from a helicopter, the’d have a hard time proving invasion of privacy.

    It would be prudent for them to assume, at all times when they are OUTDOORS, that someone could be watching. Because that’s pretty much the rule for the rest of us too, and especially so for famous people. I guess I can add “poor judgment” to the list (along with lazy and entitled).

  104. Jill says:

    When is the sextape coming out lol

  105. Jill says:

    The paps werent on the property. He was on a public road. The sky and air are not regulated. The person was far enough away that they didn’t even detect him. Next time she needs to keep her cloths on outside.

  106. muppet_barbershop says:

    I adore the gown. Malaysia is not like Indonesia or much of the Arab world with its Islam. Loose interpretation of “Malaysian” style might be appreciated, and she probably didn’t offend anyone. I also really really like the classy dress with its pretty hijab. (ooooh the buttons!)

    She’s got a right to be topless on vacation in an appropriate place for that. I sort of wish they’d find a way to laugh it off and shame the paps/mag that did it. The suing makes it look like the royals are ashamed, and they shouldn’t be.

  107. Johnny Five says:

    I have a problem here… she’s angered over the topless photos. She goes to a dinner in a dress that accentuates and looks really bra-sy… like someone forgot to add enough material to cover the bra….. what gives… exhibitionism??????? the first thing you look at is the bra hanging out.

  108. ChickenLicken says:

    When is anyone going to get to the heart of the matter? they were on vacation when William should’ve been at work or at the very least at the paraolympics. Besides all that, She’s wearing a bust enhancing dress in a conservative country… A “look at my bosom” dress. you can’t even look at her gown without looking at the chest… what is with that woman? Exhibitionism..???

  109. ChickenLicken says:


    they sue because her photos are out but for the sake of promoting themselves the royals have no problem publishing the tribal women’s bare chested photos.. what gives????