Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courier Mail)   It's both impressive and sad at the same time that topless photos of Kate Middleton have been leaked to the press before topless photos of Emma Watson   (couriermail.com.au ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Kate Middleton, Princess Diana, terminal illness, SPF, Dirty Harry  
•       •       •

20580 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 8:28 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-14 08:59:33 AM  
I don't get it. I
m not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!
 
2012-09-14 08:59:49 AM  
Emma Watson has been famous longer than Kate and so even before she had tits she knew there'd be men out there with cameras waiting for her. Kate probably forgets every so often that she's mega famous.
 
2012-09-14 09:00:06 AM  

Another Government Employee: So, Closer is Voyeurweb for the Royals? OK.

Kate is a nice looking lady. I certainly would not turn her down.


Best looking royalty in about 1000 years.
 
2012-09-14 09:02:39 AM  
Let's see - you're one of the most recognized women in the world, and you think that if you sunbathe topless no one will find a way to snap pics?
 
2012-09-14 09:04:48 AM  
Who cares? The internet has given us a neigh-limitless pool of naked women to look at. Why would I care about this random woman's boobs?
 
2012-09-14 09:07:12 AM  
So now that Kate got things started, any BIE in it for us not-royals?

/EIP
 
2012-09-14 09:07:19 AM  

MikeSass: Ask and you shall receive. Blurry and long distance, but here they are.

Royally NSFW
Also Royally NSFW


William is topless in the pictures as well. Where's the outrage about that?
 
2012-09-14 09:08:07 AM  

buntz: I don't get it. I
m not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!


Interesting points. Here in Europe it's quite normal to be topless at the beach - no one bats an eyelid. In two properties I rented in Brighton my downstairs neighbours would sunbathe topless (they seemed to forget my kitchen/ lounge overlooked their gardens) and you don't expect to be photographed on private property.

That said, if you are remotely famous you'd think you'd know there are paps everywhere so would keep your top on! Basically what ethics-gradient said.
 
2012-09-14 09:08:24 AM  
slms.leesummit.k12.mo.us
 
2012-09-14 09:08:33 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Mid_mo_mad_man: Kate has a ugly face and no body.

Yeah, she's a troll:

And you ought to know trolls.


Kinda proving his point there. I've seen hotter chicks working the drive through of Burger King.
 
b3x
2012-09-14 09:09:04 AM  
about what i would have expected ... that is what boobs look like, contrary to what you millenials have been led to believe.

again, she could use some sammiches, but she is a good looking woman. and her boobs look fine to me.
 
2012-09-14 09:10:54 AM  

Honest Bender: a neigh-limitless pool of naked women


Anyone who posts SJP is getting a punch in the mouth.
 
2012-09-14 09:11:31 AM  

stpickrell: it up the way Prince Harry was ... hopefully that scumbag paparazzi gets sued and hit big.


It is going to cost the magazine Closer some money. In France all published photos of someones private life must be authorized by the concerned person. The same magazine was just fined for using unauthorized photos for the presidents girlfriend in a bathing suit.
 
2012-09-14 09:11:43 AM  
I don't understand topless sunbathing. No tan lines, that seems nice, but a nipple sunburn seems like one of the worst things ever
 
2012-09-14 09:11:49 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder:
Jeebus mahoney.
With the quality of digital equipment nowadays, those must have been taken from a mile away.


And I've seen similar, also taken from soooo far away that probably no one suspected they could have their picture taken. It's downright creepy.

buntz:
Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.
I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!


They're still practically newlyweds. They can get naked anywhere they like. I wonder what the outrage would be like if someone took pictures of them doing it? Because it could have happened at any time. Like five minutes after those pictures were taken.
 
2012-09-14 09:13:25 AM  

wildcardjack: Hey, give her a break. She's bringing fresh genes into a blood line that was either going to die or get killed off.

Fun fact: In WWI the King, the Kaiser, and the Czar were first cousins.


And the Czarina was also a cousin.....George Michael and Maeby are impressed
 
2012-09-14 09:13:54 AM  

buntz: I don't get it. I
m not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!


You seem to be assuming that she didn't know. Whenever nude pics "leak" of someone famous I feel safe in assuming that they want the pics out there - and usually are releasing them themselves. If they aren't then they've been monumentally careless or stupid. Either way.... meh. Just enjoy the boobies.
 
2012-09-14 09:14:02 AM  

buntz: I don't get it. I
m not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!


Since the paparazzi started using flying camera drones to get pictures of celebrities I hope we can agree they're going a bit too far.

I think it is interesting that a lot of people arguing for a right to privacy online have no problem with these photos being released despite the fact she was on private property and the photos were reportedly taken with radio control operates drones.
 
2012-09-14 09:14:03 AM  
She's a good looking woman, but these shots do take away from that.

With the families problems with Dianna, the hotel naked shots, this... I hope they somehow finally put the hammer down on these idiots. It's getting a little out of control.
 
2012-09-14 09:14:38 AM  

cryinoutloud: They're still practically newlyweds. They can get naked anywhere they like. I wonder what the outrage would be like if someone took pictures of them doing it? Because it could have happened at any time. Like five minutes after those pictures were taken.


I said I was all for it! You can be naked anywhere you want! But she married into royalty! She bought her tickets. She knew what she was getting into!
That's all I'm saying!
 
2012-09-14 09:16:35 AM  

mongbiohazard: buntz: I don't get it. I
m not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!

You seem to be assuming that she didn't know. Whenever nude pics "leak" of someone famous I feel safe in assuming that they want the pics out there - and usually are releasing them themselves. If they aren't then they've been monumentally careless or stupid. Either way.... meh. Just enjoy the boobies.


Yeah man she was really asking for it

news.bbcimg.co.uk
 
2012-09-14 09:16:55 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
Pish! Behold MY royal pair, unwashed subjects!
Bloody wankers.
 
2012-09-14 09:16:57 AM  

Nogale: Let's see - you're one of the most recognized women in the world, and you think that if you sunbathe topless no one will find a way to snap pics?


FTA:

French tabloid Closer has bought photographs of the Duchess sunbaking topless at a swimming pool while on a private holiday with Prince William in Provence last week.

See, she was sunbaking, not sunbathing. Can't a person bake without people wanting to snap pictures?
 
2012-09-14 09:17:50 AM  
Dearest Emma

I want to, how to put this?, plow you.

Love
Chewie
 
2012-09-14 09:18:35 AM  
I prefer the young HRH:

blossomgraphicdesign.blogspot.ca/2011/06/happy-birthday-hrh-qu%20e%20 e n-elizabeth-ii.html

/dear fark. "unfetchable", my eye.
 
2012-09-14 09:19:13 AM  
This is classic supply and demand. If the baying masses didn't give a fark about what celebs and royalty get up to in private there would be no demand for the paparazzi and their pictures.
 
2012-09-14 09:20:15 AM  
I don't think she has any business being outraged over this. If you are going to take your top off outside, expect someone to see your naughty bits. If you don't think it can or will happen that is pretty naive.
 
2012-09-14 09:22:38 AM  
Those may be the most boring topless photos ever.
 
2012-09-14 09:23:58 AM  
I'm not sure why the Royal Family is scandalized by this, nothing wrong was being done by Kate. And anyways, they're just tits. Get the fark over it. Now, William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.
 
2012-09-14 09:24:10 AM  
pivazena
I don't understand topless sunbathing. No tan lines, that seems nice, but a nipple sunburn seems like one of the worst things ever


Considering the number of men not wearing tops in the sun, this seems to be a manageable risk.

/and I'm sure there are gentlemen who are willing to lend a hand should a woman need help applying sunscreen to her boobies
 
2012-09-14 09:25:42 AM  

Slives: You know it's funny with the British/European casual attitudes towards topless women, but this still seems to provoke an outrage.

Personally I think it would funny as heck if Kate called a live TV press conference, said 'If you want to see them, here they are' took off her top and posed for pictures for 10 minutes or so.

Then really kill it by getting Pippa up there and let the two of them pose together.


IBIMB
 
2012-09-14 09:26:19 AM  
At least the prince was with his own wife. There's credit for that...
 
b3x
2012-09-14 09:27:25 AM  
it's all Obama's fault, remember this when you go to vote
 
2012-09-14 09:31:18 AM  

Neondistraction: Meh, call me when it's Emma Stone.


Not Emma Stone but probably close enough for you.

NSFW 

/you're welcome
 
2012-09-14 09:31:36 AM  

buntz: I don't get it. I'm not a celebrity, but I've never been naked in public. I've never been naked in my back yard. I've never been naked at the beach.
I have nothing against nudity, and I think it's crazy we as Americans are shocked by it, but I don't get how these celebrities who KNOW there are cameras on them 24/7 are always getting "caught" naked.

Now, pics taken through windows, and into private property, through bushes, it's wrong.

I'm not defending paparazzi, they're awful. But certain celebs you never see naked, anywhere. And then some are always "caught" naked!


I have been naked in "public." I had a pool (gated and fenced) and I LOVED skinny dipping at night. Same, when I had a hot tub. I like to sunbathe topless. And I should be able to do such without worrying about being exploited by perverts. Seriously, they are boobs. Get over it.

I think it's sad that these "celebs" can't go anywhere without having their privacy invaded. The one's you "never see naked, anywhere" are so cautious. I would hate to live my live like that.

These pictures are just a gross violation. They were reportedly in a private vacation house, and it's clearly invasion of privacy.
 
2012-09-14 09:32:16 AM  

Girion47: William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.


We might miss out on future pics such as this. I consider that lost value.
 
2012-09-14 09:33:26 AM  

binaryblue82: I have been naked in "public."


EIP
 
2012-09-14 09:33:49 AM  
Come on people. This woman is on a lake somewhere with her husband, sunning herself. It's obvious the pictures were taken from very far away. She ought to be able to take her farking top off without worrying about paparazzi.

I think some of you have some boundary issues. You'd throw a fit if you found out that someone took a nudie pic of you from a mile away, to say nothing of the fit you'd have about the invasion of privacy in itself, but since it's a "celebrity"--well that's all fine and good. They deserve it for being famous. What kind of farked-up reasoning is that?  I guess celebrities aren't people. Or else it's just jealousy, which is kind of what it always sounds like to me--"they're rich and famous, so they deserve to have a camera shoved up their asses 24 hours a day, even when they thought they were in private."
 
2012-09-14 09:35:10 AM  

skankboy: Girion47: William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.

We might miss out on future pics such as this. I consider that lost value.


Blast them with air to air, heat seeking missiles?
 
2012-09-14 09:36:32 AM  
Get over it, you prudes.

/Nice rack, Kate
 
2012-09-14 09:36:35 AM  

cryinoutloud: Come on people. This woman is on a lake somewhere with her husband, sunning herself. It's obvious the pictures were taken from very far away. She ought to be able to take her farking top off without worrying about paparazzi.

I think some of you have some boundary issues. You'd throw a fit if you found out that someone took a nudie pic of you from a mile away, to say nothing of the fit you'd have about the invasion of privacy in itself, but since it's a "celebrity"--well that's all fine and good. They deserve it for being famous. What kind of farked-up reasoning is that?  I guess celebrities aren't people. Or else it's just jealousy, which is kind of what it always sounds like to me--"they're rich and famous, so they deserve to have a camera shoved up their asses 24 hours a day, even when they thought they were in private."


There is a pretty big double standard. Try suggesting people's public comments online should be linked with their real names and you'll complaints of "omg privacy!!" but if someone famous has their picture taken while on private property by someone over a mile away it is always their fault for being outside in the first place.
 
2012-09-14 09:36:37 AM  

MikeSass:

The only thing I find pathetic and sad is that nothing makes it to Fark anymore without first going through mainstream media.


Someone should write a book about tha....oh, wait....never mind. Yes, this has not escaped my attention either. Fark used to be milk straight from the cow's tit, which users love. Now it is homogenized skim milk from the same jug as everyone else's, because that is what advertisers demand. And Drew wonders why he struggles to get enough TFers to make it worthwhile, and enough hits to pay the bills.
 
2012-09-14 09:37:31 AM  

Girion47: Now, William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.


You have no idea what a sidewinder missile costs, do you?

/neither do I
//the internets say it's $84,000
 
2012-09-14 09:38:17 AM  

cryinoutloud: Come on people. This woman is on a lake somewhere with her husband, sunning herself. It's obvious the pictures were taken from very far away. She ought to be able to take her farking top off without worrying about paparazzi.

I think some of you have some boundary issues. You'd throw a fit if you found out that someone took a nudie pic of you from a mile away, to say nothing of the fit you'd have about the invasion of privacy in itself, but since it's a "celebrity"--well that's all fine and good. They deserve it for being famous. What kind of farked-up reasoning is that?  I guess celebrities aren't people. Or else it's just jealousy, which is kind of what it always sounds like to me--"they're rich and famous, so they deserve to have a camera shoved up their asses 24 hours a day, even when they thought they were in private."


Yup.If I do it, I get busted for being a peeping tom voyeur. If they do it, they get paid for "journalism". It's b.s. and the public try to justify it because the paps give them a little goose without making them leave their chairs. Cheap thrills.
 
2012-09-14 09:39:21 AM  

binaryblue82: These pictures are just a gross violation. They were reportedly in a private vacation house, and it's clearly invasion of privacy.


And I'm agreeing with you! Where are people getting confused about what I'm saying here?

It's 100% wrong and you should be able to be naked ANYWHERE! But, if you're a celebrity, sadly, you can't be! "That is the boundary and the price of immortality. "
 
2012-09-14 09:40:31 AM  

turboke: Girion47: Now, William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.

You have no idea what a sidewinder missile costs, do you?

/neither do I
//the internets say it's $84,000


The sidewinder is normally used for air-to-air anyways. They would use a hellfire which is a bit cheaper.
 
2012-09-14 09:40:33 AM  

MikeSass: Ask and you shall receive. Blurry and long distance, but here they are.

Royally NSFW
Also Royally NSFW


I fully expected those to link to Harry's streaking pics.

/Leaving surprised
//And somewhat disappointed....
 
2012-09-14 09:42:08 AM  

Carth: turboke: Girion47: Now, William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.

You have no idea what a sidewinder missile costs, do you?

/neither do I
//the internets say it's $84,000

The sidewinder is normally used for air-to-air anyways. They would use a hellfire which is a bit cheaper.


Aren't they launched from two completely different platforms?
 
2012-09-14 09:43:57 AM  

cryinoutloud: Come on people. This woman is on a lake somewhere with her husband, sunning herself. It's obvious the pictures were taken from very far away. She ought to be able to take her farking top off without worrying about paparazzi.

I think some ... so forth and so on......"


media.tumblr.com


/Hot like a bonfine in Libya
 
2012-09-14 09:45:00 AM  

maverickzy: Carth: turboke: Girion47: Now, William should go pick up his helicopter and a few buddies, and blast the shiat out of the papparazzi with a couple sidewinder missiles. Noone will miss them, and nothing of value will be lost.

You have no idea what a sidewinder missile costs, do you?

/neither do I
//the internets say it's $84,000

The sidewinder is normally used for air-to-air anyways. They would use a hellfire which is a bit cheaper.

Aren't they launched from two completely different platforms?


Our helicopters can carry air to air missiles if they wish, but not usually a standard loadout.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report