Topless photos of Kate Middleton published

**mjw** · September 23rd, 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by daisy575

Kate is about as regal as Paris Hilton! Saint Kate she aint!

Paps taking a shot up her skirt makes Kate a whore?

**mjw** · September 23rd, 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by daisy575

Will and Kate are global celebrities. You can't escape hearing something about them on the telly, radio, internet.

You can escape having to read about them on this thread.

**daisy575** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:01 PM

Beside Kate Middleton, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears, have you seen royal women, female heads of state, or celebrities that had their crotch photographed while existing a vehicle? I can't think of any respectable woman who has been caught in such a position. It's only the tarty attention seeking stars that get caught.

**witchcurlgirl** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:02 PM

take the stick out of your ass. she didn't mean to be photographed that way.

**daisy575** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:04 PM

You read minds? So Kate also didn't mean to pose in her bra and underwear infront of Prince William before she became his girlfriend? It was all an accident because sweet innocent Kate is too classy for such shenanigans.

**mjw** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by daisy575

Beside Kate Middleton, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears, have you seen royal women, female heads of state, or celebrities that had their crotch photographed while existing a vehicle? I can't think of any respectable woman who has been caught in such a position. It's only the tarty attention seeking stars that get caught.

Most women are not being followed by an army of paps.The person taking the picture is the one not being respectable.

What is existing a vehicle?

**twitchy2.0** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:14 PM

One that is already there.

Originally Posted by daisy575

You read minds?

You read minds? You know for certain that she deliberately posed for the crotch shot? How do you know that it wasn't accidental?

**daisy575** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:22 PM

No, I do not read minds.

Existing = Exiting. That was an error on my part. Attacking the debater as opposed to her argument is so elementary. Anyway, Diana was hounded day and night by the paparazzi, Michelle Obama and Angelina Jolie experience the same thing. Still, to my knowledge, there aren't any paparazzi photos showing their crotch. Anyway, I want to take this time to apologize to Kate and her siblings. Clearly, I have no idea what I am talking about, because I don't know what SLEAZE and TRASH is when I see it.

**twitchy2.0** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by daisy575

. Anyway, Diana was hounded day and night by the paparazzi, Michelle Obama and Angelina Jolie experience the same thing. Still, to my knowledge, there aren't any paparazzi photos showing their crotch.

I got your sleaze and trash right here

Celebrity upskirt: Princess Diana

You also want Beatrice? Her mother? Princess Letizia of Spain?

Gusts of wind happen. Getting out of a car gracefully doesn't always happen.

**CornFlakegrl** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:24 PM

Wills taking money from Dad is a problem but Dad didn't earn his money either, right? It all comes from the taxpayers.

I understand hating the idea of a monarchy draining public funds by why the specific hard-on for Kate?

**twitchy2.0** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl

Wills taking money from Dad is a problem but Dad didn't earn his money either, right? It all comes from the taxpayers.

Charles pays more in taxes than he takes from the government. The bulk of his income is from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Cost of Prince Charles rises to £2.2m
Extra 11% on Prince of Wales' funding from taxpayer attributed to longer flights and last year's royal wedding

Rob Evans
The Guardian, Friday 29 June 2012 20.26 BST

Public funding to support Prince Charles rose by 11% during the past financial year, taking the contribution from the taxpayer to almost £2.2m, it was disclosed on Friday.

The accounts, an annual glimpse into the finances of the royal household, also showed that the Prince of Wales' spending rose by 3.6% to over £20.2m. They cover the period in which the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton took place, the cost of which royal aides have said was shared between the families of the bride and groom.

The accounts also showed an increase of 3% in the income that the Prince of Wales receives from the Duchy of Cornwall, the estate given to the heir to the throne to provide him with a living, to £18.3m.

The increased contribution from the public purse has largely been spent on the official overseas tours undertaken by Charles, his wife Camilla, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, according to Clarence House.

The government justified the increased cost of the foreign travel, saying that the tours were necessary to promote "foreign policy objectives and UK interests throughout the world".

Anti-monarchists, however, criticised the rising bill at a time when "the country is facing sweeping cuts to public spending". They also disputed that all the royal heir's travel was for official purposes.

Clarence House said total spending on official travel for the five royals came to £1.31m, a 22% rise on the previous year.

The government was keen to point out that the overseas visits by the royals were "of real value to the country". Simon Fraser, the head of the Diplomatic Service, said: "The visits of the Prince of Wales have supported British business, investment and development goals and promoted our values around the world."

Charles and Camilla travelled almost 48,000 miles to and from official engagements at home and abroad, according to Clarence House. They undertook 804 domestic and foreign engagements, alone or together, during the year, and hosted almost 9,500 people at events at royal residences, according to the accounts.

Aides added that the travel bill covered tours royals have been asked to undertake by the government. They said that the increased bill was due to several factors, identifying in particular more trips abroad by the five royals and the "longer distances travelled during those visits".

They singled out visits such as the Prince of Wales' trips to the US, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as tours with the Duchess of Cornwall to Norway, Sweden and Denmark in March "in the first of their overseas tours to mark the Queen's diamond jubilee".

However, the accounts did not disclose the cost of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge last year. Prince Charles' spokesman, Paddy Harverson, said most of the expense was covered by the bride and groom's families, and that "it would be rather impolite to give away the cost of a wedding". The government footed the bill for some aspects of the ceremony at Westminster Abbey, such as security.

Royal aides also were also quoted as saying it would be "impolite" to give a cost for the Duchess of Cambridge's wardrobe. It falls under expenditure for official duties and charitable activities – a total of £9.8m for the year. This week, tabloids claimed that Charles pays for the cost of the clothes she wears for official engagements and that the bill was in the region of £35,000 a year.

The Prince of Wales' tax bill rose marginally from £ 4.39m to £4.49m.

The accounts disclose a slight increase in staff who work for the prince and his family. They include two valets, a butler, an equerry, a master of the household, three chauffeurs, 10 house managers and housekeepers, five chefs and kitchen porters and 19 gardeners and estate workers.

Republican campaigners called for an urgent review of royal finances and an "end to the 'something-for-nothing' culture in the royal household".

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said "Year on year, Charles continues to spend more public money on travel, much of which is for personal trips. When the country is facing sweeping cuts to public spending, Charles Windsor wilfully helps himself to whatever travel funds he wants or feel he needs."
Cost of Prince Charles rises to £2.2m | UK news | The Guardian

**daisy575** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:34 PM

More ways to show that Kate is the new Diana? Anywho, by being a part of the monarchy (via marriage) Kate is contributing to the FALSE idea that royals are better than us and deserve our money even if they have enough wealth (through estates, art collections, jewels, etc). It's INSANE that so many people are BRAINWASHED into thinking that royals like Kate don't have to do much in life (just sit and look pretty) in order to maintain the privilages that they posses. We, as a society, shouldn't allow this crap in 2012. It's funny to know that Prince Charles pays his taxes with taxpayer money.

**CornFlakegrl** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:38 PM

Thanks Twitchy. I didn't know that.

**twitchy2.0** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:42 PM

I didn't either!

daisy, this has nothing to do with her being a "new Diana". YOU said there were no up skirt shots of Diana.

There are.

You are the one equating unflattering and revealing paparazzi shots of someone with the quality of their character. The two things have no bearing in each other.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not anyone feels that the royals serve a purpose in today's society. Separate issue entirely.

**roslyntaberfan** · September 23rd, 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by daisy575

Beside Kate Middleton, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears, have you seen royal women, female heads of state, or celebrities that had their crotch photographed while existing a vehicle? I can't think of any respectable woman who has been caught in such a position. It's only the tarty attention seeking stars that get caught.

Err ... I'm the least graceful person ever and I probably, accidentally, flash my knickers every time I get in and out of a car whilst wearing a skirt. That doesn't make me any less respectable.