Back in July I posted about the whole Queen-humiliates-Kate fuss and I opined that Kate would know her place and do the royals proud.
Um, not so much and she didn’t waste any time about it either. She must think she’s invisible. Take off your clothes and you’re totally undetectable! This is what happens when people fuss about what you’re wearing all the time, I guess. You just want to be free!
Was her privacy violated? Yes. Should she fully expect it to be? Yes! By the time you’re in your late twenties, you should be able to assess any situation you’re about to involve yourself in. So, marrying a royal? Pros: fame, riches, meet interesting people, lead a privileged life few get to experience, and of course, prince charming. Cons: your entire life is under a microscope and you’ll have to watch your step every minute. Actually, this was the deal before they were married. Kate’s a smart girl; she went to university. I’m sure she had reminders from palace minions hissing in her ears every chance they had. So there’s no way she should be surprised by telephoto lenses. But now she feels all violated. I think. That could just be the party line. For all we know, she wanted the world to see her topless.
You know what? I guarantee that the aristocrats are saying things like, “Well, of course she wasn’t born to it, so she doesn’t know how to behave properly,” conveniently forgetting Diana’s misbehaviour. Whenever someone who has jumped classes screws up, it’s always attributed to their origins. Remember Fergie? Because it’s all about class. I’m thinking that Kate isn’t so worried about the Queen; she’s worried about her mom. I would be. When I wore a yukata (summer-weight kimono) to a matsuri (Japanese festival) my collar was away from my neck a couple of inches because I didn’t put it on properly; my mother was mortified because apparently that’s kind of slutty, the Japanese equivalent of J-Lo’s navel-low Versace neckline. That was just two inches of the back of my neck! What must Mrs. Middleton be thinking? All their new posh friends are suddenly remembering that she and her husband were once flight attendants. I bet Pippa’s all, How do you like me now? Not to mention Harry.
I’m just shaking my head. I don’t wander around my house without clothes on and I don’t have paparazzi hiding in the shrubbery. What did they need to be naked for? Is it that thrilling? Didn’t Kate learn in her early twenties, like the rest of us, that going topless is overrated? It takes just 5 minutes of uncovered chest in the sun of the Southern Hemisphere to get burnt and it’s very awkward trying to scratch that sunburn. Lesson learned! I guess that was before she was married; she minded herself then, but now that they’re legal, it’s like, What are you going to do? That’s pretty cheeky!
I just can’t understand how Kate and William can imagine that they can be naked in public anywhere and not have their picture taken by some intrepid photographer. I’m sure this guy can’t believe his luck. It’s not like he broke into the place either – they were right out there and he was across the street. And then for the royals to demand jail time? Because Kate and William were being foolish? Seriously, the one who belongs in the Tower is Kate.
…with Harry who should be in there for all that Vegas nonsense. Why can’t these people keep their clothes on? Are they competing to see who can be naughtiest? Someone needs to tell them that streaking is passé. Soon there will be enough photos of royalty unclothed to produce a coffee table book called Naked Royals. Yes, the human body is a natural thing, we shouldn’t be ashamed, etc., etc., but who are we kidding? If you absolutely must take your clothes off because you need to be all sexy in public, keep your cool when the photos come out and don’t act all outraged and righteous about it.
2 responses to “Kate Middleton, the invisible royal – not!”
Curious on your thoughts after reading this article:
The only thing I disagree with the article is that taking your clothes off is a sexual act:
“That’s been shocking to me, that people aren’t just outraged and furious about this, but they’re actually making excuses for this behaviour, and blaming women for ever being sexual any time, at all.”
which to me frames women in a sexual context no matter the situation – they are sexual objects, only with clothes on or off. On? Still a sexual object (according to the argument). Where did I leave that Burqa…..I did enjoy your last line quite a bit:
“If you absolutely must take your clothes off because you need to be all sexy in public, keep your cool when the photos come out and don’t act all outraged and righteous about it.”
The only thing – from what I’ve seen of where the shots must have been taken, the photographer must have had a mighty mighty lens (that I would love to have) and because of that, in my mind, whomever was in that location had some expectation of privacy. The only other people to get such glorious shots would have been NASA on a recent sat fly-by.
I did read the article, thanks for the link! I find the combination of issues kind of obscure the issue at hand. Are we talking about Kate Middleton, one of the most photographed people in the world, or are we talking about ordinary citizens having their privacy violated? When you are a celebrity – and Kate joined up, she wasn’t born into it – and you are going after fame, you are opening up a can of worms that you may not be able to control. There’s a price to be paid. I do think it’s wrong for paparazzi to send their lenses up someone’s skirt as apparently happened to Emma Watson, but when you’ve taken your clothes off yourself, in public, do you get to use the same argument? Sienna Miller is another big hypocrite – she’s one of those celebrities that’s always out there being photographed. She craves attention, she goes out of her way to court publicity. She must be simple not to understand that there’s a dark side to all that attention. The serious people are very careful about appearing in public. You don’t see Meryl Streep photographed coming drunk out of clubs all the time. Seen any paparazzi pictures of Angelina Jolie? She dresses like a nun in public when she’s out with her family. Britney Spears complained about being chased by photographers but she’d leave her house for the most stupid reasons to go get fast food or a new nail polish at the drugstore and she’d usually “forget” to wear underwear too.
As for blaming the victim – I absolutely support the concept that no matter what you wear or how you act, it doesn’t mean you’re asking to be violated. However, this concept works in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world. People judge on first impressions. As a woman, I’ve always been very careful to present myself in a way that hopefully says, “Not a hooker.” I’m going to teach my daughters to do the same. Because you have some responsibility to protect yourself. Dave Chapelle said, “If you dress like a cop, people expect that you’re a cop.” That’s just the way it is. Yes, you could win in a court of law if you’re assaulted, but – you’ve still been assaulted. Is it worth it to prove a point? Why not be careful and avoid that fate in the first place? I know, it’s not enough to dress carefully and behave yourself – violence against women happens anyway – but why not do what you can? Take responsibility for yourself. Needless to say, I’ll threaten the kids with everything I have to make sure they never take nude photos of themselves or let anyone else take such photos. That’s just stupid. Yeah, I said it! It’s not blaming the victim but the victim made it easy. Why did they do that? Have we not heard enough horror stories about nude photos circulating on the Internet? We do all kinds of things to make ourselves safe – lock our cars, lock our doors, wear seatbelts, wear helmets – why not also watch our behaviour? Why voluntarily make ourselves vulnerable by exposing ourselves to possibly unwanted attention, or getting so drunk we’re essentially helpless? If you left your car door unlocked and someone robbed your car, people would say, “Well, dummy, what do you expect?” Why is this any different?
I feel that Kate Middleton voluntarily entered into a lifestyle that included intense scrutiny and many many pictures, official and non-official. Her picture was taken for years before she married William. Having her picture taken is the price of being a famous princess. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her? She’s never heard of telephoto lenses? How about helicopters? When I was in Hawaii, friends staying at the Halekulani Hotel said there was a helicopter hovering over their pool deck – taking pictures of Jon Gosselin. If they were willing to expend this much energy to get pictures of an extremely minor “celebrity”, one telephoto lens to take a picture of a topless royal doesn’t even constitute effort. And I think it’s hypocritical to be all free and naked in public (which I define as “outside your house” – if I sunbathed naked in my back yard and someone passing by took a picture, I’d consider that my bad – I don’t sunbathe in my backyard, period, because it’s too public) and then object to the inevitable photos. Either you’re good with the naked, or you’re not. If not, keep the girls under wraps. It’s just that easy.