Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Tour of Australia - April 16-25, 2014


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Obviously she doesn't, but her consistent lack of precaution in preventing her skirts from flipping up with simple remedies could prove to be the thong that breaks the camel's back as far as public opinion is concerned.;)
 
Last edited:
It's never okay to photograph people in such sensitive situations but it keeps on happening to women.

Prince Philip wouldn't agree with that...
Neither would William or Frederik, caught peeing against a bush or from a boat.

What a bummer! :D
 
If it was buried in tons of snaps, that's where it should've stayed. It took a rather dumb and ignorant person to go and publish that one photo of her dress blowing in the wind. They should've had the decency to not publish that picture. Catherine didn't do anything wrong at all. She held her dress down while getting off the helicopter. It was the photographer that didn't have the common sense to throw the picture out once it was captured. No, the photographer decided to look for an opportunity and publish the picture in a magazine.

It was a dumb thing to do.

No, Catherine isn't an attention seeker. She was on this tour to do her job and she did a fine job at it. Those who want to beat down on her can go right ahead. Catherine will go on doing her job with her head held high and focus on what's important.
Thank you! The photographer saw an opportunity for financial gain due to another person's mishap. IMO it is similar to someone taking a photo of a nursing mother who's child just pulled off the blanket she was using to cover up with. Then they choose to share it with others. :sad:
 
whilst I do not think she is doing these mistakes on purpose, she seems pretty unaffected by them. .
well, if I had her body, I would be pretty unaffected by the pics too!:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
THANK YOU! This is an excellent article. The especially sad thing here is that the photographer supposedly is a woman ... a double shame IMO. I also may be a cynic but if anyone believes this woman is giving the fee to a charity ... well, I have a bridge to sell you. Furthermore, giving 1% of her fee doesn't count. These pictures are ALL about the money, or in the case of the subway photographer, perversion.

I read the article. Problem is, our whole society objectifies women, and that includes women themselves, or at least some of them, and I include Kate within this category.

Why do women feel the need to wear skirts instead of trousers and ridiculous high heels that make their buttocks protrude - something that apparently attracts men - and makes their legs look shapelier, instead of the far more practical and comfortable options which are available? Why do they spent many hours and thousands of dollars having their hair done and nails painted and their bits waxed, and spend even more hours on painting their faces to emphasise their eyes and make their lips look red, and more time and money on expensive and often useless facial preparations in the hope of remaining of youthful appearance? To attract and/or keep men, of course. To look good for men. And that's why they parade around in clothes that hug their figures and show off their feminine curves, and why they wear shiny baubles, too, often shiny baubles that men have bought for as signs of the men's "ownership" of said women.

It's all about sex and the biological imperative, and the emphasis in our society on women making themselves look attractive for men, and that involves advertising their assets to the men. Once you admit that it all falls into place. And before some outraged woman screeches that they do it for themselves and to show off to other women, it still comes down to sex and the competition for men and the fact that men – some more than others - tend to stray and women – some more than others - tend to feel the need to make themselves look as good as they can in the hope of keeping the men interested in them. Men tend to respond to visual stimulation. But that's fine, just admit it. Though I wish to stress that not all men are that shallow and easily distracted, many are.

Women have a choice. They can play that game and do all those things or they can choose to do otherwise and wear sensible clothes for the occasion. It's their right to choose to go either way, but if they choose the exhibitionist route and things do not go the way they planned, they shouldn't complain if they're caught out. They should take responsibility for their own actions and not bleat and blame the nasty photographer.

Women who wear short dresses of flimsy fabric that are likely to blow up in windy conditions, and wear "sexy" underwear while wearing those short, flimsy dresses rather than skirts that due to design won't do that (or, even more sensible, trousers) and sensible underpants that won’t show their nether regions when the skirt inevitably blows up, are just as much a part of the "problem" as the men who expect their women to look desirable for them and the people who photograph them and publish the photos. If women choose to wear clothes that have a risk of blowing up and showing off what they are - or, in Kate's case, are not - wearing underneath, then they have no-one but themselves to blame for they have voluntarily assumed the risk and should not complain if they are seen, and perhaps captured by the camera.

I don't blame the female photographer for taking photos of this silly woman making the same mistake for - what is the tally now - maybe the seventh time, and flogging it. I would, too, and I wouldn't give the money to charity if I needed it. I suspect the photographer thought 'this is too good to be true! I've caught the idiot doing it again! She'll never learn.'
 
Last edited:
I have to be frank, I still can't get over the fact that she doesn't wear underwear on royal engagements... usually ones goes to the People of Walmart site to see such fashion faux pas. I have been living in such a cloistered existence, I used to be shocked when the people of Alabama showed up at the local Walmart with no undies...
 
The People of Walmart site is just too bizarre to be believeable, and yet it is. I have never seen this first-hand at the stores, and I don't think I could survive that experience. I truly believe the patrons at Walmart down South must compete to get the best in show prize.
 
The People of Walmart site is just too bizarre to be believeable, and yet it is. I have never seen this first-hand at the stores, and I don't think I could survive that experience. I truly believe the patrons at Walmart down South must compete to get the best in show prize.

Well, I've put that all behind me now that I have TRF. :cool:
 
Well this thread took quite an unpleasant turn. Is it really necessary to call Kate an idiot?
 
Well this thread took quite an unpleasant turn. Is it really necessary to call Kate an idiot?

Yep! She keeps doing the same stupid thing without learning and changing her behaviour to avoid it happening again. "Idiot" works for me.
 
I have to be frank, I still can't get over the fact that she doesn't wear underwear on royal engagements... usually ones goes to the People of Walmart site to see such fashion faux pas. I have been living in such a cloistered existence, I used to be shocked when the people of Alabama showed up at the local Walmart with no undies...

She could of had a thong on. Google image Victoria's Secrets - there is plenty cheeks visible there with undies on.
 
Yep! She keeps doing the same stupid thing without learning and changing her behaviour to avoid it happening again. "Idiot" works for me.

Well if she's doing it on purpose (as some believe), than idiot is the wrong word. :p

I guess I can't get too worked up over this whole thing. She can't control the weather, so there are bound to be times in the future when her skirt flaps in the wind. As long as she's wearing something underneath, I don't think it's a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Yep! She keeps doing the same stupid thing without learning and changing her behaviour to avoid it happening again. "Idiot" works for me.[/QUOTE


Originally Posted by soapstar
Well if she's doing it on purpose (as some believe), than idiot is the wrong word. :p

Is "calculating" or "deliberate" the right word? :whistling:
 
Last edited:
Well if she's doing it on purpose (as some believe), than idiot is the wrong word. :p

I guess I can't get too worked up over this whole thing. She can't control the weather, so there are bound to be times in the future when her skirt flaps in the wind. As long as she's wearing something underneath, I don't see the problem.

Maybe you have lower expectations than I do of the woman who will one day be Queen consort of the UK and the other realms and - unless we become a republic in the meantime - will therefore be the wife of my King. I really don't want to see her nether regions any more than I want to see William's. *shudders at the memory*

Further, "idiot" wasn't my first choice. What I wanted to use was a word that means "A person who is not only lacking in clue but is apparently unable or unwilling to acquire clue even when handed it on a plate in generous portions" but I'm not allowed to use that word here so I won't say it.
 
Last edited:
Well as I said in my post, as long as she's wearing shorts or a slip under her dress, you won't be seeing her nether regions.

Is "calculating" or "deliberate" the right word? :whistling:

Yeah, some would say it was deliberate. :lol:
 
Well as I said in my post, as long as she's wearing shorts or a slip under her dress, you won't be seeing her nether regions.



Yeah, some would say it was deliberate. :lol:

Then we're on the same page. ;) It's always good to keep an open mind.
 
The end of discussion. Bye.

Very very fitting as I do think this subject has reached its sell by date and should be filed away in the archives for posterior.... errr... posterity.

:whistling:
 
You're missing the entire point and calling her an attention seeker is a straight up rude statement to make. It's never okay to photograph people in such sensitive situations but it keeps on happening to women.

So I guess paps taking pictures (with extremely good lenses that take quality shots of extreme distances) of her bare breasts on a private holiday is fine too, in your eyes?


:flowers:You called it like it is regarding your comment to Atlanta Kitty, this really is about the way men/women in the media view the public regardless of whom they are...........this is disgusting to women and this treatment still smacks of the attitude that women are not good for anything except in bed and baring children(boys), seems we in many ways are still as intelligent today as we were in the dark ages........the human race still thinks of sex and money as the ultimate goals in life.........really a sad way to live!

What this lady did in selling the pictures was all about sex and money........her bank account is the most important thing to her and she got it filled at the expense of another woman...........hope she sleep well!
 
What is with all the "Queen Consort" stuff with Kate? The current "Prince Consort" has flashed himself to the world and our next King has also been photographed with full frontal nudity.

Is a few inches of royal thigh different for a woman or is a hint of Kate's derrière somehow more unbecoming than Charles full frontal nudity?

Compared to the 80s and 90s, the BRF must be doing great if Kate's skirt getting caught in the wind is what passes for scandal.
 
There is another photo of her in that fashion show which isn't used in media publications in Britain nearly as much as the one with her in the sheer slip and for obvious reason. She is standing in nothing but a white bra and pants with her arm around a hunk in boxer shorts which, I agree, is not sleazy but it is also not something anyone remotely shy could do in a room full of people. I have never bought the wallflower in the tea dress image that has been cultivated since her marriage. I think Kate is a lot tougher and more confident than she sometimes appears and that is why, whilst I do not think she is doing these mistakes on purpose, she seems pretty unaffected by them. Also when I mentioned her sitting naked in France in the eyeshot of security I didn't mean random bodyguards but their Scotland Yard detectives who simply wouldn't be doing their jobs if they couldn't see the royals they guarded at all times, from whatever distance.

In regards to the picture of her walking down the catwalk, I did NOT see the other picture that you are referring to, so if you have it, please send it here so we all can see and where you there to see this other picture being taken?
Security guards do not always have to be in eye shot of people that they are guarding......heavens, would they go to the toilet with them, be in their bedroom with, while they are changing clothes, I really don't think all security guards are with people that they are guarding every second of the day and night..........this was PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEIR PRIVATE TIME, THEY WERE NOT WORKING..........nothing more needs to be said. If Catherine or anybody else in this world wants to run around naked in their private time in their private space who are we to say anything about it.....would you like a camera in your bedroom or up your skirt? I don't think so!
 
What is with all the "Queen Consort" stuff with Kate? The current "Prince Consort" has flashed himself to the world and our next King has also been photographed with full frontal nudity.

Is a few inches of royal thigh different for a woman or is a hint of Kate's derrière somehow more unbecoming than Charles full frontal nudity?

I'm going to get a headache from laughing so much at some of the comments here.

Charles was photographed indoors in his private quarters from a long distance as he went from his bathroom to his bedroom to get dressed. He was in a completely private place and in circumstances in which anyone with a flicker of brain activity would understand he had the expectation of total privacy. He was not strolling around nude while on official duty representing his mother! And as soon as the photographer was discovered, the window was covered with cloth. It is not an analogous situation at all.
 
Kate wasn't "strolling around nude on official duty". Everyone knows the situation and why/how it happened.
Her skirt was caught in a breeze.
 
Kate wasn't "strolling around nude on official duty". Everyone knows the situation and why/how it happened.
Her skirt was caught in a breeze.

:nonono: No-one has suggested she was.
 
Kate wasn't "strolling around nude on official duty". Everyone knows the situation and why/how it happened.
Her skirt was caught in a breeze.


Her skirt was caught in a breeze, not for the first time, when she wore a skirt that wasn't suited to be worn on a windy day to a freaking airport where she rode a helicopter.

Yes, we should live in a world where women can walk down the street without worry of having a minor wardrobe malfunction without being photographed. But we should also live in a world where women should have the common sense to not wear a flimsy skirt that's liable to blow up in a breeze for a helicopter ride.

Kate CHOSE to wear a flimsy skirt when she KNEW it would be windy. Either she is the stupidest woman on the face of the earth or she's asking for this kind of attention.
 
Her skirt was caught in a breeze, not for the first time, when she wore a skirt that wasn't suited to be worn on a windy day to a freaking airport where she rode a helicopter.

Yes, we should live in a world where women can walk down the street without worry of having a minor wardrobe malfunction without being photographed. But we should also live in a world where women should have the common sense to not wear a flimsy skirt that's liable to blow up in a breeze for a helicopter ride.

Kate CHOSE to wear a flimsy skirt when she KNEW it would be windy. Either she is the stupidest woman on the face of the earth or she's asking for this kind of attention.

Her skirt didn't fly up once during the visit to the Blue Mountains. It was this one incident during disembarking from the helicopter that the picture was captured. It wasn't published during the trip but purposely picked out later and published in a German magazine so they could make money off of a very innocent and private situation. I think that was simply nasty. Now an Australian newspaper has decided to publish the picture is also low and very nasty too.

Catherine wasn't asking for any kind of attention in this manner. She already have the worlds attention because of who she's married and what family she now call her own. She don't need to grab the worlds attention by wishing the wind would blow her skirt up, a picture taken and for it to be the hot topic. The Duchess of Cambridge would never stoop that low.

This was an unfortunate incident and people choose to make some money off of it and now others are using it for their entertainment and to bash her. I hope they have fun while Catherine focus on doing her job.
 
Last edited:
Her skirt was caught in a breeze, not for the first time, when she wore a skirt that wasn't suited to be worn on a windy day to a freaking airport where she rode a helicopter.

Yes, we should live in a world where women can walk down the street without worry of having a minor wardrobe malfunction without being photographed. But we should also live in a world where women should have the common sense to not wear a flimsy skirt that's liable to blow up in a breeze for a helicopter ride.

Kate CHOSE to wear a flimsy skirt when she KNEW it would be windy. Either she is the stupidest woman on the face of the earth or she's asking for this kind of attention.

Yeah, she knows the risks soooo....:whistling:
 
Yeah, she knows the risks soooo....:whistling:
Oh come on now, this was not purposely done to get attention, what do you think was on her mind getting off that darn thing, OHHHHHH my skirt is going to fly, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........give me a break. It was probably more like, where do I stand, make sure the hands are in front of the dress, make sure I smile, don't say anything, it's William turn to speak, wonder how George is...........things like that, and her clothes are I am darn sure, laid out weeks in advance before this happened. A person just don't get up in the am and try something on to wear in a position like this, I bet every outfit with shoes, jewels(if any), hair, purse whatever is put in a notebook of some sort and that is what's going to be worn today. I have been to places (in another lifetime..married) and for 3 short days, I did that, just so it would be easier for me to get up and get ready and get out the door before it was time. Just an ex-husband's business trip I had to attend, hated every minute of it also. I bet some of these engagements she was doing, she was wishing she was home with the baby, being a first time mother, yea, I want my baby now was on her mind.
 
Anyone publishes or takes a picture of an upskirt is a pervert. Doesn't matter the situation...the only thing they get out of this is money...which is at the end of the day all these people care about.

Is someone supposed to admire the pap for taking a pic of her butt...really...these people are literally making a living off her butt...

I read the pap who took it was donating money to the blue mountains...but the mayor of the town is not excepting...why not...its dirty money.
 
Back
Top Bottom