The Duchess of Cambridge’s assets


by DJ Webb

Flat-chested women all over the world will sympathize with Kate Middleton today, after her assets – or lack of them – were captured on camera.

Why should Buckingham Palace be thinking about suing the French magazine that published the photographs? They were taken with a telephoto lens – but it is clear that Kate Middleton does like to relax topless. Would Queen Alexandra or Queen Mary have relaxed topless (with or without the intrusion of telephoto lenses)?

While a cultured person would undoubtedly avoid the photographs, I am becoming increasingly exasperated with the way the Royal Family seek to use lawsuits and censorship to stop the real cultural behaviour of senior Royals from becoming public knowledge.

The Royals do not behave in the same way as previous generations of Royals, who were staid and buttoned-up all the time. I’m sure there are many people who welcome that, as well as many who don’t, but it is simply the case that young Royals behave in a similar fashion to most other young people today. The type of embarrassing snaps on many people’s Facebook pages are essentially no different to the various cavorting romps of minor Royals, and apparently the Royals do do nudity.

Personally, I see no reason to welcome the common behaviour of the Royals, which, if anything, constitutes a strong argument for abolition of the Monarchy. I can’t imagine my mother or sisters enjoying relaxing topless – and so the fact that Kate Middleton does indicates to me that she is too common to be our future Queen.

About these ads

18 responses to “The Duchess of Cambridge’s assets

  1. In his next posting, David will get around to explaining exactly what is so culturally apocalyptic about nipples.

  2. We cannot know, at this time, whether Queen Victoria (let us say for example) relaxed with Prince Albert in the open, say at Osborne on the Isle of Wight, with some or all of her clothes off. The fact that they had nine children in about 20 years (I seem to remember) indicates that they must have “liked each other”. That there were no photo-recording devices at that time capable of dealing with that particular paparazzi-problem makes a verdict harder. But I would guess that she did. A woman who “loved to watch her husband shaving, in the morning, must have previously taken off her clothes for him.

    The problem of why modern mass audiences want so badly to see photos of famous women with their colthes off, is something that I will be referring to the prosecution case against the GramscoFabiaNazis at the War Crimes Trials which my War Secretariat will be initiating against them. Specifically, as to why they needed to create mass populations that glorified this and would pay for it. We will see what their objectives were.

  3. The evidence we have regarding Victoria is not entirely clear- her diaries were heavily redacted- but she appears to have been the ideal Victorian neo-middle class woman who, while deeply loving Prince Albert, found the act itself repellent. So it seems unlikely that she would parade herself for him in a manner likely to arouse the humours, kind of thing.

    I’m not sure what the GFNs have to do with men wanting to see women with their kit off; what evidence we have from the Paleolithic suggests that the artists whose work- including significant numbers of representaitons of nekkid ladies, stylised to various degrees- were adolescent males. so it seems that the fascination with T&A slightly predates Antonio Gramsci by around twenty or thirty millennia.

    The love of beautiful nudes is nothing new. It was going fine under Catholicism- see all that wonderful Renaissance art- and then the ghastly Protestants arose shouting “Alluha Akhbar” or whatever the Christian equivalent was, and said it was all dirty, banned everything they could, smashed all the beautiful church windows, and sat in their grim little undecorated bunkers boasting to each other about how resistant to the sensual they were like the Four Yorkshiremen on speed.

    Serious point; a while back as part of my researches I read a whole bunch of the Victorian sexual literature- kind of stuff the Comstockians burned as “flith”, like marital advice manuals- and what was striking was that the ruling class seem, to a large degree, to have been literally at the point of forgetting how to procreate. The chain of the passing of knowledge from generation to generation had been all but broken. No wonder their birth-rate plummetted, and they started dreaming of using Lethal Chambers to eradicate the lower classes who still knew how to go forth and multiply as God intended.

    So really, the way I see it, there’s no conspiracy to pervert us. We’ve just gone back to normal after the Second Wave Puritan Terror. The GFNs have done a lot of evil, but generating a love of tits and bums isn’t their fault. It really is just human nature.

  4. Does anyone know where I can find these no doubt foul and abominable pictures?

  5. It’s a storm in a D-cup.

    Seriously, though, if this family are going to behave like chavs, they can’t really complain when photos of said behaviour turn up in tabloid papers etc.

  6. I think Ian has slightly missed my point here. Even before Puritans (and I agree about their sheer nastiness and malevolence) were in invented, I doubt that anybody would have shouted, say, to Eleanor of Aquitaine, in any progress through London or elsewhere, or if they found her with Henry II partly unclothed in some castle bailey…”Phwoar! Get yer tits out, Ellie, old queen! Weee’z queuein’ up here, just over t’hedge! Cooor, wouldn’t you just like to fuck her, er, Hob??” This is not to say that plenty of sex, general bawdiness and frolicking was not going on before Puritans ruined it all. Otherwise we’d not be here all arguing on this blog. Indeed, as privacy invaded more any more areas of communal life, first probably sex, then even eating, became private activities.

    Indeed, maybe 10,000 or 15,000 years ago, I expect that the local big-man, at what passed for his “wedding”, was expected to perform, with his new “bride”, in front of the assembled hutment-population, including his cheering parents-in-law…Christ knows what’d have happened to him if he got a little nervous…

    The issue here, I would say, is that
    (1) the status of this young woman is a little tricky, in that she may one day be the wife and Queen-Consort of a Head of State of an important country where the State matters to some degree, if we have states at all (we’re stuck with them). If some badly-needed treaty had to be conlcuded, and the offending power was France or Russia, say (quite probable: theez hazz “previous”) then they might simply laugh in our faces and walk from the desk saying “Nah….half of us saw the Queen with her tits out…Her-Her-Her…”

    (2) And then, you see, there might have to be war. French celeb-magazines cannot be expected to know who might be the War-Secretary, in future, of a potential enemy nation, and what he might make of this seemingly innocuous burst of levity in a grave hour. Therefore they should tailor their topless-woman-scoops on the basis of “Best Practise”, in case they are asked at the Victors’ War Crimes Trial to pay all the reparations themselves. Pop singers are fair game: they actually pose for these buggers. Queens, while we are agreed that some of us have some, are a bit different.

  7. The poor woman needs feeding up. She should not be so skinny at her time of life, having to get preggant and all that stuff too.

  8. You could call it a storm in an A cup.

  9. Having now seen them, I suppose her titties are a bit undersized. However, childbirth usually sorts that out.

    I disagree with David about the significance of going topless in private. I can’t see why she bothered keeping her knickers on. Indeed, here’s a story about nudity that will press all the right buttons in David’s mind.

    Mrs Gabb and I belong to a private swimming pool club. A few months ago, I was showering beside an old man who told me he’d recently given up on the local authority pool. The attendants had told him not to shower in the nude, because it offended the persons of diversity who were let in to use the shower without having to swim. He said he’d uttered things that are probably illegal under the Public Order Act, before walking out never to return.

    I’m wondering how long before warnings are put up outside the British Museum, and children are banned from entry.

  10. Sean, there is nothing offensive about showering in the nude in a single-sex changing room. I am surprised the attendants felt able to tell him not to! The trouble with muttering things and walking out – is that this concedes the ground. It would be better to insist on carrying on doing what he is doing.

  11. I think she’s nice.

    Tony

  12. There was once a time when getting into a grubby court case about such a matter would have been beneath the Royals.

  13. @dj
    It’s a pity that some of them have finally had to.

    To Ian,
    I respectfully re-iterate my thesis, for further discussion if it’s of interest, that I see the GFNs’ dabs-&-pawprints all over this sort of thing. That is: deliberately fostering prurient interest, over a long time, decades or more, in the private doings of others, via temporarily-tolerated-media-vehicles such as the recently-executed NoW. Its usefulness had obviously come to an end for some other reason and so it was terminated, with all sorts of trummped-up-“charges” being fabricated, when it’s clear that the journos were being encouraged to do what they are said to have done, with nods and winks from the government and the police. The more famous the “voyee” – as opposed to the voyeur, the better as far as objects are concerned: all this sort of stuff is of course nobody else’s fucking business (sorry.)

  14. David, the Prince Harry pics could easily have been spun in a positive sense: here is a younger Royal who loves having fun – it’s not really a negative for him. He’s not married and he is in the Forces – and is only behaving as broadly expected. To start suing left right and centre strikes me as the wrong reaction entirely. I have always thought the Middletons were cheap – but Kate’s slack behaviour could be spun as “behaviour that shows she is a modern Royal too”. To sue someone for photographing a scene that could have been viewed from the public highway – this is stupidity on stilts.

  15. David (Davis)

    I suppose it depends how we define who the GFNs really are and what they are really trying to achieve. You know my argument; they’re the distant echo of the Reformation. They’re the barking mad crazy person wing of the Protestants, still trying to achieve heaven on Earth (either in a post-post-millennialist paradigm, or a post-anabaptist one). So if you agree with me that they’re Puritans with red flags, then one must analyse this in a moralist context.

    In that regard, you’re right about the role of “the press”. Any moralist society will create an intrusive and prurient press; its purpose is to expose immoral behaviour for public condemnation (and private titillation). As such, the NotW was the type species; naughty vicar on page 1, tits on page 3.

    Where I think I differ from most Libertarians who perceive a culture war (whether an overtly “cultural marxist” one or not) is that I don’t think these people are trying to destroy Western society, so I don’t see any conspiracy. I see something far more nasty; they are trying to reform Western society, to purify it, to make it perfect. And getting the perfect omelette requires smashing truckloads of eggs. So public figures are held up to malicious tabloid scrutiny in order to reinforce the public morality. The Royals were made, under Victoria, into a supposed symbol of the “ideal” moral English family. So when a Royal does something totally normally, like sunbathing with her tits out, the tabloids pounce. I mean, we need to remember she has done nothing wrong or even unusual. At all.

    I have argued that the GFNs are simply “third wave” puritans. The Second Wave ruled the Victorian cultural hegemony. The First Wave were the wahabbi Protestants that plunged Europe into a bloodbath and inflicted a civil war and dictatorship on England. (As an aside, the Second Wavers inflicted a bloodbath of a civil war on the USA. All sing: He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored!. Vicious bastards).

    So here’s the problem. DJ and his “nice ladies like my mother and sister wouldn’t do that” is simply representing the Second Wave. As such, he has a great deal in common with the current Third Wave. The problem is moralism. It is such moral attitudes that justify and create the “tabloid phenomenon”.

    So, if the GFNs are, as I argue, Puritans then, yes, this has their trembling fingers all over it. But the only way out of this is to get to a society where it’s not considered the least bit naughty for a princess to sunbathe topless in the middle of Torquay beach. While people still consider it “shocking” that a princess would dare suntan her breasts, the tabloids and their prurient-Puritan gossip trade will thrive.

  16. Edward Spalton

    Ian B,
    By some accounts, Queen Vic was rather keen on sex with “beautiful Albert” – quite rightly too – although she got rather fed up with the babies.. Her subjects were less enamoured of Albert.
    “Prince Albert came across the sea – and all for half a crown, Sir!”

    I have not the time to look up this anecdote by a young lady in waiting.

    She performed a (fully clothed but suggestive) “skirt dance” for the widow queen, who was much amused and wished to reward her.

    Mindful of Salome (and of HMQ’s detestation of Mr Gladstone (“He addresses me as if I were a public meeting”)), the lady in waiting asked for Mr Gladstone’s head on a charger.

    A few days later the lady in waiting received a very spirited hunter with a message “I cannot oblige you in the other matter but here is a charger”

    It fits entirely with the fashion of the time for puns.

    I am sure it is the sort of thing that my Victorian/Edwardian great aunts would have done, if they had been in the same position and with the means.

  17. Pingback: LA Director’s Bulletin, 2nd October 2012 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG