Topless Sunbathing? How Very Eighties...
So what's it to be, Prince Harry's testicles on the front page of The Sun or Princess Kate's blurry breasticulates in a foreign gossip rag? It's a question many of us have surely been asking over recent days. Well, my answer would be neither over breakfast, if you please. As a washed up housefrau, the decadence of it all appalls me. Just put your clothes on, kids, you'll catch a chill.
"There's a couple of freshly laundered fleeces on top of the radiator and those t-shirts you wore yesterday have got another day left in them," would be my words to them, even before I start worrying about the poor royals' human rights.
But it does strike me these blue-blooded Monarchs-in-waiting are indulging in some terribly old-fashioned hobbies.
I didn't realise anybody played billiards anymore...and since when was it fashionable to do topless sunbathing? I tried it once, aged 19, in the South of France, of course. There's something about baguettes and berets and terraces littered with Pagnol novels that make even the meekest of students throw their TopShop crop top to the four winds. But it is so terribly eighties. Breasts are as milky white as the Elizabethans now, surely? It's all Lily Cole and that pale one from the Sugababes, isn't it?
Anyway, as for the moral outrage, well, Harry was asking for it. It may have been different if a dodgy paparazzo had flogged a picture of him having a crap in a hotel toilet, but he needs to choose his party mates better if he doesn't want to be photographed. Sending him to Afghanistan seems a little bit of a harsh punishment for this lack of judgement, but that's the Clarence House disciplinary for you.
As for Katie, well, of course she could reasonably expect privacy. Where does one draw the line - pictures of her flossing her immaculate teeth through the bathroom window? Shots of her squeezing her spots in her boudoir taken on hidden camera by a treacherous servant? Is it all in the public interest? However, the thought of her basking in the sunshine with her t*ts out, no doubt reading Flowers in the Attic or whatever while I graft my arse off and freak out over my bank balance daily does grate a little. (Ok, so it grates a lot, but I'm still coming out in support for her over all.)
Anyway, so the point is, they may be naff and rich and make me angrily jealous at their gilded lives, but they have to have a chance to let it all hang out (quite literally).
Clarence House regularly tries to keep the press at bay with its approved photocalls and interviews. Skiing, touring an orphanage, relaxing with family at Christmas, etc. In years to come, should we expect to see official shots of Harry in the shower or Kate and Wills in the bath? Perhaps they could do a "Hello" spread and make some additional dosh by having some Molten Brown product placement.
At least they're not politicos. At least they are young and attractive. Certainly, that's part of their problem. The Sun has dozens of shots of prime ministers picking their noses and chancellors eating beefburgers wearing clothes from Cotton Traders. All of them far too unpleasant to publish.
"There's a couple of freshly laundered fleeces on top of the radiator and those t-shirts you wore yesterday have got another day left in them," would be my words to them, even before I start worrying about the poor royals' human rights.
But it does strike me these blue-blooded Monarchs-in-waiting are indulging in some terribly old-fashioned hobbies.
I didn't realise anybody played billiards anymore...and since when was it fashionable to do topless sunbathing? I tried it once, aged 19, in the South of France, of course. There's something about baguettes and berets and terraces littered with Pagnol novels that make even the meekest of students throw their TopShop crop top to the four winds. But it is so terribly eighties. Breasts are as milky white as the Elizabethans now, surely? It's all Lily Cole and that pale one from the Sugababes, isn't it?
Anyway, as for the moral outrage, well, Harry was asking for it. It may have been different if a dodgy paparazzo had flogged a picture of him having a crap in a hotel toilet, but he needs to choose his party mates better if he doesn't want to be photographed. Sending him to Afghanistan seems a little bit of a harsh punishment for this lack of judgement, but that's the Clarence House disciplinary for you.
As for Katie, well, of course she could reasonably expect privacy. Where does one draw the line - pictures of her flossing her immaculate teeth through the bathroom window? Shots of her squeezing her spots in her boudoir taken on hidden camera by a treacherous servant? Is it all in the public interest? However, the thought of her basking in the sunshine with her t*ts out, no doubt reading Flowers in the Attic or whatever while I graft my arse off and freak out over my bank balance daily does grate a little. (Ok, so it grates a lot, but I'm still coming out in support for her over all.)
Anyway, so the point is, they may be naff and rich and make me angrily jealous at their gilded lives, but they have to have a chance to let it all hang out (quite literally).
Clarence House regularly tries to keep the press at bay with its approved photocalls and interviews. Skiing, touring an orphanage, relaxing with family at Christmas, etc. In years to come, should we expect to see official shots of Harry in the shower or Kate and Wills in the bath? Perhaps they could do a "Hello" spread and make some additional dosh by having some Molten Brown product placement.
At least they're not politicos. At least they are young and attractive. Certainly, that's part of their problem. The Sun has dozens of shots of prime ministers picking their noses and chancellors eating beefburgers wearing clothes from Cotton Traders. All of them far too unpleasant to publish.
Comments
Post a Comment