tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post2907945343057518012..comments2024-03-29T15:48:12.543+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Why my sympathy for Kate over the topless photos is limitedJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-19503080383083182072012-09-22T04:35:37.092+01:002012-09-22T04:35:37.092+01:00"I'm getting the impression that you beli...<i>"I'm getting the impression that you believe the media hype surrounding "Wills and Kate" more than I do"</i><br /><br />Why would you get that impression? My own impression is that it's those who have fallen for the media hype of Kate as a fairytale princess who are most likely to think she warrants the kind of special sympathy and protection which, as I pointed out, no other female celebrity can expect in identical circumstances. I can't quite see Nick Witchell getting on his high horse like this if it had been a soap star, can you?<br /><br /><i>"Katherine is a woman who has chosen to marry someone who is in line for the throne."</i><br /><br />Quite. The fact that he is in line for the throne cannot be seen as somehow 'incidental' to her choice, because William did not renounce his right to the crown upon marrying.<br /><br /><i>"your comments about it being "political", a royal "choice" and Rolfe's about "snaring" him are just rubbish"</i><br /><br />Again, in what way? Everything about the public promotion of their marriage, and the promotion of Kate herself as a kind of fairytale-princess-cum-supermodel, has been about buttressing the royals' popularity, and thus entrenching their power - which as Gerry Hassan pointed out is hard, literal, political power on an unelected basis.<br /><br /><i>"Be careful about the line you are going down. It could be Johann Lamont next!"</i><br /><br />Johann Lamont has many faults, but projecting herself as a supermodel in order to accrue political power is not one of them.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-6417917661381961602012-09-21T23:32:59.994+01:002012-09-21T23:32:59.994+01:00I usually agree with your opinions but believe tha...I usually agree with your opinions but believe that on this occasion you are seriously mistaken.<br /><br />I'm getting the impression that you believe the media hype surrounding "Wills and Kate" more than I do and that this puts you on the side of the smarmy little shit who invaded their privacy to take the pictures in the hope of cash profit. <br /><br />Katherine is a woman who has chosen to marry someone who is in line for the throne. OK, but your comments about it being "political", a royal "choice" and Rolfe's about "snaring" him are just rubbish. Doesn't every individual, no matter what their job or so-called status have the right to be left to behave in private as they wish without our salacious intervention.<br /><br />Witchell, for once, is correct. They are put-upon because they are "royal". And why shouldn't William be upset? I'd be incandescent with rage if someone published pictures of my wife's tits.<br /><br />Be careful about the line you are going down. It could be Johann Lamont next!Barney Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00438037043769240141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-63604111339021816132012-09-21T18:37:39.400+01:002012-09-21T18:37:39.400+01:00Didn't she snare Wills by walking down a catwa...Didn't she snare Wills by walking down a catwalk in a see-through dress? Not hideously embarrassed then was she?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.com