Duchess Kate’s Bare Bum: She Should Be “Furious” With Herself, Not the Tabloids

Posted on June 9, 2014


Kate, honey, you have some great legs and a really toned ass, but you are the future Queen of England, not some tawdry tart, so the rest of us need not be privy to your privates. Please stop behaving like Marilyn Monroe on a subway grate, and get your clothing under control.

So Kate is reportedly “furious” that Bild published images of her apparently bare butt, exposed when the wind blew her dress up (and she’s featured alongside some tabloid-fodder Kardashian butts, no less… rather undignified).  Now there is talk of legal action, of invasion of privacy, of the injustice of it all.

If Kate had only flashed us once or maybe twice, I could almost forgive it as the ignorance of a newly minted Princess unused to the glare of the media spotlight. But nope, sorry, this has happened quite enough that I begin to suspect that Kate is a bit of an exhibitionist. All the sturm und drang about her privacy being invaded doesn’t fly here; she’s experienced now, on public tour, in public places, with cameras all around, adding weights to her hemlines has been discussed for several years, and yet her dresses seem to have this little malfunction all too often.

She has no right to be angry with anyone but herself.


If you’re going to wear flimsy, flyaway dresses in known windy conditions like airfields, you can expect to get that Marilyn Monroe effect. Then there are escalators, airplane stairs, reviewing stands, stages… where there are often people below you. If you choose to skip the underwear for days like this, that’s your fault, plain and simple, same as it is to choose a lightweight, flyaway dress to visit an airfield or ride in a helicopter.

Even if Kate could legally bar all photographers from ever publishing an unflattering shot of her (and her dress malfunctions), there’s the small fact that everyone present at these events would still have gotten an eyeful.   Better to prevent the malfunctions in the first place, no? Also consider photos like this one, where she is surrounded by children seated on the ground with their eyes barely any higher than her hem level. Kate, please. Really. Wear some proper knickers!


Lila’s solution would be a radical shift in what is considered “proper attire” for a woman: PANTS. I have long believed that dresses and skirts are inherently immodest for exactly the reasons that Kate has so avidly demonstrated to the rest of us: there’s no real protection for your womanly assets. I suspect that skirts simply date to some immensely ancient time when they were easier to sew (no real tailoring needed), easier to alter or shift around to accommodate pregnancy, easier to manipulate for attending to those calls of nature… and eventually, long, for maximum preservation of one’s modesty. After centuries of wearing skirts for practical reasons, maybe it’s high time we acknowledged that they are NOT always the best choice for a woman’s modesty or propriety.

Pants, Kate.  Pants.  Or at least a nice pencil skirt or sheath.

The Exhibition Stare Case, by Thomas Rowlandson, ca. 1800.

The Exhibition Stare Case, by Thomas Rowlandson, ca. 1800.