Kate Middleton and undergarments

[myfunnybunch]

OK, she's furious.  But was it really that unexpected that a wardrobe malfunction could occur in such a circumstance, and if she was furious, could it not have been avoided? 

 

I agree.

 

So what, her butt showed. Meh. It's a butt.

 

For someone in the public eye, knowing that one's butt showing with photographers present = photos in the press is like knowing that the sky is blue.

 

So she can laugh it off (or ignore it) and either continue to dress the way she's always dressed and a big fat "Grow UP" to the folks that get all in a tizzy over seeing princess butt cheeks once in a while, or she can be more mindful when she dresses.

 

Cat

[shawthorne44]

Somebody saying that she was furious does not really mean she was furious.  It is the expected reaction.  

Can you imagine the flutter if it was reported that she didn't mind, and indeed kind of liked it?  

Or maybe if she was reported to say, "Well, it least the photo flattered the exposed bits"

 

[TCB]

Maybe she's not embarrassed. Not everyone feels embarrassed by unexpected skin showing. It's just skin. It's just a body. We all got one.  ;-)

 

 

I don't know if she's embarrassed or not, but sometimes they take the newspapers etc that print these to court or protest about the pictures being taken. I don't think the pictures should be taken but the reality is they are and William and Kate know that. Who in their right mind would give them opportunity for taking a photo showing no underwear and then make a big protest. I think she's smarter than that. I also think that if it was me, and I didn't like it, it would only happen once.

 

I do want to say that I am British, and I am very fond of the royal family, or most of them anyway, but I think she is being naive, or possibly plain stupid to take the chance.

[vonfirmath]

It could also be a case of they HAVE to protest every time or give up their ability to protest at all.

 

There was a little bit about this in the recent book I read about her.

 

[Word Nerd]

I apologize -- I misspoke. I should have said I wonder why the fashion folk think size 5 is predominant for full-grown women. There are always LOTS more styles, fabrics, and sheer volume of panties on the shelves for the smallest sizes than for the larger ones.

 

Not in my experience! Maybe there's a Murphy's Law in effect for panties: There will be fewer options available in whatever size you happen to be looking for. 

[Kathryn]

I didn't know her reaction (I'm woefully ignorant of social news like this), but the bolded phrase is priceless! I don't know if this was intentional or a Freudian slip, but it cracks me up! So perfect both ways!

 

heehee

That so much should have said BUTT IT CRACKS.

[mirth]

Somebody saying that she was furious does not really mean she was furious. It is the expected reaction.

Yes, perhaps she call all these bluffs by taking it to the next level and rallying her kilt-wearing Strathearn clansmen who always go regimental or 'True Scotsmen' with an avenging cry to the paparazzi like, "Tis not the skinny latte we drink tonight, tis blood we seek and blood we will drink!" Who's your princess, indeed!

[AMJ]

Because there are normal full grown women who wear a size 5.

 

 

Exactly. I prefer not to have butterflies, little hearts, and bows all over my underwear.

 

 

Where are you shopping cause I don't see the most variety in styles and fabrics for size 5. It's 6 and up that I see.

 

Oh, and if you're not saying that smaller women aren't REAL women.....then don't say "on what REAL women need and want." Because you're contradicting yourself, but also making it clear as to what your true feelings are.

 

I'm small. I'm thin. I've had 3 babies. I'm pretty darn sure I'm real.

 

I know you stated that you misspoke, but yet I had to point out that saying "what real women need and want" and then saying in parenthesis that small women are real too doesn't justify the jab made toward thin women. It's kind of like saying, "I'm not prejudice but...."

 

A better way to voice your frustration would be something like, "I get frustrated that I don't see many options and variety in sizes 6 and up." There is no reason at all to throw in the phrase "REAL women." Ever. In any circumstance. We are all real women. Even if we wear underwear or not. ;)

 

AMJ, I'm not trying to pick on you and I'm not upset. I'm just always trying to get others to realize that sometimes what they think is harmless to say actually can hurt feelings and be insulting.

By "what real women want" I meant stuff like:

*Better sewn seams so that we don't have hard lumps of elastic falling right where our hip bones meet fabric, or harsh ridges for seams (they sew flat seams on men's undergarments, so they can do the same for women's)

*larger array of cuts and styles across ALL sizes, because all sizes happen to have a variety of shapes, not just one

*more variety of fabrics because all sizes and shapes of women have reason to want slinky, cooling, warming, moisture-wicking, modest, revealing, shorter, longer, high rise, low rise, stretchy, not-so-stretchy -- you get the idea? We all want variety of selection so we can find what fits for ourselves.

*more colors and patterns for all sizes and shapes, so we can find stuff we consider both fun and fit to wear under our outer clothing

 

I did not intend to exclude any woman of any size from the category of "real women", and I thought I made that clear. If I didn't then I apologize for any offense -- none was intended. Perhaps I should have simply said "including women who wear smaller sizes".

 

The items listed above are wishes my DD has gleaned not just from me, but from many other teens and women, including past posts on these forums. She has been mulling these items over in her head, and has looked at garments on people to try to figure out why they don't hang well, or why the person wearing them might not find them as comfortable as they initially appear to be. She has observed firsthand how individualized any given person's shape is, and has been trying to think of ways to address issues. All this just in her head -- we are pursuing sewing lessons this summer so she can learn more about drape and fit.

 

DD wants to be a clothing designer and own a mall. She wants to make pretty clothes that work well for people, and make those clothes widely available. If you have any clothing wishes not included above she would be happy to hear them so she can add them to her list of criteria to meet.

 

Again, my apologies for having offended you. None was meant.

[Laura Corin]

I don't know if she's embarrassed or not, but sometimes they take the newspapers etc that print these to court or protest about the pictures being taken. 

 

 

I'll be curious to see what transpires.  So far we just have 'heard' that she is furious, but no statement has been made.  The previous photos were taken with a long lens when she was on private property - it was a different issue.  I wonder if they will actually protest this time or not.

 

L

[Laurie4b]

I don't know if she's embarrassed or not, but sometimes they take the newspapers etc that print these to court or protest about the pictures being taken. I don't think the pictures should be taken but the reality is they are and William and Kate know that. Who in their right mind would give them opportunity for taking a photo showing no underwear and then make a big protest. I think she's smarter than that. I also think that if it was me, and I didn't like it, it would only happen once.

 

I do want to say that I am British, and I am very fond of the royal family, or most of them anyway, but I think she is being naive, or possibly plain stupid to take the chance.

 

Or possibly cheeky... sorry I couldn't resist and I also wonder if that isn't the real answer. This isn't the first time she's had a dress or skirt blow up above her bum. Maybe she's a bit of a rebel, but then when caught by a photographer, she has to appease the royal mil by being "furious." Or perhaps she's not furious, but her mil is.

 

At any rate, she knows full skirts and dresses can blow, she knows she's going in and out of helicopters, etc. and she knows photographers are snapping constantly.

[SwallowTail]

I read she had underwear but that it was flimsy. Have NOT seen the pics. I don't know why she doesn't always wear bike shorts under her dresses. That's what most people I know do. I never let my girls wear dresses or skirts without them and nobody's chasing us around looking for wardrobe malfunctions. 

 

Wow, I only make my dd do this if she is wearing a dress to the park where she might want to do the monkey bars or something.