MacResource
Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - Printable Version

+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? (/showthread.php?tid=167613)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - Black - 05-28-2014

NSFW, if you work in a nunnery or maybe a mosque...
http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/ent6734.html

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - $tevie - 05-28-2014

I think establishing that Kate goes commando qualifies as "need to know" information, don't you think? Your priorities seem a bit skewed.

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - Racer X - 05-28-2014

yes. Any pics of Auntie Fergie's bum back in the day?

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - eustacetilley - 05-28-2014

This is utterly unimportant, so I was going to go with the absurd:




But then I noticed who the photos are credited to.

This might actually get weird.

[spoiler=The Duchess vs. The Princess?]
"The image was taken by photographer Diane Von Furstenberg during the recent Royal tour of Australia, who captured the revealing shot after wind from a helicopter blew up Kate’s skirt whilst her and the Prince were visiting the Blue Mountains near Sydney."
[/spoiler]



Eustace

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - Black - 05-28-2014

So, on the commando topic.... was going to ask.... wouldn't one typically wear some sort of undergarment with such a skirt? Or is it possible she has one and it's just not visible?

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - DeusxMac - 05-28-2014

Photoshop

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - OWC Jamie - 05-28-2014

Black wrote:
So, on the commando topic.... was going to ask.... wouldn't one typically wear some sort of undergarment with such a skirt? Or is it possible she has one and it's just not visible?
Just not visible.
Bonus shot, bonus pay for some tabloids that know it will garner clicks/views kinda like this thread.

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - N-OS X-tasy! - 05-28-2014

$tevie wrote:
I think establishing that Kate goes commando qualifies as "need to know" information, don't you think? Your priorities seem a bit skewed.

More likely wearing a thong.

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - 3d - 05-28-2014

I saw the pic before. Sure I'll glance at it again. Thanks Smile

Re: Just because you capture a duchess' bare bottom on film, does that mean you have to get it out there? - WHiiP - 05-28-2014

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
I think establishing that Kate goes commando qualifies as "need to know" information, don't you think? Your priorities seem a bit skewed.

More likely wearing a thong.

:agree: