Pelican Parts Forums - Kate Middleton's Breasts

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/index.php)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)

- - Kate Middleton's Breasts (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=706428)

Why I say kudos to this fine gentleman for doing his part to solve the problem of the great shortage of boobie pictures on the internet! Bravo I say! Bravo!!!

isn't she the same girl that was wearing a see-through dress when she met the prince? She has shown it before...why stop her now?

They can get pics of her sunbathing, yet they can't get a picture of Katy Perry. For shame.

Oh yeah and..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1347938428.jpg

Nice legs, though.:D

Yes she has small boobs, they are nicer than her husbands, she also has a much nicer ass then her brother-in-law :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ram930 (Post 6982359)

isn't she the same girl that was wearing a see-through dress when she met the prince? She has shown it before...why stop her now?

Big difference now. Now they are "royal titties" and thats a world of difference! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeaksa (Post 6981250)

thats the thing... Almost everywhere in europe, everyone sunbathes/swims topless... Its only in the uk or america where prudes abound that anyone is concerned by it...

And for you azzwipes commenting about how small her titties are, just wait, when she is 45 they will still be nice and firm while the ladies with big boobies will be down to their waist... Will take mine smaller anyday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McLovin (Post 6981820)

G** damn french again.

Hey Hey without them we would have lost the revolutionary war.....they would be OUR prince and princess.

The French also did it right and let the heads of the royals roll. Not that I wish death on any of today's aristocrats, but you do realize that they are a bunch of leaches that haven't worked a day in their lives for generations and no purpose but that of providing entertainment such as in this thread.

G

She is a lovely young woman and seems to be a fine person to boot. No doubt she knew what sort of scrutiny she would be under, and married him anyway. I could never choose to live in a fishbowl like that.

I have never been all that interested in chesty women myself. I go for the gymnast type more, you don't see a lot of big breasted gymnasts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 6982474)

http://fcbahistory.pbworks.com/f/128...etton%2001.jpg

Mary Lou Retton?

I admit I fell in love with Keri Strug in '96. I am a sucker for competitive spirt and determination...and well yes the girl gymnasts have incredible butts. :)

1996 Altanta Olympics - Kerri Strug's Gold Medal Vault - YouTube

Back on topic - if Middleton wanted to hide her boobs she could have. Going bare outdoors is not exactly modest - but then we're talking boobs here. She is blessed with many things...boobs are not two of them.

Have to be careful though, woman that strong can put a hurtin' on you

I can deal with it Tobra. Yes I can. ;)

What's the big deal? She's HOT and looks great in the photos.

Why the Royals want to make an issues of it is beyond me. Someone should remind them of how privileged they are. :rolleyes:

I'd rather see her sister's butt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aigel (Post 6982445)

I'm not sure about "leaches." The interest on their wealth must provide for something. IOW, they don't have to hold their hands out. All of their property is wholly owned I suspect and I bet they pay no taxes. Continuing my surmising, the gov't provides staff for all of it. Not much left to have to pay for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 6983087)

I was curious so I looked it up Finances of the British Royal Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Royal Family receives money from a number of sources both public and private. The official reported annual cost to the British Public of keeping the Royal Family was £41.5 million for the 2008-09 financial year.[1] This figure is disputed as the real cost since it does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and other expenses.

Until 31 March 2012, the British Parliament met much of the Sovereign's official expenditure from public funds, known as the Civil List and the Grants-in-Aid. An annual Property Services Grant-in-Aid paid for the upkeep of the royal residences, and an annual Royal Travel Grant-in-Aid paid for travel. The Civil List covered most expenses, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment. Its size was fixed by Parliament every 10 years; any money saved was carried forward to the next 10-year period.[2]

[...]
Official costs according to formal reports filed by the Royal Household state that total annual expenditure as of March 2012 was £32.1 million.[3] However it has been estimated by the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic that when additional costs including security, lost revenue and palace grounds maintenance among others are included the cost is between £134 and £184 million per year.[4]