The seriousness of Kate Middleton’s Naked Bums exhibitions
Written by  // Wednesday, 28 May 2014 10:27 //

kate-middleton-and-prince-williamDoes Kate Middleton suffer from a psycho-sexual disorder that causes her to expose her normally-covered body parts (breasts, vagina and buttocks) in public?

Is she a sexual exhibitionist?

Or is her privacy being unjustly invaded?

Are we really having an argument over this?

 Somewhere in London’s exclusive Mayfair neighborhood, a pricey butt skillful psychiatrist’s telephone just might be ringing.

Bringggg!  Bringggg!  Bringggg!

Kate doesn’t wear any underwear.

The latest photos (published on the German Bild website) proving that she is naked underneath her floaty dresses are not the first ones, either.

Kate Middleton’s been photographed pantyless while on official royal visits before.

And it can’t be that the thirty-three year-old Duchess doesn’t know that she should be wearing underwear, at least on occasions where she is representing the Crown and the British people.

An almost identical naked backside moment was photographed when Kate and Prince William went on a royal tour to represent the Queen in Canada.
We won’t even talk about getting in and out of helicopters.
Kate Middleton knows.
But does Kate care?
Or is there something bigger at work here?
Does Kate Middleton suffer from a compulsion to discomfit people she doesn’t know by exposing her breasts, genitals, and now her backside in public, to strangers?

I’m not a shrink, don’t pretend to be, and if I were, I wouldn’t be practicing in England. With this behind me, I do have my concerns which you can determine for yourself whether they are legitimate.

In my view, she fits the exhibitionism disorder profile like a silk glove.
Just look at that ridiculous, pointy-cone breasts wedding dress she wore when she married Prince William in Westminster Abbey.
Sarah Burton must have gone off her meds to create a dress like that!
Unless it was some kind of republican joke.

Most people thought it was gorgeous. Kim Kardashian was said to want a wedding dress just like it.

All I could think of when I saw it was “Look at those ridiculous pointy-cone breasts!”

Why would someone pay good money for pointy-cone breasts on a wedding dress?
And then, just when you thought it was safe to look at the telly again, Kate showed up wearing yet ANOTHER Sarah Burton pointy-cone breasts creation– a white evening gown for the bridal gala ball held by Prince Charles.  With that fuzzy white bolero on top of it all, Kate Middleton looked more like a hot prom date or a mixed-up streetwalker than a newly-minted royal and blushing bride.

Even for Madonna, the pointy-cone breast attire has become...passe. The gown set of a rampage of royal wedding website chatter about whether they could see Kate’s nipples, or whether the nipples were actually darts deliberately sewn to look like nipples.

I honestly don’t think that my own clergyman would have been able to keep a straight face if he’d officiated.  I know for certain that my clergyman grandfather would have said, “Young woman, go cover yourself!”

Why, when the question was posed about whether anyone knew of any impediment to the marriage, someone in front on William’s side of the Abbey did not pipe up and say, “Pointy-cone breasts!”?

I half expected Prince William to have attached a matching codpiece to his scarlet Irish Guards uniform.

Designer Bruce Oldfield, renowned for his good taste, who lost out in Carole Middleton’s competition to be Kate’s royal wedding dress designer, must have laughed his head off when he saw Kate coming down the aisle with her pointy-cone breasts.

On the royal tour of Southeast Asia, Kate seemed to cling to the pointy-cone breasts theme. Her formal evening attire at a banquet attended by conservative Muslim women was designed to invoke memories of the ancient Minoan goddesses and priestesses who played with snakes and wore dresses almost identical to Kate’s. What’s the deal with that?

Now, safely married to Prince William after a long sexual relationship that for a while had originally appeared to be going nowhere, Kate Middleton has yet again been photographed in public with some part of her naked body exposed. This time, it is her buttocks that were photographed in Australia when the wind from a helicopter blade caused her short dress to float up, exposing her naked backside. A few days earlier, she was photographed holding her baby while walking down a staircase from a jet, movie-star style when, without a helicopter in sight, the wind lifter her skirt up to her waist, showing us her pubic area, albeit in shadow.

You can blame helicopters and the wind all you like, but the real reason for the big fuss is that, in both cases, Kate wasn’t wearing any underwear.


Panties, bikinis, whatever. It’s meant to cover your nether regions and hold things delicately in place.  We call it “underwear” because normally, it’s worn under one’s clothes. It’s also a sanitary measure, creating a cloth barrier between your clothes and the places where things may drip. That way, you can usually wear your clothes more than once without washing them.

But if you don’t wear panties, things can get, well, a bit funky, and much more quickly.

If Kate had been wearing underwear on a daily basis, she could walk past any helicopter, and we wouldn’t see very much.

Underwear. Wearing it is akin to putting food on a plate before eating it.

I mean, you could just grab some food and stuff it into your mouth, but it certainly looks nicer and more elegant to put your food on a plate, and eat it from there.

The Royals used to just grab some food and stuff it into their mouths, but that was a long, long time ago. Back when they were dealing with the Vikings.

These days, things are different. If you are aiming to one day reign over the United Kingdom and give gargantuan formal dinner parties with butlers serving everyone, you just might want to practice putting food on a plate before you eat it.
If you are aiming to one day be Queen consort, which requires you to go out and shake a lot of hands, slide in and out of limousines and sedans, pick up babies and toddlers, and curtsy to your husband’s grandmother and stepmother, you may want to first put some underwear on.

Because it’s windy out there!  And there are helicopters about!

The fact is that Kate went to college and expensive prep schools and all, so she surely knows these facts.  But she also deliberately chooses to ignore them. It is perhaps one thing to make a misjudgment about what interests the general public (which is everything involving sex and sexualized body parts). But it’s quite another to deliberately not wear any underwear on state occasions, knowing that, as you place that wreath of poppies on the tomb of the unknown, the wind may come along, lift your skirt, and expose your naked hiney to the world.

Unless you find this kind of attention and interest sexually exciting.

Some photographs show Kate laughing as her skirts fly up. She seems even rapturous when this happens, as it so often does with her.

Not even her alleged pregnancy made her more conservative.

Whatever will come next?

Will the madding crowds, instead of shouting “Hail to the Queen!,” soon instead scream, “Show your tits!  Show your tits!” to Kate as she glides from the limousine to shake hands with the crowd?

Now that’s taking things up a notch.

What would happen next if some exhibitionist in the crowd gets so stimulated by Kate’s gamesmanship that they start taking their own clothes off?  Will everyone be strutting about naked in the street for the royal walkabout?


Naked bums during an official royal event can make our own imaginations think some crazy stuff.

Such as--would Emma Sayles start charging people money to watch?

What would the Crown do then?

It is clear that the Queen and Prince Charles must do something soon, or else risk another Di-lemma.

Take the parallel situation of the late Princess Diana, who would likely find Kate’s baby-girl doll-dress fashion sense irksome, and who would have surely been mortified by Kate’s pointy-cone breasts wedding gown.  Princess Diana suffered great psychological trauma when, as a very young girl, her mother, Frances, ran off with a married wallpaper tycoon and left her husband, Diana’s father Johnny Spencer, with a mansion full of pricey painting. While Frances had rightfully anticipated that she’d get custody of Diana and Diana’s younger brother, Charles, Johnny Spencer trumped her with an army of pricey lawyers and the testimony of Frances’s own mother, who declared her own daughter to be the less-fit parent.  Johnny then dramatically banished Frances from the family home when she came to be with Diana and her brother for Christmas.  Losing her mother’s love and presence over the Christmas holidays as a young child was a wound that Diana could never heal, although she tried to do so through her marriage to Prince Charles. When that bid for unconditional love and 24-hour attention failed, she then transformed herself into the most beautiful woman in the world and sought the love of first a slew of distant (and often married) men, then the British nation and, finally, the entire world.

But even the love and admiration of the entire world wasn’t a constant thing.

And even when she got it, it never felt to her like it was enough.

Diana’s unrequited need for constant attention and admiration kept many photographers well-employed and handsomely paid.  But it also almost ended the House of Windsor.

Now upon the royal stage enters Kate Middleton, of a commoner family whose members are famously enmeshed with one another. They all live together, even as adults, take almost every vacation together, shop together, work together, attend weddings together, eat, sleep and do everything together.

Together, together, together.

What is Kate Middleton’s as-of-yet unrequited need?
Apparently to me, either consciously or unconsciously, Kate’s need is to elicit sexual interest from complete strangers.
Given the official royal life to be played out before the public that awaits her, I believe Kate’s need to startle and sexually excite perfect strangers will prove interesting.

The reasons for this need typically go back to one’s early childhood experiences.

What might these be?

Did one of Uncle Gary’s friends babysit once too often?

Or is there more to it?

There seems little doubt, Kate Middleton’s apparent sexual exhibitionist behaviors have been ongoing.

Indeed, photos of sexy Kate standing virtually naked in St. Andrews’ college quad appearing to be clad in a kind of white diaper, baby bib and shaving cream now make sense,, as do the photos of her wearing that infamous sheer long dress at college fashion show where Prince William was said to first “notice” her and remark that she was “hot.” Frankly, with her pearly nail polish, corkscrew curls and pouty mouth, Kate looks quite trampy in it. But at least we know that she was wearing underwear, because that is the only thing covering up her private parts! Then there were those photos, taken during the Cambridges’ official break-up, of her in crotch-skimming hot pants, sprawled, open-legged, across a skating floor at a supposed charity do, and ones of her wearing pink Playboy Bunny ears and, frankly, looking a bit stoned, at the premiere of a movie about women addicted to a vibrator named "the Rabbit."  Onlookers at the after party claimed Kate worked the room and teased the boys."

You’d think that all of these “Look at me!” sexual displays of body parts would stop once Kate had snagged the heir to the British throne.

But they haven’t.

So far as is known, Kate’s public displays of her breasts, genitals, and backside have taken place in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the South of France. The Palace has always responded by sputtering with officious expressions of “sadness” and outrage over the “violations of privacy.”

So far, so good.  But what happens when, as Princess of Wales someday, she may head off to Bahrain or Saudi Arabia?

Most Muslim nations would not think it very nice for Kate’s dress to lift up into the air and show everyone her tushy.
But many conservative Israelis would undoubtedly feel the same way.

And India?  Pakistan?  Meeting the Pope at the Vatican?

They would prefer that Kate cover herself up a bit. Internet twerking aside, perversion in public is often harshly punished when carried on by mere mortals.

In the olden days (oh, about 40 years ago), vigilant nuns would come and pin paper napkins to a girl’s hair if she dared to come to mass without a hat or chapel veil. One wonders what a concerned nun today might pin on Kate Middleton to cover whatever body part or genitals Kate decides to expose.
And what about Japan? All these places are fairly conservative in terms of public behaviors. Belly dancing in private, dressing up for your husband at home in your bedroom, and being a geisha girl who’s plucking the strings of some funkytown Japanese guitar while stripping down to the inner red kimono is one thing.

But the Japanese take a really dim view of exposing one’s genitals, breasts or backside in public.

If done in the company of the Emperor or any of the Japanese Royal Family, well, in Japan, not wearing underwear while bowing is just unimaginable.

Ordinary citizens almost anywhere would likely risk arrest for similar behaviors. Even an inadvertent sexual exposure would likely be rewarded with a stern rebuke, outside of Mardi Gras and spring break.

And apart from religion and government protocol, what about parents who may become concerned if Kate, while handling their toddler or baby, flashes her boobies?

You can blah blah blah about helicopters and the wind all you want.  The fact is that Kate is not wearing underwear and it is almost impossible to believe she forgot to put them on. Arguably, she is deliberately wearing no underwear, and arguably deliberately doing this when she knows with great certainty that there will be a helicopter, wind, or other skirt-lifting mechanism about that will likely lift her skirt up high and show us London, France, and absolutely no underpants.  Apparently, she does this often, and on occasions of state when she is, frankly, being paid to represent the Crown. She also fails to wear underwear on public occasions where she knows full well that a helicopter is involved, and when the wind is blowing (which is frankly often).

Is Kate Middleton really an exhibitionist or one-in-waiting? Disturbed?  Or just...too hot and uncontrollably sexed up to be Queen consort, or even a Queen consort in training?

Since Kate is smart, has a college education, and has worn tweedy outfits in the past, something else more compelling is clearly afoot.

Is her seeming need to publicly flash her body parts a compulsion?  In what future way might she embaress the crown by exhibiting more than just her smile?

Since Kate has not been public lately, are the Queen and Prince Charles concerned?

Somewhere in London’s exclusive Mayfair neighborhood, the private line of a pricey but skillful therapist just might be  ringing.


Facebook Live Videos
Playlist of Facebook Live Videos


Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1