Magazine Cover Reveals Kate Middleton's 'Bad Teeth': Funny or Out of Line?

Just another republican dipstick

Uhhh ... the New Republic is a left-leaning publication, genius.

So?

i think its pretty funny

Not revealing her bad teeth but photoshopping to make it look like she has nasty teeth is rude, to say the least. The idiots who decided that was funny should find out how funny steel toed kicking boots applied to their backside is.

Just another example of sleazy British journalism.

The BBC is not far behind.

The New Republic is an american newspaper, not British.

It's definitively a cheap shot, but honestly, who cares?

dude.. their british.. of course they will have bad teeth XD

We live in a sick world where people bash the Royal Family, allow Obama to wipe his bottom with our Constitution, and fight for their right to give their pre-teen daughters wax-jobs... It's time for WWIII; there's nothing worth saving here...

You're worth saving! I like to think I am too. And my husband definitely is!

You're right... You're right... Bad day yesterday lol

OMG I LOVE Family Guy!

She'd be hot stuff in Mississippi. I thought it was funny, cause everyone knows she doesn't actually look like that. I've seen the same thing done to one of Tom Cruise's images, and he actually looked pretty hot all scruffy. I had never seen him that way.

More like tasteless because I certainly didn't find this funny.

£ is the symbol to signify British Pound Sterling or to put it more simply for you..British money...lbs is an abbreviation for pounds as in weight.

She may spend £35,000 on her face, as you were trying to put it, but even small children know the difference between the £ and lbs symbols.

Personally I don't care what she does or doesn't spend on her face, hair or teeth for that matter...but for future reference, if you're going to insult someone try not to look uneducated while you're doing it.

Also...I doubt very highly she's "ugly" without makeup...makeup has the ability to diminish the appearance of a few flaws or enhance a few features, it doesn't preform miracles, despite what the cosmetic companies would have us believe. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how much makeup you put on it.

um yes you can and i cant and i knew tha that was the symbol for their money i just couldnt find it so whatever i really dont care what you have to say i was joking but if you have to spend that much on your face you're obviously not perfect

"Also...I doubt very highly she's "ugly" without makeup...makeup has the ability to diminish the appearance of a few flaws or enhance a few features, it doesn't preform miracles, despite what the cosmetic companies would have us believe. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how much makeup you put on it."

She probably is naturally very pretty but, I have seen makeup perform miracles on some women. It may not on all women but there are some beautiful looking women who are dogs without their makeup. So unless we actually see her without makeup we can't really know for sure.

and mean

I don't get why people think they have the right to be mean and disrespectful.

That was obviously photo shopped to make them look worse than they actually do. It's just immature and stupid.

THAT PIC SCREAMS OF PHOTOSHOP! It is crude, rude, and waaaay outta line by some jealous joker!

Maybe if it wasn't a fake...

Now it was hilarious in Austin Powers!

Ohh now, THIS guy needs help. (911 Photoshop - puleeeze)!

The joke was just tasteless.

Hit the wrong one sorry. But I'm not one to talk I have bad teeth as well. Lol

I think it is a clever magazine cover considering their angle. Although, no, it doesn't imply she had work done on her teeth. They took the most prominent British icon today and made something rotten...teeth were easiest to make the point of a large part of the issue. I don't really see the problem, this tactic isn't unheard of, and rarely is this an issue....shrug.

Are those her real teeth?

Nooo.

k. good.

What is funny is that they have to rely on British royalty for their magazine covers. Thank you America's New Republic!

Considering the main story was on something being rotten in Britain, implying economic collapse (based on title, etc.)....I think using British royalty is fitting.

Using "a British royalty"?

Also, that depends on your point of view of British royalty doesn't it? We're all very aware of how they are perceived by many Americans, and like a lot of things (including this silly cover) it has been overstated for the sake of catching a few gullible readers.

I suppose it has worked if that was their intention.

I would say (at least in the US), Kate is the largest British icon. The cover makes its point quite well, it ties into the theme of the issue even though it has nothing to do with Kate or British royalty.

Sorry about the typo, I will go fix that.

Yes. It has nothing to do with her but still makes a point, as you said yourself, of defacing her for the sake of politics. I'm aware of the point they were trying to make by the way, regardless (irregardless if you swing that way) of how distasteful it was.

I'm glad I'm not into royalty or politics, or I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say about it. Just imagine the fuss over in the US if Obama's image was sullied here for magazine sales. Ho ho ho!

No it isn't tasteful, but it is politics, there are dirty tactics on either side. I don't really care for the cover, but it is eye grabbing. The cover doesn't make me want to read it, nor does the turn me off....I guess I'm just desensitized to these things anymore.

I believe there have been many covers with Obama defaced to make a point, the same with Bush. Unless you turn Obama into a monkey, most people don't care (b/c of old racial connotations...although IMO most people don't realize that anymore).