The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1621  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:38 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andolini View Post
I apologize for my misinterpretation, and shall do the same to Roslyn!
Thank you Andolini.
__________________

__________________
  #1622  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:45 PM
fandesacs2003's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,159
I really do not see where is the problem, and it is tiring because it is every time the same story.

30 years ago it was Diana pregnant wearing bikini, and SO WHAT????

We already saw also other Princesses in the same situation, SO WHAT????

Kate is pregnant, we all know it, of course she has a bump SO WHAT????

She is wearing the up and the bottom part, and she is walking with her husband, SO WHAT????

They are just doing what million of people are doing, in a clear moral situation, no fuss, no mess, no nakedeness, no secret, SO WHAT????

Why all this discussion? Francly, i'm fed up of this hypocrisia.
__________________

__________________
  #1623  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:47 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Now to the subject at hand. William and Catherine are both said to be smart, intelligent 30 something year olds. They even have a degree apiece. Could someone please explain to me why, knowing as they did that there was virtual bounty on the first photo of "The Baby Bump", they decided to holiday in a public place and stroll down the beach in swim wear, and her in a bikini no less?

They are both veterans of paparzzi camera shots (many less than flattering) from clubbing in London, saw Harry embarrassed to the nth degree courtesy of camera phones, and yet they chose to put themselves out there, in full view of anyone who knew who they were, and then have SJP publicly whine about invasion of privacy when someone took the absolutely inevitable photo.

It is not a good look. It makes them look like they have an overweening sense of entitlement and I don't know about most of you, but I am wondering what sort of person does that. The rest of his family (Harry notwithstanding) keep their heads down, play the game and pick their battles on solid ground.
My sentiments, exactly.
__________________
  #1624  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:58 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
I've never seen an Australian magazine on sale in the UK. I'd never heard of those Australian publications until one of them reported on Harry being in Afghanistan.

The UK is not Saudi Arabia. Our press is among the most free on the planet and has been for hundreds of years.
Thanks fort he speedy response EIIR.

I had the feeling they weren't available or else this whole discussion about the photos being seen in Britian wouldn't be happening.

Shows what a magazine mad country Australia is - as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Our newsagents are stacked with what seems even the most obscure UK and American mags, though only the really big agencies stock the French, Italian etc., mags.

(My comment about the customs officials is just an Aussie being an Aussie. We've got a lot to be thankful to Britian for- the Westminster system etc., - not comparing the UK with another country, just stating that is something that happens there. Saw a doco.)

Wonder if this means there will be a flurry of eBay entrepenuers flogging them to anyone in the UK who wants a copy.

Cheers, Sun Lion.
__________________
  #1625  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:14 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
The most shocking thing about this is we have Diana fans sticking up for the press!
That's what I don't understand either. If more people do what I did, i.e. STOP buying these puerile publications, then just maybe they could be left alone occasionally. Good G*d, they are Hunan beings, not wind up toys or mannequins!
__________________
  #1626  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Just popping in to say that if I had paid a lot of money for a fancy holiday at a fancy resort, and I was lounging around enjoying myself on the public beach near the fancy resort, and taking photographs of the goings-on on said public beach, and William and Kate were also there on the public beach and were mingling and enjoying themselves on said public beach - or even just walking along said public beach - I would take photographs of them, and if some magazine offered me $150,000 or so for those photographs, you can be damn sure I would sell them. No qualms whatsoever.
Good to know you have standards
__________________
  #1627  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:43 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 2,501
Princess Mary of Denmark has suffered some pretty rude intrusions of privacy by paps.
When she was 9 mos pregnant with the twins, there were photos of her inside the palace in Copenhagen she'd just moved into, on the phone.
On private vacation in France, I think on her in-laws' verandah, many photos were taken of the family, including children.
Another party goer took unflattering party pictures of her husband Frederick at a private pre-christening party.
These are justa few intrusive incidents, in private situations, on private property off the top of my head.
Princess Caroline of Monaco has had vicious paps chasing her from day one.
__________________
  #1628  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:45 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandesacs2003 View Post
I really do not see where is the problem, and it is tiring because it is every time the same story.

30 years ago it was Diana pregnant wearing bikini, and SO WHAT????

We already saw also other Princesses in the same situation, SO WHAT????

Kate is pregnant, we all know it, of course she has a bump SO WHAT????

She is wearing the up and the bottom part, and she is walking with her husband, SO WHAT????

They are just doing what million of people are doing, in a clear moral situation, no fuss, no mess, no nakedeness, no secret, SO WHAT????

Why all this discussion? Francly, i'm fed up of this hypocrisia.

yes, with diana happend, with caroline, stephanie,etc we see photosof them in bikini, in the beach and pregnant!
william and catherine were in a public place and is normal to people og phographers take photos. I personally think that the photos are loverly, like the diana's photosin bikini when she was pregnant.
always when a royal person go to a public place the phographers take photos, they don't were in a private place.
And the public and the press have a big expectative because they are the future king and queen of england and the baby is the hair to the throne.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #1629  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:51 PM
4Pam's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 2,767
The price the BRF pays by simply being who they are.
__________________
Absence is, in my opinion, important to find out whether something in your life is meaningful and important! It may be difficult to endure, but the end result is always revealing.
  #1630  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:01 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
My sentiments, exactly.
Hi there Rosyln, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.

On another note, do you happen to know if different countries have different laws regarding the press? Again I claim complete ignorance in this area, and I see you are not from America, as I am, so does Australia or whatever have "press laws"???
__________________
  #1631  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:11 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
My sentiments, exactly.
A couple of things here.

It is a private island and not a public beach. It has been privately owned since 1958. Much of it is owned or managed by a private corporation Mustique Company). Princess Margaret's former home on the island is managed by the firm.

That said, the water is an open venue and until the Mustique Company hires some gun boats to troll around and enforce the privacy of the island, long range photos will be taken. (there is some US based irony in that sentence. I do not expect them to start shooting at paps).
__________________
  #1632  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:20 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andolini View Post
Hi there Rosyln, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.
I'm impressed.
__________________
  #1633  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:21 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
A couple of things here.

It is a private island and not a public beach. It has been privately owned since 1958. Much of it is owned or managed by a private corporation Mustique Company). Princess Margaret's former home on the island is managed by the firm.

That said, the water is an open venue and until the Mustique Company hires some gun boats to troll around and enforce the privacy of the island, long range photos will be taken. (there is some US based irony in that sentence. I do not expect them to start shooting at paps).
__________________
  #1634  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
A couple of things here.

It is a private island and not a public beach. It has been privately owned since 1958. Much of it is owned or managed by a private corporation Mustique Company). Princess Margaret's former home on the island is managed by the firm.

That said, the water is an open venue and until the Mustique Company hires some gun boats to troll around and enforce the privacy of the island, long range photos will be taken. (there is some US based irony in that sentence. I do not expect them to start shooting at paps).
Indeed, if I were an owner/shareholder at Mustique I would be asking serious questions about who would have the gall i.e. financial need to sell photographs of guests to what is supposed to be a private island. The Mustique mystique has been shattered by a greedy guest and any self respecting celebrity will now think twice about darkening its balmy beaches
__________________
  #1635  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:52 PM
Hollie's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: heartlands, United States
Posts: 73
Thought I should share this article from Guardian regarding expectation of privacy in Mustique.

What's to stop a British paper from publishing pictures of the duchess?

Some points in the article are quite interesting and perhaps relevant to the possible reasons why the Cambridges issue the "disappointed" comment.

Here it goes:

If the couple were indeed in public then, to quote from the code, they could not be said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy.
.
.
.
In 2006, the Australian actress Elle Macpherson complained to the PCC about Hello! magazine publishing a bikini-clad picture of her on one of the island's beaches (Mustique). Her lawyers argued that all of Mustique's beaches were private and that she therefore imagined she was in a private place.

In its ruling, the PCC accepted that the beach was only technically private - because it was accessible to members of the public - but took the opinion that Macpherson had been seeking privacy and genuinely believed she had obtained it. So the commission decided that her "reasonable expectation" was well founded and ruled on her behalf against the magazine.


I agree that Mustique is only technically private. But I also think that considering the Cambridges/Middletons and the other Mustique beach goers have spent BIG money to holiday on the island, they should be expecting a beach experience that is significantly different from a public beach in a popular tourist spot. And this should include the expectation that they will not be photographed for financial gains.
__________________
  #1636  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andolini View Post
Hi there Rosyln, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.
Thank you. Any of us can misinterpret in this medium.

Quote:
On another note, do you happen to know if different countries have different laws regarding the press? Again I claim complete ignorance in this area, and I see you are not from America, as I am, so does Australia or whatever have "press laws"???
The laws seem to vary widely from country to country. In Australia there is no general right to privacy that protects a person's image. You can photograph people in public places without their permission, and, with some exceptions, you can take photographs from public places of people on private property. Arts Law : Street photographer

I'm having trouble recalling any instance of an Australian complaining about photographs published of them. Perhaps we're just more laid back about it. Perhaps we're just so used to seeing people almost naked on beaches and around pools we don't care much. And we tend not to be too impressed by people who act as though they are better than the rest of us and want to be given special treatment.
__________________
  #1637  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:54 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Thank you. Any of us can misinterpret in this medium.



The laws seem to vary widely from country to country. In Australia there is no general right to privacy that protects a person's image. You can photograph people in public places without their permission, and, with some exceptions, you can take photographs from public places of people on private property. Arts Law : Street photographer

I'm having trouble recalling any instance of an Australian complaining about photographs published of them. Perhaps we're just more laid back about it. Perhaps we're just so used to seeing people almost naked on beaches and around pools we don't care much.
Yes, my husband is from Europe and is not bothered by nude sunbathing at all, while I, as an American, am like "what???" LOL
__________________
  #1638  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 121
It was just a matter of time before someone would take and publish of photo of the pregnant Kate. Now it is over and maybe she won't have to worry about cameras peering into her bedroom.

I don't believe Princess Margaret ever worked and even during her royal life, she was never known for making that many appearances. The complaints were over the money she received from the civil lists. If she had private money not much would have been said about her life style. Until Queen Elizabeth II, the royal family was not expected to "work". Now they are expected to make dozen of appearances morning noon and night and how dare they take a vacation.

Since they don't receive funds from the civil lists except for expenses associated with representing the Queen at events, I just don't understand the expectations that the duchess would take on thousands of appearances. I also think she is a wonderful example. She is polite, friendly, personable, she does not hang out at bars, she doesn't do drugs or drink to excess, she doesn't appear to have an overly expensive life style like a Paris Hilton or a Kardashian. She seems to prefer the company of her husband.

Whether Katherine becomes a clone of Princess Anne or not, she is still married to an heir to the throne and stands a good chance of one day being the Queen Consort.
__________________
  #1639  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:23 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,419
I guess the Cambridge's are back from their holiday. Pippa is said to have attended Beulah London's 2013 collection preview tonight.

Video:
Pregnant Duchess pictures are about 'decency and consent for women'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...for-women.html

Very well put, Charlotte Harris.
__________________
  #1640  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post

No, that is extreme Andolini. But you should take precautions such as (and these are just my examples) carry a pepper spray, or assess which way is less dangerous to travel, etc. PRECAUTIONS TO MINIMIZE the chance of what you don't want to happen.

Do you understand what I mean? Being careful to avoid something without having to go to extremes whereby your life is a living hell.
Actually, Andolini's example is exactly what you're arguing. Your argument puts the onus on the victim and not enough shame/blame/responsibility on the perpetrator. I.e. yes, we should protect ourselves, but if you are violated/victimized in any way, you should have done more. It's ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess of Cambridge current events 2: 1 February 2012 - 5 January 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1905 01-05-2013 06:37 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 3: April 2 - September 10 2012 ghost_night554 Current Events Archive 983 09-13-2012 05:07 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]