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 02-14-2013, 07:34 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I am wondering if all this hoopla is not a set up...

K&W know the baby bump photo is worth $$$$, they don't like the paps:

Katie goes around with wide cape - Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah you can't see my baby bump!

Katie appears looking fab and fit with little bump on a fabulous beach and BANG the photo opt of the year goes to a rich who knows who WHO IS NOT A PAP!!!

Katie very happy indeed, she got the Paps back...Hehehehe!
Oh, you cynnical, cynnical thing, you. *backslap*

Is Kate really so vindictive and short sighted, ya think? Sounds more like someone else who is maybe making decisions for her these days.
__________________

__________________
  #1622  
Old 02-14-2013, 07:47 AM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
I get what you're saying, but Valerie Trierweiler is a political journalist - so she's public figure just like her boyfriend. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Valerie doesn't have a right to privacy, because she definitely does - regardless of whether she's a public or private person.

Privacy laws are strict in France, so Valerie was able to win because the magazine breached her privacy. The ruling was that she never consented to having the photos taken, so the photos shouldn't have been published.

That's the same reason that William and Kate were able to win their case against Closer.
I'm in agreement with you as I know Ms. Trierweiler's occupation and that she does deserve privacy despite her job and who her partner is. My point was in responding to EIIR's post that she won the suit as the girlfriend of the French president. That, as you know, was not the case. She would be photographed regardless of whether the president was beside her, but Kate is completely attached to William. In that I mean that her name and image is only recognised because she was William's girlfriend and is now his wife. She is a public person who is paid by the British taxpayers. Technically, Ms. Trierweiler is not answerable to the French the way Kate is to the British.

French laws can't be applied to other countries the same way American or British laws can't be applied to other countries.
__________________

__________________
  #1623  
Old 02-14-2013, 07:52 AM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I wonder whether the person who took the photos was getting their own back after the disruption caused by the Cambridges and Middletons last year Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, jets off to Mustique for family holiday | Mail Online

I don't know how many people remember that story.

The same was asked this year of those on the island as well, in addition to asking for mobile phones to not be used. A bit excessive IMO
__________________
  #1624  
Old 02-14-2013, 07:58 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,136
If they want that sort of control and privacy they need to go to a property already held by the RF or buy an island etc, and make it exclusively their property where they can control guests, cell phones etc.


LaRae
__________________
  #1625  
Old 02-14-2013, 08:45 AM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 563
So we going to to believe the daily mail (last year piece) you have been know to write fanfiction about everybody? (royals, celebs, politicians and everyday people)
__________________
  #1626  
Old 02-14-2013, 08:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 718
Is it not much to ask for some PRIVACY? When your entire life is in the spotlight. I don't blame them wanting some privacy. I think some posters need to understand that having your entire life in the spot light since you were born it's nice for once in a while to get away from the cameras. The only pics they probably expected was them stepping of the plane like last year and nothing else.
__________________
  #1627  
Old 02-14-2013, 09:54 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,690
I hope the media will drop the conversation now. They have pretty much overplayed the story.
__________________
  #1628  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:23 AM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 2,836
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. 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.
Australian Elle McPhearson more than complained, she brought a suit against Hello Magazine. In fact, she sues quite a bit.
Fellow Australian Russell Crowe is well known for his fight fights with the paps as is German Prince Ernst August, husband of Ps Caroline.
Stereotyping people's reactions to invasions of privacy by nationality doesn't seem to work.
However, information about privacy laws in different countries is a real "difference".
French privacy laws are stricter than many, especially regarding children.
Because of that, Pss Caroline regularly wins her lawsuits. Has it reduced her and her childrens' harrassment by the press? Who knows.
__________________
  #1629  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:32 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
But why should anyone want to take a pic of her on vacation ANYWAY? That's the point.
Surely you jest. I would never pass up an opportunity to snap a future Queen of England in a bikini, pregnant or not. I can't say that I would not offer it for sale, either.

If we can't be honest, we can't be anything.
__________________
  #1630  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:46 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 426
I'm not a fan of any one - maybe with exception to the Queen, for whom I have a soft spot - but when I was on the same slope with Charles and Diana and the Kids in Klosters - NO ONE took private Fotos of them - I didn't even think about it! We were in the same Gondel to Gotschna, and also one evening in the same restaurant ... no on took fotos, at least not without asking! I certainly didn't ... I feel this to be an intrusion and quite vulgar.

But vulgarity seems to be the rage right now.

I also saw quite a lot of other celebs in my life - but I never would intrude on them... with what right would I? Maybe that is one of the reasons a lot of celebs like to visit Switzerland - people here are much less intrusive than I found in other parts of the world - we mind much more our own business.
__________________
  #1631  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:52 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 718
If your not fan why are you on The Royals Forums.
__________________
  #1632  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post

I'm in agreement with you as I know Ms. Trierweiler's occupation and that she does deserve privacy despite her job and who her partner is. My point was in responding to EIIR's post that she won the suit as the girlfriend of the French president. That, as you know, was not the case. She would be photographed regardless of whether the president was beside her, but Kate is completely attached to William. In that I mean that her name and image is only recognised because she was William's girlfriend and is now his wife. She is a public person who is paid by the British taxpayers. Technically, Ms. Trierweiler is not answerable to the French the way Kate is to the British.

French laws can't be applied to other countries the same way American or British laws can't be applied to other countries.
Catherine is not supported by the taxpayers!!! She lives off of private income from her father-in-law's Cornwall income.
__________________
  #1633  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:10 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Surely you jest. I would never pass up an opportunity to snap a future Queen of England in a bikini, pregnant or not. I can't say that I would not offer it for sale, either.

If we can't be honest, we can't be anything.
But one can be more than honest - one can emphathise with people and one can decide not to make money from photos taken without permission or knowledge of the person concerned.

And because someone has a different view, it doesn't mean they are joking.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1634  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:12 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post

Surely you jest. I would never pass up an opportunity to snap a future Queen of England in a bikini, pregnant or not. I can't say that I would not offer it for sale, either.

If we can't be honest, we can't be anything.
Sorry, but IMO, that's really sad. We'll have to agree to strongly disagree about that.
__________________
  #1635  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:26 AM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 2,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
I also saw quite a lot of other celebs in my life - but I never would intrude on them... with what right would I? Maybe that is one of the reasons a lot of celebs like to visit Switzerland - people here are much less intrusive than I found in other parts of the world - we mind much more our own business.
Possibly the Swiss mind their own business more because their privacy laws regarding street photography are MUCH stricter, (ie no targeted individual, no children, etc) and, enforced by the privacy minded government and finance industry.
That is what shapes the culture.
However, now that camera equipped cell phones are prevelant among much of our world's population, technology for taking pictures has changed dramatically since your episode 20 years ago. Few would have
had a camera on them in those days.
__________________
  #1636  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:39 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
If your not fan why are you on The Royals Forums.
Just speaking for myself and no other, I LOVE history, any kind of history and this site is tops in that department. So I am not a "fan" per se of royals, but the history behind the royals. I have seriously not the slightest interest in seeing a pregnant woman in a bikini - what kind of person wants to see a stranger like that? If you notice some of my posts, I am now interested in what the press is like in different countries, what laws they have, etc., and many people here have been very helpful so thank you to them!
__________________
  #1637  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:01 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
OK, let's get real here. Mary is Mary, lives in Denmark and, most important of all, is not Catherine! As is so often said, "you can't compare apples and oranges".

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. I was right behind them about the invasion of privacy in France because they were in private at someone's private home where they had, not only an expectation of privacy, but a legal one as well.

In this case exactly the opposite is true.
I fully share your opinion. Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are unlikely to win a war against paparazzis taking their photos and media outlets publishing them.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #1638  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:47 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I fully share your opinion. Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are unlikely to win a war against paparazzis taking their photos and media outlets publishing them.
In fairness to them, they have not waged any "war" in relation to these pictures. CH onkly expressed dissappointment, which in itself, IMO, was unnecessary.
__________________
  #1639  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 827
Have I missed something? ALL I recall reading was that SJP voiced "disappointment". I have heard of no other comments EXCEPT those written by the media which include words such as OUTRAGE, ANGER, etc.

It seems to me we are all being "taken for a ride" by the media in creating up something which may, in fact, not exist. The DM and other rags are notorious for stirring the pot and then sitting back and watching the royals be criticised for something they did not do.
__________________
  #1640  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:03 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
Have I missed something? ALL I recall reading was that SJP voiced "disappointment". I have heard of no other comments EXCEPT those written by the media which include words such as OUTRAGE, ANGER, etc.

It seems to me we are all being "taken for a ride" by the media in creating up something which may, in fact, not exist. The DM and other rags are notorious for stirring the pot and then sitting back and watching the royals be criticised for something they did not do.
Thank you
__________________

__________________
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 1545 01-05-2013 07:37 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 3: April 2 - September 10 2012 ghost_night554 Current Events Archive 923 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 837 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]