William, Catherine and Family: Annual Holiday to Mustique (2012-2015, 2018-2019)

[AfricanAUSSIE]

How big were the "masses" Sun Lion?

 

[Tiggersk8]

I have literally just spent the better part of an hour w/my mouth dropping lower and lower over some of the posts that..that...that...I can't say what I'd love to say, as I'd get banned, so will have to do w/certain members have posted.

My God...Some of you really need to be stalked to get it I think. I have been. I have always said I would never wish that Hell on anyone, but I'm starting think there are some on here who need to be, if only for one day. Just so they can get a swift kick in the butt w/some compassion.

And as for the "Well...There are camera phones everywhere now, so that's okay" excuse. ...Words fail me!! No, it't NOT okay to take a picture of someone w/out their knowledge when they aren't "on duty", such as William and Kate were here.

It's not that hard a concept to figure out. However, I guess if you're a part of the ever growing and sad majority of "Well, they're famous, so they're just asking to get a picture taken regardless of where they are" stupidity, then I worry for our Future. It just seems that what is really wrong is okay these days and what's worse is no one seems to realize that anymore. Or if they do, then they're "not cool or not living in reality".

Sorry for the rant, but nothing makes me see red then this issue. As I said, I've been there and it's not fun.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to live vicariously thru them. I look at their fashion, I read about their work, and I'm interested in royal history. I have no interest in seeing their every move, especially if it's private.

And by the way, I despair of this situation because it represents a troubling combination of disrespect, unreasonableness, breach of privacy, and an abandonment of common decency-some of the qualities that I associate with man-made disasters like famine, too.

Exactly!! Just because they're famous, doesn't mean we need to be in their faces 24/7 and there are lines that shouldn't ever be crossed. Sadly, that's happening all the time these days.

I have an issue with 'public' beaches being the mitigating factor that they shouldnt be surprised for being photographed. The beaches are open to the guests of a private island.

This is not your typical caribbean vacation. Will & Kate vacationed on an island that is promoted as a private island where paparazzi are not tolerated
www.mustique-island.com/

It is a reasonable expectation that their privacy along with the others on the island should be protected.

I am sure the person who sold the pictures will never be welcome back.

Thank you for saying that. If it was an actual public beach, then... However, it wasn't. It's a private island, meaning private beaches, meaning an expectation of privacy period!!!

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!

Well said!!

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.

This!! I'm sure this is exactly what they were expecting. Sadly, didn't happen.

 

[cinrit]

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

Actually ... and sadly ... the answer is yes, since in the U.S., animals are considered property. Zoo animals are then considered public property, since most zoos charge an admission price, and all zoos exist for the "viewing entertainment" of the public.

(I have many "exclusive"photos of CP Mary of Denmark, taken by me, from her last visit - one of them is my avatar.)

But when I went to see Prince William, in Sydney before his wedding, I didn't bother to take my camera.

That was a bit silly really, as much to my amazement, I was able to watch his entire speech with no-one around me and with a totally unobscured view.

In both instances that you cite, Mary and William were "on the job", in public, performing duties. The Cambridges were in public, granted ... but they were on vacation on a private island where they should have been able to have an expectation of privacy. But I doubt the fact that pictures showed up
surprised them in the least.

 

[Baroness of Books]

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

Ah, Gracie, trust you to address this issue from a giraffe's point of view!

 

[Sun Lion]

So Germany, France and the USA are also going to publish.

Seemed inevitable.

Sun Lion.

New Zealand is also now publishing the photos,

Sun Lion.

 

[Sun Lion]

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.

They don't seem to have been able to stop fellow holiday-makers tweeting their activities on Mustique Iluvbertie.

I've seen several reports of people there seeing the royal group playing volleyball - (even tweeting that they - the people tweeting - were going to get up early the next day to beat them to the court!), sailing ahead of the royal party and waiting on the beach to see them alight from their craft, seeing them at the well-known bar "Basil's" and at a resturant.

People are obviously chuffed to be there at the same time as William and Catherine and can't keep from letting others know.

Cheers, Sun Lion.

 

[NGalitzine]

Looks as if Mustique has gone very much downmarket from the days when it was the place celebrities owned homes there and went because it was private and they could have some peace without being photographed.

 

[Dman]

The sooner the 19th comes the better.

So true, I agree.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think there is a difference between a holiday maker taking a photo of a famous person who was also having a holiday at the same time and place for my personal memories of that holiday/experience and a person who then sells that photo.

e.g. I am on the beach and Kate and William walk past and I take a photo that is for me and me alone (well maybe my family) is fine in my book but if I, or my family, decided to sell that photo I think that is not on.

I have often taken photos of famous people sitting in the stands at the cricket watching the same game that I am watching - as part of my memory of that game - but I have never even thought of selling those photos and some of them.

 

[Pranter]

We have famous people come into our area (have for years) but local people here leave them alone. When they are here they are visiting family. They eat in local food places and go about their business. No one really bothers them.

I can't imagine taking a photo of them and then selling it...it's just wrong.


LaRae

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Well, I am particularly useless when it comes to that. I have often seen celebrities and have had a camera with me and did nothing. I have professionally shot celebrities and felt too guilty to put them up on my website. I just can't bring myself to make money out of them but know it is not the best business sense as these people have signed model release forms!

If I was to be in the same situation as that tourist on their island, I am certain I would internally struggle with the possibility of photographing them as the mortgage, etc. would flash before me. A huge temptation I think.

 

[NGalitzine]

If I was to be in the same situation as that tourist on their island, I am certain I would internally struggle with the possibility of photographing them as the mortgage, etc. would flash before me. A huge temptation I think.

If they were worried about making a mortgage payment then spending money on a holiday in Mustique was probably not the best decision in the first place.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Good point! But I still wonder whether I would be able to overcome the temptation were I faced with the choice? I would like to think so, but I am really not sure.

 

[Osipi]

OK folks.. here we go. According to this video, William has come out and spoke up about the pictures taken in Mustique.

AOL.com Video - Prince William Speaks Out Over Kate Middleton Baby Bump Pics

 

[carlota]

in response to the people talking about kate's hair: yes, she seems to have a tendency to curls, specially when in humid climates
http://www.5starweddingdirectory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Kate-Middleton-curly-hair.jpg

 

[kathia_sophia]

my hair is very similar of Catherine's, though darker.
when in humid enviroment it tends to be very curly, the same applies to the beach, the sea's salt water makes the hair specially curly and freazy.
on regular basis, the hair is straight from above and large curls at the bottom (Catherine likes her natural hair, she styles her hair according to its natural resources).
never though we would have a very similar hair, except the color.

tomorow is the so awaited engagement right? will William be with her?

 

[Zonk]

Please note that a slew of posts (45 of them!) have been deleted as off topic.

Let's stay on the actual topic of this thread....William and Catherine's actual Current Events.

 

[EIIR]

William and Kate share the beach with the other vacationers on the island. Thus it is public property for them, not being owned by the royals nor the villa owner where William and Kate are staying. If these were paparazzi pics there would be a slight understanding of the upset this has caused some but it was an equal personage (in Mustique's eyes) to William and Kate who took the photos. The claims that vacationers, who had spent a nice chunk of cash to be there, couldn't use cameras for the benefit of the royals and Middletons is an actual infringement of rights. Why isn't that being brought up on this board?

These people are on a private island. They therefore agree to the customs and practices of the island in return for access to it. If these people want to scope round for famous people to take photos of, they should be in Barbados. I don't see the issue in asking for people not to take photos of individuals who don't consent to it. From what I see, they weren't exactly threatened with getting thrown in the Tower if they didn't comply with the request.

If Elle Macpherson was thought, by the Press Complaints Commission in the UK, to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy on Mustique, then why should William and Kate not have it too? As royals they're no less entitled to privacy under human rights law as anyone else.

Yes, the girlfriend of the French president has a right to privacy. Just like when Kate was just William's girlfriend she had a right to privacy. Marriage complicates things in these cases.

The French President's partner lives with him in his official residence, provided and paid for by French taxpayers. She accompanies him to official events. She's currently on a state visit to India with him, where she is being treated as his wife. She was with him on the beach when she was photographed and the French courts ruled it an invasion of privacy. She's basically the first lady, except she doesn't have the bit of paper that says she's his wife. If a political journalist, and live in partner of the French president, cannot be photographed while on the beach with the President himself, how on earth does anyone have the right to see pictures of the heir to the heir of the British head of state while on a private holiday on a private island?

Obviously not, otherwise there wouldn't be censorship of the photos by UK publications when the entire world's press and Internet have them. Saudi Arabia is at least honest about their "freedoms"

You really don't know anything about the British press do you? This is the country where not that long ago, the press were tapping the phone lines of Prince Charles, recording his personal conversations with Camilla and reproducing them, word for word, in the newspapers. This is the country where the press were hacking royals' (and others) phones with impunity for years. This is the press who printed photos of Harry in his private hotel room playing strip billiards!

There is no 'censorship' of these photos. The British press are choosing not to print them because the photographers who took the photos, whether they be paps or holidaymakers, have illegally infringed the rights of the individuals involved. The only time the press can do this is where there is an overarching public interest imperative. There is zero public interest argument in seeing William and Kate on a private family holiday.

Suggesting that the UK has similar press restrictions as Saudi Arabia is pretty bloody insulting.

 

[royalistbert]

Well said EIIR finally some logic in this discussion.

 

[Lumutqueen]

because the photographers who took the photos, whether they be paps or holidaymakers, have illegally infringed the rights of the individuals involved.

Have they though? What law covers this? Whilst I think it's common sense, is it illegal?

 

[NGalitzine]

EIIR has hit the nail on the head. Bravo. Unfortunately it will not make a difference to the discussions here because a lot of people seem to believe that once you marry into the BRF you have zero right to any privacy and that the public and the paps have 100% right to make as much money as possible off of you. I am more surprised no one has suggested turning the palaces into Big Brother houses with cameras everywhere 24/7 because it is the publics right to see and know everything.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I just saw the photos at my local grocery checkout counter. There was the royal pregnant lower abdomen, staring me right in the face as a I mindlessly stared straight ahead waiting my turn. I don't buy that magazine, and I wasn't seeking them out. But there they were. I looked at the print - if I want to hear what Kate has said to the locals, I would have to buy it.

I didn't. But it made a nice change of pace from all the images of the Kardashians, Jen Aniston and Brangelina and the printed words I can't avoid, either.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

EIIR has hit the nail on the head. Bravo. Unfortunately it will not make a difference to the discussions here because a lot of people seem to believe that once you marry into the BRF you have zero right to any privacy and that the public and the paps have 100% right to make as much money as possible off of you. I am more surprised no one has suggested turning the palaces into Big Brother houses with cameras everywhere 24/7 because it is the publics right to see and know everything.

You raise some interesting points, and some good points.

Regarding your last sentence, it's very simple; nobody would suggest such a thing because then the media CANNOT make money off capturing the royals in private moments. Simple. Is this moral? Is this a good thing? Not suggesting any of that. The media and public would not suggest it, unless of course it was a pay per view. Mind you, there are those people out there who view royals as little more now than circus animals or zoo animals on some sort of display, so you would have some out there who fully support the idea. Does this objectify another human being? Yes. Is this demoralizing? Yes. Do people nevertheless have this view; a great deal of people? Yes. Why do they have this view? Well, to me it's very complicated. I personally think that what you are seeing is an undertone of public backlash against the idea of royalty. I believe that in the 21st century there's a subconscious backlash against the whole notion of a person with a title. You can argue all you want about history and tradition of which I am well aware, but when someone is an "HRH" it gives at the very least the subconscious message that some people out there are better than others, purely due to accident of birth or who one falls in love with and marries. That's a big problem. What are people doing with these photos of Kate? It's a backlash against that message; it's a countermessage; they are the same as all of us. Why are they in Mustique and others are struggling to make ends meat? I am very well aware of the counterarguments; her mother and father got up off their butts, created a successful business, worked hard and can afford a vacation. I get that and don't disagree with it. Again, a very complicated discussion. Neither side is right, and rather than snipe back and forth, it would be far more productive to discuss it all.

As for the "right" to take the photos and sell them - depends on what you are talking about by "right." Yes, there are strict privacy laws in Mustique. But with modern technology, laws in one venue are useless. Unless there is an international law, one law is useless. There's a sort of anarchy afoot with regards to images, information and its dissemination. This is a perfect example. So does the public and paps have a "right?" Well, yes, as there is no effective way to stop it legally. Although I suspect by right you mean a "moral right." More complicated. I don't believe there was ANY moral right to take and disseminate the photos in France. Clearly outrageous. As for the Aussie DJ's - I think that was the most outrageous of all - a clear fraud committed (no matter how farcical) in order to obtain private medical information about a hospital patient). I'm a bit outraged more was not done there. These photos, on a public beach, among strangers, in perfectly acceptable dress for the 21st century? I just don't see the big deal here in the grand scheme of things. These particular photos are much ado about nothing - and I suspect that all of the ado is that tug-of-war described above regarding class structure, rights, privilege, etc. There is a segment of the public outraged that they can afford such a holiday, and feel that they therefore have a right to invade any of their privacy. There is a segment of the public that believes that tax dollars pay for at least part of their existence, and therefore they are owned by the public.

I suppose at least part of this is off-topic, but I don't know where else to post it. I see this as less about the photos on the beach themselves and more about class struggles. Very, very complicated subject.

 

[royalistbert]

GracieGiraffe not the place to discuss your political ideology.

 

[Lumutqueen]

GracieGiraffe not the place to discuss your political ideology.

Not sure where "political" ideology comes into this. Gracie discusses the finer points of the difference between something being "right" and something being "moral". It is not illegal to take pictures of Catherine in a bikini whilst she is pregnant, however is it moral? Heck no. Politics doesn't come anywhere near it, morality does.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

GracieGiraffe not the place to discuss your political ideology.

Sorry! But I'm really not trying to discuss political ideology. I'm trying to discuss Will and Kate's "right" to privacy on their holidays vs their expectations to privacy and why such expectations in their private lives might not be realistic, even if they should have such. We have been discussing the photos of Mustique throughout this thread, and whether they had an expectation/right to expect no photos in the tabloids. This to me is just an elaboration of such. Of course the mods may see it differently, and if so, I play by the rules.

The expectation that their public lives/current events be reported and their private lives/current events remain sacrosanct is unrealistic.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Not sure where "political" ideology comes into this. Gracie discusses the finer points of the difference between something being "right" and something being "moral". It is not illegal to take pictures of Catherine in a bikini whilst she is pregnant, however is it moral? Heck no. Politics doesn't come anywhere near it, morality does.

Thank you! That is exactly what I mean. I have no political ideology here, in fact, I rather like the institution of monarchy in general, but am not afraid to point out anomalies/hypocrisies where they exist. Such is necessary for the preservation of monarchies in the long run.

Perhaps there needs to be a thread on Will and Kate's expectations of privacy/right to privacy, their public vs. their private lives, and to what extent they are "public servants" and what they "owe" the public. With 21st Century technology, these lines are going to have to be addressed.

BTW, from what I'm reading, it might just be illegal to take any photos of Will and Kate in Mustique, clothed, unclothed, or somewhere in between. However, since public dissemination is international, localized laws are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A false sense of security for people there. I'm not suggesting it is right, I'm just saying "it is what it is."

 

[Roslyn]

Catherine and William are CURRENTLY on holiday in Mustique, until they get back and until Catherine appears in three days time this discussion isn't going to stop. That still doesn't detract from the fact Gracie was not talking politics. Also, which threads are there to discuss this holiday?

I totally agree. The issues addressed in Gracie's thought-provoking post arise directly from the photographs of William & Kate who are currently holidaying on Mustique, and, as such, it is on topic, and it was not a post about politics.

Are posts in current events threads to be limited to the bare facts about where people are and what they are doing, and not to allow discussion about broader and more complex issues arising from those bare facts? I hope not. These are "The Royal Forums" and, in my opinion, any discussion about royalty impliedly includes as relevant issues relating to the institution of royalty itself and its place in modern society.

 

[Princess of Durham]

DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THE MEDIA WHO ARE MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS, not those involved.

Talk about being "suckered" by the press/media!!!!!

 

[cepe]

well said - its the same story on the PoW current events - all about him "secretly" advising on the legislation in the Uk (according to the Telegraph). Its public information if people care to look. Of course the Telegraph didn't mention that.

People have stopped thinking for themselves - weird!