The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1601  
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"???
__________________

  #1602  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:11 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,768
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).
__________________

  #1603  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:20 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andolini View Post
Hi there Rosyln, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.
I'm impressed.
  #1604  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:21 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
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).
  #1605  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 713
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
  #1606  
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.
  #1607  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
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.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1608  
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
  #1609  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 187
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.
  #1610  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:23 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,505
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.
  #1611  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
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.
  #1612  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:01 AM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
I fail to see how a beach on a private island, where access to the island is strictly controlled, where random people can't simply rock up and throw their beach towels down, can be described as a 'public' beach. The Middletons have been holidaying on the island for several years, even last year no photographer was able to get anywhere near close enough to take decent pictures. You couldn't really identify anyone on the pictures that were taken because the paps couldn't get close enough. In that case, why should William and Kate not have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If you can't expect privacy on a private island, miles from anywhere, where can you?
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
The girlfriend of the French president successfully made a complaint after a French magazine published photos of her on the beach with her boyfriend in France last year. She didn't forfeit her right to privacy because she's the president's partner.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
The UK is not Saudi Arabia. Our press is among the most free on the planet and has been for hundreds of years.
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"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
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'
Video: Pregnant Duchess pictures are about 'decency and consent for women' - Telegraph

Very well put, Charlotte Harris.
Just because Pippa is back in the UK doesn't mean her adult sister and brother-in-law are as well. They're not joined by the hip, you know Supposedly William and Kate are remaining on the island until after Valentine's (so they may leave tonight or tomorrow)
  #1613  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:27 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
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'
Video: Pregnant Duchess pictures are about 'decency and consent for women' - Telegraph
Thank you for that link Dman, she presents a good argument for Kate's privacy.
  #1614  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:36 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post
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.
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.
  #1615  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:41 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,505
I just think we have to learn to respect everyones privacy. Royal or non-royal. The pictures are of a beautiful young couple and parents to be together on a beach but I think that should've been their private time alone and not for the world to gaze upon. I know they have been photographed many times before on holiday but I just think everyone should leave them alone during times like that.

The media will have to lookout. Once the baby arrives, Wiliam & Catherine, The Queen and The Prince of Wales will not mess around with the media. They will most likely release pictures and have a photoshoot but they will put their foot down on someones throat over that child's privacy.
  #1616  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:03 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
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.
One can shame/blame/prosecute/imprison the perpetrator till the cows come home, but once you've been attacked, you've been attacked, and no amount of blame, etc., will change that fact. Saying it's unfair won't avoid a potential attack. If you live in a dangerous place and want to avoid being attacked, you take every precaution reasonably available to you to avoid being attacked. It's common sense.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1617  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:32 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 12,058
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. 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.
Agree 100%!!!
  #1618  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:53 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,808
Yes, I'm also in agreement with Marg on this as well.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
  #1619  
Old 02-14-2013, 03:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,663
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.
  #1620  
Old 02-14-2013, 03:31 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
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!
__________________

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





Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit birthday coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria denmark dictatorship duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge dutch fashion poll iran jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy natural disasters new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince charles prince louis princess charlene princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style princess sofia queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathilde in jordan queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queenmother queen rania queen rania dresses queen rania fashion queen silvia september 2016 state visit state visit to spain succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara time travel


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises