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

[AfricanAUSSIE]

So "flattering photos" are ok are they?

From what I have watched on Australian TV, I think "flattering" here means that Kate was not naked or photographed doing anything controversial. Instead they are seen to be appropriately clothed, happy and showing affection, hence - flattering. Not the most appropriate use of that word, I grant you, not the most thought provoking shows either.

 

[Sun Lion]

AfricanAUSSIE your recent posts here, and on the other thread, make me smile.

You've lightened up a sometimes dire discussion that's going on.

Cheers and Thank You, Sun Lion.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Thank you Sun Lion, glad to have made you smile

 

[Sun Lion]

AfricanAUSSIE your recent posts here, and on the other thread, make me smile.

You've lightened up a sometimes dire discussion that's going on.

Cheers and Thank You, Sun Lion.

Quoting myself here, but I just thought after the above, and my Nicole Kidman comparison, maybe the Australian posters on this forum are more "relaxed" about these photos and those who are less relaxed about them are the British posters, and this is more about our national character - Nicole's approach vs William and Catherine's approach, are just reflections of Aussie vs English attitudes to such things. (Australian's are supposedly known for their easy-going ways.)

Certainly the Australian media were expressing a more dismissive attitude towards William and Catherine and "the Palace" on TV this morning, and weren't supportive of their case regards intrusion on their privacy.

And poor old Fleet Street was dismissed as once being able to "bite" where they are now only able to "gum".

Sun Lion.

 

[royalistbert]

Well I say ever since the topless photos came out, I think they are more sensistive to these pictures than they would be. I am sure with the passage of time they will be more relaxed over pics like this.

 

[Sun Lion]

Well I say ever since the topless photos came out, I think they are more sensistive to these pictures than they would be. I am sure with the passage of time they will be more relaxed over pics like this.

Hi royalistbert - I hope so too.

Following this Chi/Mustique story around the internet this morning I've come across reports of Catherine being photographed smoking when she was in France last year - prior to pregancy of course.

The was a huge uproar in Australia last week when some-one well known here was photographed smoking while pregnant, with reports of the amount of money this person offered the photographer to hand her the photos so they wouldn't be published. (They were.)

Must be hard to have to deal with stress without this crutch/habit to fall back on, but hopefully Catherine is still young enough to get on top of this - she hasn't had a life-time with it's claws in her.

Cheers, Sun Lion.

 

[COESpiral]

I fully supported them fighting tooth and nail over the France photos because that WAS a violation of privacy but having a (rumored) hissy fit over vacation photos when they're on a public beach? No, sorry. I don't like it, but if you're out in public, unfortunately it comes with the territory. Plenty of other celebrities get their images splashed all over magazines in their bikinis and swim trunks and the world hasn't ended. Now, if said photos had been taken of them inside their home without their knowledge, then I'd be behind their anger 100%.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I fully supported them fighting tooth and nail over the France photos because that WAS a violation of privacy but having a (rumored) hissy fit over vacation photos when they're on a public beach? No, sorry. I don't like it, but if you're out in public, unfortunately it comes with the territory. Plenty of other celebrities get their images splashed all over magazines in their bikinis and swim trunks and the world hasn't ended. Now, if said photos had been taken of them inside their home without their knowledge, then I'd be behind their anger 100%.

Agreed, but I still think that being naked on a balcony (with an A+ celebrity status) is simply asking for it.

 

[COESpiral]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

 

[Hollie]

Saw the rumoured pic....they look very close and very fit indeed!

Anyway, I doubt the couple is angry over this. One just need to compare the statement issued after the topless pics were published and the statement now. The statement now is so mild. Some media outlets are just sensationalizing this IMO.

 

[miche]

How does SJP saying they are disappointed turn into a hissy fit? I have no clue

 

[Mariel]

Why are people fascinated with Kate's bump in a bikini? It would be more interesting in maternity clothes. In any case, bumps look pretty much alike, don't they? If one is long waisted like Kate, the bump will be less shelflike in early stages, but it will look like a million other bumps on long-waisted women. It is NOT the interesting part of Kate. The public is the idiot here, not the RF or the press, the public which wants to see the Duchess's bump which will be like a million other women's bumps.

 

[GömdNatt]

I can't believe we live in a world where it's ok to invade people's privacies- royal/celebrity or not, it's not ok. They're not on the job, they're on a beach. They should be allowed to be left alone, even in public.

This is preciously why I do not and never will buy tabloids or any other magazine that prints photos like this and I do my best to not see the photos. It's a gross invasion of privacy.

Why is it ok to do this just because they're royalty? I don't understand that mode of thinking: well they should expect it, they're famous! So what? They're still people.

Just because it happens doesn't mean its ok.

just my two cents.

 

[Trillian]

As I said before: cockatoo/budgerigar cage lining is all those rags are good for.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I can't believe we live in a world where it's ok to invade people's privacies- royal/celebrity or not, it's not ok. They're not on the job, they're on a beach. They should be allowed to be left alone, even in public.

This is preciously why I do not and never will buy tabloids or any other magazine that prints photos like this and I do my best to not see the photos. It's a gross invasion of privacy.

Why is it ok to do this just because they're royalty? I don't understand that mode of thinking: well they should expect it, they're famous! So what? They're still people.

Just because it happens doesn't mean its ok.

just my two cents.

I don't think anyone here believes it is OK that the Paps are so invasive, rather that it is a fact that celebrities must deal with and negotiate as best as they can. Again, not OK but if one is to survive one must navigate the best one can until such a time as when the Paps stop what they do - not likely right? At least I am not seeing it happening in my lifetime!

The issue is more about the management of this phenomenon. The debate is about what each party is doing or not doing to minimize inappropriate exposure...just my two cents.

 

[TLLK]

I can't believe we live in a world where it's ok to invade people's privacies- royal/celebrity or not, it's not ok. They're not on the job, they're on a beach. They should be allowed to be left alone, even in public.

This is preciously why I do not and never will buy tabloids or any other magazine that prints photos like this and I do my best to not see the photos. It's a gross invasion of privacy.

Why is it ok to do this just because they're royalty? I don't understand that mode of thinking: well they should expect it, they're famous! So what? They're still people.

Just because it happens doesn't mean its ok.

just my two cents.

Perfectly stated!

 

[Sun Lion]

As I said before: cockatoo/budgerigar cage lining is all those rags are good for.

And owned by a German company - "Bauer" - since September last year Trillian. "Woman's Day" is in European hands now.

Just saw the early evening news on Channel 9 and they are showing the censored/blacked out version of the Chi cover.

Wonder if this is because Woman's Day is publishing them - Channel 9 and Woman's Day used to belong to the same company. Next Monday will tell.

(Un-censored Chi photos were on Channel 7 this morning - used to be associated with New Idea, may still be.)

Sun Lion.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I can't imagine that W&K are really that upset about these photos. Certainly not surprised, anyway. I imagine they were making wagers amongst the family about how quickly the photos would surface and having a laugh about it. I would, or else risk going beserk with the futility of it in this day and age.

Lmao, that's what I'm thinking. Though a bet about which scum mag is going to publish the next photos wouldn't be good because it always seems to be the same one.
Anyway no one has proven that William or Kate are throwing a hissy fit over these pix. And to all those saying they should just deal with the invasion of their privacy I wonder how dismissive of their feelings you would be if William said screw it and gave up his title, claim to the throne and just lived as a private citizen for the rest of his life.

 

[Sun Lion]

[CODE]

[/CODE]

And owned by a German company - "Bauer" - since September last year Trillian. "Woman's Day" is in European hands now.

Just saw the early evening news on Channel 9 and they are showing the censored/blacked out version of the Chi cover.

Wonder if this is because Woman's Day is publishing them - Channel 9 and Woman's Day used to belong to the same company. Next Monday will tell.

(Un-censored Chi photos were on Channel 7 this morning - used to be associated with New Idea, may still be.)

Sun Lion.

Quoting myself again. (Channel 9 promoting "their" magazine, Channel 7 not helping out the competition.)

Just saw the main 6.00pm news bulletins here in Australia and "Woman's Day" has purchased all the photos and will be publishing "the full album" next Monday.

Channel 9 had this as news in their bulletin.

Channel 7 only covered the Chi part in their report.

"Woman's Day" editor Fiona Connelly was interviewed - "public beach", "other holiday-makers" etc. - perhaps suggesting no paparazzi were involved.

They showed the staff dummying up the cover.

Saw a different photo of Kate, side on, with her hands lifting up her hair as she walks through the surf.

She looks quite pregnant at that angle. Certainly much "bigger" than the honeymoon photos generally, and caught by the camera arching her back a bit so that probably emphasises the "bump".

By this time next week, (Wedneday evening here), this will be "old" news - if that is any comfort to anyone.

Cheers, Sun Lion.

 

[Sun Lion]

[CODE]

[/CODE]

Quoting myself again. (Channel 9 promoting "their" magazine, Channel 7 not helping out the competition.)

Just saw the main 6.00pm news bulletins here in Australia and "Woman's Day" has purchased all the photos and will be publishing "the full album" next Monday.

Channel 9 had this as news in their bulletin.

Channel 7 only covered the Chi part in their report.

"Woman's Day" editor Fiona Connelly was interviewed - "public beach", "other holiday-makers" etc. - perhaps suggesting no paparazzi were involved.

They showed the staff dummying up the cover.

Saw a different photo of Kate, side on, with her hands lifting up her hair as she walks through the surf.

She looks quite pregnant at that angle. Certainly much "bigger" than the honeymoon photos generally, and caught by the camera arching her back a bit so that probably emphasises the "bump".

By this time next week, (Wedneday evening here), this will be "old" news - if that is any comfort to anyone.

Cheers, Sun Lion.

Just scanned the net - saying "Woman's Day" only paid $150,000, (Australian), after "furious" bidding against other magazine/s and that they were taken by a tourist - (which would explain why they seem pretty close up and don't look "grainy").


Sun Lion.

 

[Kataryn]

Just scanned the net - saying "Woman's Day" only paid $150,000, (Australian), after "furious" bidding against other magazine/s and that they were taken by a tourist - (which would explain why they seem pretty close up and don't look "grainy").


Sun Lion.

In the future they really will have to rent a whole island... So while Mustique tried all to close the shore to paps, other guests there took the opportunity to make some quick bucks. Great! Goes to show how greedy the world has become and people who holiday surely so not need any extra money.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Lmao, that's what I'm thinking. Though a bet about which scum mag is going to publish the next photos wouldn't be good because it always seems to be the same one.
Anyway no one has proven that William or Kate are throwing a hissy fit over these pix. And to all those saying they should just deal with the invasion of their privacy I wonder how dismissive of their feelings you would be if William said screw it and gave up his title, claim to the throne and just lived as a private citizen for the rest of his life.

I would certainly have more respect for him if he did give up his title et all.

 

[HRHHermione]

I would certainly have more respect for him if he did give up his title et all.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. You'd rather see the British monarchy either cease to exist or go through the PR crisis of Prince William choosing to renounce his titles? That seems very, very shortsighted.

Some of you genuinely seem to believe that William and Kate owe it to the press to smile and wave and keep quiet no matter how the press treats them. Those photos were taken with a log lens probably from a boat and on an island with very strict privacy laws. The camera was probably so far away they could not see the photographer.

Can some of you at least admit that it would be incredibly unnerving to live your whole life knowing that at any moment, a totally unseen photographer might get an image of you without your knowledge and broadcast it to the world? That even though William and Kate expect their privacy to be disrupted, they still have the right to register their objections to it when it happens?

 

[Kataryn]

That even though William and Kate expect their privacy to be disrupted, they still have the right to register their objections to it when it happens?

I think this is exactly the point. W&C must accept that this comes with their position but they on the other hand have the right to tell the public that for them it is hurtful. I have yet to see the pics as I don't look for them but I have no doubt we will see a young woman in a bikini with a little baby bump. Woa! Never seen anything like that!

There is absolutely no need for these pics to be published other than to feed the greed of some people to get as close as they can to people they "admire" - a form of stalking in anonimity on buying these rags. I applaud William and Catherine for voicing their side of the story as loud as they can!

Maybe this will make some people start to think what is being done to them and change their behaviour from buying to non-buying, for this is the only coin in which magazine rate their morals.

 

[Trillian]

Women's magazines and morals? :roflol:

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Oh you've got to be kidding me. You'd rather see the British monarchy either cease to exist or go through the PR crisis of Prince William choosing to renounce his titles? That seems very, very shortsighted.

How so Hermione?

 

[Sun Lion]

Just scanned the net - saying "Woman's Day" only paid $150,000, (Australian), after "furious" bidding against other magazine/s and that they were taken by a tourist - (which would explain why they seem pretty close up and don't look "grainy").


Sun Lion.

More info coming out - "Woman's Day" outbid not only "New Idea", but also "Who" for the right to publish.

Now appears there are 39 photos.

Sun Lion.

 

[Elly C]

I'm really hating the column inches being devoted to this, but I will wade in with a comment nonetheless. Over the years there have been quite a few pics published of Katherine and Will on holiday - swimming/sunbathing . Indeed pics of Kate in her white bikini from a few holidays back have appeared in quite a few reputable publications - I guess they didn't like it, but I don't recall until last year's topless photos, there was a real outcry/statement from St. James. Much as I dislike these "snoopers" & admit I would hate it in their shoes, I don't see why these latest pics are deemed a particularly dreadful example of intrusion just because Kate is pregnant. Pregnant women don't "disappear" because of their condition - Kate I gather is in appropriate swimming attire and behaving as one would walking along a beach ....

 

[Dman]

I think the media should calm down about these pictures. I'm not imagining William & Catherine pulling their hair out over the pictures. Then again, I guess this happens when the royal news is slow and the lack of patience for royal appearences.

I think everything will calm down when Catherine start up her official engagements and her and William are out and about again.

 

[Sun Lion]

"Those photos were taken with a log lens probably from a boat and on an island with very strict privacy laws. The camera was probably so far away they could not see the photographer".



Hi HRHHermione - info is now coming out that the photos - 39 of them - were taken by a fellow holiday maker while the Middletons were chatting to people around them.

Cheers, Sun Lion.