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

[Sun Lion]

Can a UK poster let me know if the Australian women's magazines are available there.

We certainly have access to your magazines - not just "Hello" or "English Women's Weekly", but even "The Friend" etc.

(I have images of British customs officers ripping out pages before they go on the news-stands - like Saudi Arabia does to the imported fashion magazines.)

Thanks Sun Lion.

 

[MichelleQ2]

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.

 

[EIIR]

It is not a case of "she was asking for it". It's a case of she assumed the risks associated with the activity and should not be surprised at the result. A fine, but important, distinction. If a woman wears skimpy clothes and goes into a room full of drunken men late at night alone and acts provocatively, she runs the risk of being touched improperly or even raped. Doesn't mean she deserves it, or that it isn't assault or rape. Just means she should have known better and shouldn't be surprised.

Just as a person who leaves their house unattended assumes the risk it will be burgled; just as a person who buys a fancy car assumes the risk it will be stolen; and just as a person who crosses the road assumes the risk that a person who is not paying attention will run them down. Doesn't mean their insurer should not pay out on their claim, for insurance is all about risk. It means that people who know the risk should not being surprised, and should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

In the case of Kate on Mustique, don't walk along a public beach in a bikini if you don't want to be photographed.

There's so much here that I'm just not going to address because I'm pretty disgusted by it.

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?

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.

If the upshot of all this is that the royals are entitled to no privacy whatsoever, no matter where they are or what they're doing, then is it any wonder they all hate the press? They're independently wealthy in their own right, why put up with such a miserable existence? Is it any wonder so many of the royals have failed marriages, family breakdowns, dysfunctional relationships etc. etc? I wouldn't swap places with them for all the tea in China.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Michelle, they would have to find out who it was first.

 

[EIIR]

Can a UK poster let me if the Australian women's magazines are available there.

We certainly have access to your magazines - not just "Hello" or "English Women's Weekly", but even "The Friend" etc.

(I have images of British customs officers ripping out pages before they go on the news-stands - like Saudi Arabia does to the imported fashion magazines.)

Thanks Sun Lion.

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.

 

[cepe]

There's so much here that I'm just not going to address because I'm pretty disgusted by it.

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?

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.

If the upshot of all this is that the royals are entitled to no privacy whatsoever, no matter where they are or what they're doing, then is it any wonder they all hate the press? They're independently wealthy in their own right, why put up with such a miserable existence? Is it any wonder so many of the royals have failed marriages, family breakdowns, dysfunctional relationships etc. etc? I wouldn't swap places with them for all the tea in China.

Godd post - agree 100%

 

[Osipi]

Just a reminder that the statement from SJP did not say that William and Kate (or anyone else) are surprised. It didn't say that anyone is outraged. It didn't say anyone was considering bringing suit. It just said that the Palace is disappointed. In my opinion, that's a pretty mild statement, and says more about being resigned than anything else.

All of the discussion on the photos taken at Mustique has reminded me of a good example of how times have really changed.

It seemed that Queen Elizabeth took a day to go to the beach (forget which beach it was) and word got out to the press that the Queen was expected to be there that day. Sitting there enjoying the seaside, two women approached the Queen and said to her "Did you hear?? The Queen is to be here today!! How terribly exciting!" They didn't recognize her and probably expected fanfare and a motorcade of cars or something and least expected a woman sitting on the beach with most likely a scarf and sunglasses on. Its been a long time since I've read the anecdote.

I'm sure that both William and Kate realize that they are immensely popular and especially now that she's carrying a future heir to the throne, they are perhaps the most sought after and most popular couple on the planet right now. I think SJP issued a statement perhaps in a way to thank the British press for coming out and stating right off they would not be publishing the pictures. One thing different about these photos and the ones taken in France is that the previously taken ones went viral almost immediately. It took days this time before we even heard that magazines would even print them.

Such is life. Everyone peers into a fishbowl.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

It is not a case of "she was asking for it". It's a case of she assumed the risks associated with the activity and should not be surprised at the result. A fine, but important, distinction. If a woman wears skimpy clothes and goes into a room full of drunken men late at night alone and acts provocatively, she runs the risk of being touched improperly or even raped. Doesn't mean she deserves it, or that it isn't assault or rape. Just means she should have known better and shouldn't be surprised.

Just as a person who leaves their house unattended assumes the risk it will be burgled; just as a person who buys a fancy car assumes the risk it will be stolen; and just as a person who crosses the road assumes the risk that a person who is not paying attention will run them down. Doesn't mean their insurer should not pay out on their claim, for insurance is all about risk. It means that people who know the risk should not being surprised, and should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

In the case of Kate on Mustique, don't walk along a public beach in a bikini if you don't want to be photographed.

EXACTLY! It is not about deserving the treatment they get but about being wise about managing risks. Totally agree Roslyn.

 

[Andolini]

There's so much here that I'm just not going to address because I'm pretty disgusted by it.

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?

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.

If the upshot of all this is that the royals are entitled to no privacy whatsoever, no matter where they are or what they're doing, then is it any wonder they all hate the press? They're independently wealthy in their own right, why put up with such a miserable existence? Is it any wonder so many of the royals have failed marriages, family breakdowns, dysfunctional relationships etc. etc? I wouldn't swap places with them for all the tea in China.

I agree with you. And I am very, very offended as a woman that someone would say that I could be culpable for rape because I got drunk at a party. That IS saying I or whomever was asking for it. That attitude is very dangerous.

 

[royalistbert]

Well the British Press want to keep on good terms so they can get photo opps of Baby Cambridge.

 

[casualfan]

$$$$$$$$$$

If you were vacationing on that beach when she walked by, are you really going to tell us that you would not take a photo if you had a camera with you? Maybe if you did, you would just keep it as a private memento, but I reckon most people would sell if they were offered a three figure sum for their snaps.

People buy magazines because they contain photos of Kate, and - for some reason which I find completely unfathomable - seem to want to particularly see her "bump". And they'll see her "bump" in the raw, unobscured by clothing of any sort, since she's wearing a bikini.

It was a rhetorical question. I know people want money, and they'll do anything to get it. That is incredibly sad.

 

[Andolini]

It was a rhetorical question. I know people want money, and they'll do anything to get it. That is incredibly sad.

I would never take a picture like that for money. Money is not that important to me. And I am not trying to say I am better, I simply think people obsess too much about accumulating wealth.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I've never seen an Australian magazine on sale in the UK.

You sure about that? Rumor has it a few of them are owned by Australians.

 

[Andolini]

EXACTLY! It is not about deserving the treatment they get but about being wise about managing risks. Totally agree Roslyn.

I could say that in the neighborhood I live in, since it has a high crime rate, if I leave my house I can expect to get assaulted. Happens all the time. So I should never leave my home?

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

And I am very, very offended as a woman that someone would say that I could be culpable for rape because I got drunk at a party. That IS saying I or whomever was asking for it. That attitude is very dangerous.

Goodness, that is NOT what Roslyn stated at all! Quite the opposite! No one deserves to be raped no matter what but if you are drunk accept the fact that you are a "soft target" (not asking for it but being more at risk). The rapist should certainly face justice!

We are not in a perfect world, we must take care to govern its shortcomings. It's risk assessment and management, that is all.

 

[Andolini]

Goodness, that is NOT what Roslyn stated at all! Quite the opposite! No one deserves to be raped no matter what but if you are drunk accept the fact that you are a "soft target" (not asking for it but being more at risk). The rapist should certainly face justice!

We are not in a perfect world, we must take care to govern its shortcomings. It's risk assessment and management, that is all.

I apologize for my misinterpretation, and shall do the same to Roslyn!

 

[royalistbert]

The most shocking thing about this is we have Diana fans sticking up for the press!

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I could say that in the neighborhood I live in, since it has a high crime rate, if I leave my house I can expect to get assaulted. Happens all the time. So I should never leave my home?

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.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

The most shocking thing about this is we have Diana fans sticking up for the press!

Only speaking for me of course, but I honestly don't believe anyone is sticking up for the press at all. Clearly they need to be properly regulated (opposed to self-regulated). I think some of us just believe they are making themselves easy pray for the media and hence are receiving less sympathy for it.

PS. It is my Mom who is the Diana fan. I chose this photo for her.

 

[fandesacs2003]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Sun Lion]

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.

 

[Trillian]

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!

 

[NGalitzine]

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

 

[Frelinghighness]

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.

 

[corazon]

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.

 

[4Pam]

The price the BRF pays by simply being who they are.

 

[Andolini]

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"???

 

[AdmirerUS]

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).

 

[gerry]

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