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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Andolini said:
Hi there Rosyln, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :flowers: Any of us can misinterpret in this medium.

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"???
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Roslyn said:
Thank you. :flowers: 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, my husband is from Europe and is not bothered by nude sunbathing at all, while I, as an American, am like "what???" LOL
 
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.
 
AfricanAUSSIE said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EIIR said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?

EIIR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

EIIR said:
The UK is not Saudi Arabia. Our press is among the most free on the planet and has been for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

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"

Dman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
American Dane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
casualfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MARG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%!!!
 
Yes, I'm also in agreement with Marg on this as well.
 
Last edited:
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! :p

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

Katie very happy indeed, she got the Paps back...Hehehehe!:veryevil:
 
AfricanAUSSIE said:
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! :p

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

Katie very happy indeed, she got the Paps back...Hehehehe!:veryevil:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
soapstar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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)
 
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. :)
 
I hope the media will drop the conversation now. They have pretty much overplayed the story.
 
Roslyn said:
Thank you. :flowers: 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
casualfan said:
But why should anyone want to take a pic of her on vacation ANYWAY? That's the point.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
American Dane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Catherine is not supported by the taxpayers!!! She lives off of private income from her father-in-law's Cornwall income.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but IMO, that's really sad. We'll have to agree to strongly disagree about that.
 
Nice Nofret said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

soapstar
Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012
43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
129K
TLLK
T
D
  • Locked
Some suggestions on how and where to see the Royal Family in 2012
Replies
14
Views
4K
NGalitzine
N
E
  • Locked
Smear Campaign? And if so, by whom? (Re: William and Kate)
5 6 7
Replies
203
Views
44K
Myself1995
Myself1995
P
  • Locked
Is The Royal Family Uninspiring or Isolated?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
14K
RoyalistRiley
RoyalistRiley

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom