Kate Middleton Current Events 19: March-April 2007

[Roslyn]

In addition to what's been said above, I think it is likely that there is a feeling among her advisors and Prince William's that she needs to obtain some experience of public life, prior to her engagement, so she's not completely at sea when the time comes. Never mind a need to prove to certain people whose opinion actually matters (i.e. not us and not the media!) that she will, in fact, be able to handle herself in the spotlight. And she and they think she has the right to gain that experience will still maintaining a semblance of a private life. Not an unreasonable position, IMO.

I think what Kate has been undergoing is very different from what she would have to do as a Royal bride, and therefore is not a fair test of public life. As soon as an engagement were announced, she would be whisked away from "real" life and protected behind palace doors, lilterally and metaphorically, and only let out on carefully managed excursions where she was well protected both physically and by reason of her Royal status from having cameras thrust in her face and over-familiar questions.

She might handle the controlled type of press interest which is an incident of Royal life very well but cope badly with the sort of "interest" from the press which she has been receiving.

 

[Little_star]

Hello all. I've stumbled onto this forum and, honestly, am not all that interested in royalty, but think what is going on with this young woman is a fascinating example of what's going on worldwide in terms of celebrity, medial and privacy.

One thought on the subject of whether or not Kate is receiving "perks" as a result of her relationship with the prince. Looking at the photographs on this forum, you also see the several young men (Prince William's close friends, presumably?) pictured with him on a regular basis. They attend public events, accompany him on vacation, etc. I would guess that they also benefit in their private lives from their association with him - in terms of increased social status, possible employment opportunities, attention from young women, and all of that. But you don't see anyone saying that THEY have forfeited all their rights to any sort of a private life as a result. How is this different, really, from Kate's situation? Other than the fact that the media (not Kate, not William, not anyone else associated with them personally) have annointed her his future wife? To me, saying that someone has no right to privacy because, essentially, the media has decided that they don't is a very dangerous and unsettling thing.

English law does not contain any "right" to privacy.

As for the situation you posted I think it is equally tacky as Kate benefiting from her relationship. However, most of William's friends and social circle tend to be every wealthy and well-connected. I doubt that any has actually "used" William per se.

 

[Little_star]

Harassing the paparazzi
The right to take pictures of and write about public figures is far more important than the privacy of Prince William's girlfriend.
spiked | Harassing the paparazzi

 

[Charlotte1]

English law does not contain any "right" to privacy.

.

Maybe not, but the UK has ratified and is prepared to be legally bound by the Human Rights Act and the rulings of the Court of Human Rights. That court in the case bought by Caroline of Hannover ruled that the 'right to privacy' is a basic human right. A person who is a public figure still has a right to privacy. This ruling was used by Charles's solicitors in the case he brought again the newspapers that wanted to publish his private diaries. The newspaper's solicitors had argued that as a public figure Charles didn't have a right of privacy. The judge disagreed and ruled against the paper and quoted the Human Rights Act and the fact that the UK was bound by it. The newspapers appealed but they lost.
I think therefore that it can be assumed that a UK citizen regardless of who they are has a right to privacy.

 

[Skydragon]

spiked | Harassing the paparazzi

What a bottom of the heap rag this appears to be. They seem to have missed the agreement that the press made with the IPC to allow Catherine some 'private' life. That when she attends a 'public event', she must expect to be photographed, but going about her normal everyday business, the press agreed to leave her alone.

 

[Chiyo]

Harassing the paparazzi
The right to take pictures of and write about public figures is far more important than the privacy of Prince William's girlfriend.
spiked | Harassing the paparazzi

The funny thing is that the folks at Spiked rail against the "surveillance society" too. I guess it's ok if it's the press doing the surveilling, but not the government.

 

[Amina]

I did a quick search and saw no mention of the fact that there's a brief article on Kate in the April 2007 issue of US Marie Claire with Sandra Oh on the cover. There's nothing new in the article, but it is online for those interested in reading it.

The Woman Who COuld Be Queen

Thanks for all the photo's etc. According to the article Kate is now working with an image consultant.

Now she works with image consultant Leesa Whisker, who charges £400 ($790) a day as a personal shopper

 

[Amina]

I think that Kate was right to complain about the photographs being published. Afterall the media agreed not to publish any more photo's of her unless she is at a public event. Her walking down the street is not a public event, it is her going about her day to day business. IMO she has a right to some sort of privacy, even though she is dating someone famous. Afterall she is not a celeb in the normal sense and she is not a member of the Royal Familyl. She does not have the security alot of celebs and royalty have in order to protect them from the pap's. People forget that they can get very nasty and sometimes a huge number of paps trying to get photographs have resulted in people getting injured.

I was listening to a radio programme when the news of Kate complaining to the PCC story broke. A journalist said that she may have been complaining becuase of the story breaking of Prince William and his visit to a Bristol nightclub where he was photographed with some women. The journo reckoned that she was probably complaining because she wanted to put an end to speculation about their relationship. The pix were published in the Daily Mirror under the headline of her looking glum because of Will's nightclub visit.

 

[ysbel]

I applaud Kate's tough stance with the papparazzi but I don't think its worthwhile getting caught up too emotionally in this. Its Kate that's being harassed by the papparazzi, not us! And from her recent reactions, it looks that Kate can hold her own with the press. My only criticism is that I think she needs to hire some security so she can let them be the bad guys and she can get space to do her thing, get the paper, drop in at the corner store, etc.

I think Kate needs to show the press some respect but I don't think she should let the papparazzi dictate the details of her public existence.

 

[Duchess]

i think it was wonderful that catherine attended her friends event in dublin. she could very easily have said thanks but no thanks, knowing the media would be there but she chose to go and support her friend in spite of it. if she uses her relationship to give a friend a hand up and it doesn't hurt anyone then i say go for it. at least she doesn't use it for her own selfish reasons. i agree that these things are a good way to get a handle on what life (if any) lies ahead (if the marriage happens). true, if they do marry, her life will be carefully scheduled and security will be a no brainer but there will always be the intrusion of the press and the more experience she has the better she'll be able to handle it. all the help from BP won't protect her from the nastiness of the press, as was proven by diana, but she'll handle it better.

 

[Little_star]

Maybe not, but the UK has ratified and is prepared to be legally bound by the Human Rights Act and the rulings of the Court of Human Rights. That court in the case bought by Caroline of Hannover ruled that the 'right to privacy' is a basic human right. A person who is a public figure still has a right to privacy. This ruling was used by Charles's solicitors in the case he brought again the newspapers that wanted to publish his private diaries. The newspaper's solicitors had argued that as a public figure Charles didn't have a right of privacy. The judge disagreed and ruled against the paper and quoted the Human Rights Act and the fact that the UK was bound by it. The newspapers appealed but they lost.
I think therefore that it can be assumed that a UK citizen regardless of who they are has a right to privacy.

The Human Rights Act is a contentious piece of legislation and does not go far enough in terms of privacy.

For example those who advocate for privacy laws suggest it needs to be more detailed. I have heard of calls for a separate privavcy law to be introduced to clairfy the issue once and for all.

 

[Little_star]

What a bottom of the heap rag this appears to be.

But of course, anyrthing that does not believe Kate to be a saint must be a "rag"!

They seem to have missed the agreement that the press made with the IPC to allow Catherine some 'private' life. That when she attends a 'public event', she must expect to be photographed, but going about her normal everyday business, the press agreed to leave her alone.

Walking down the street is "public". These categories that Kate seems to be determined are dangerous and set an alarming precedent. If walking down the street is private then there are numerous celebs and their families who have far stronger cases than Kate.

 

[ysbel]

But of course, anyrthing that does not believe Kate to be a saint must be a "rag"!


Walking down the street is "public". These categories that Kate seems to be determined are dangerous and set an alarming precedent. If walking down the street is private then there are numerous celebs and their families who have far stronger cases than Kate.

Then they can take their complaints to the IPC like Kate did. What people don't realize is that actors and actresses rarely complain about the papparazzi intrusions because the pap pics really help their career. They heighten their profile, make their face more available to the public and get their name talked about and this encourages the movie studios to give them movie parts and larger roles.

Kate gets no benefit from having her public profile raised. She's right now a buyer and the only peopls she needs to impress now are the British Royal Family and their establishment who are not likely to be influenced by papparazzi pics. She may benefit from dating Prince William but she doesn't benefit at all from the paps pics.

If Kate benefitted from the papparazzi attention, she probably wouldn't make a complaint either but she gets nothing out of paps attention so there should be no reason for her to put up with them.

 

[ysbel]

These categories that Kate seems to be determined are dangerous and set an alarming precedent..

I find it even more alarming and dangerous that physical aggression is being excused and applauded under the umbrella of 'free speech' while the people trying to protect themselves are branded as spoiled, whiny, and selfish. My opinion of Kate has gone up imensely for ignoring this ceaseless bitchiness about her protecting herself.

The paps are so physically aggressive and come so threateningly close to their target that if they didn't have a camera in hand their actions would be considered assault.

 

[Skydragon]

But of course, anyrthing that does not believe Kate to be a saint must be a "rag"!

No I read some of their other articles before coming to my conclusion that it was a bottom of the heap rag. I don't believe that Catherine or anyone is a saint, but until she does something I and most fair minded people consider inappropriate or wrong, then I will continue to defend her.

Walking down the street is "public". These categories that Kate seems to be determined are dangerous and set an alarming precedent. If walking down the street is private then there are numerous celebs and their families who have far stronger cases than Kate.

I believe that ysbel has answered this part of your post, all I would add is that the only place some seem to think she is entitled to call private, is her flat. As I said in my previous post, the press, agreed at the IPC meeting when, where and what they would all deem public or private. They broke the voluntary code they had just agreed to, perhaps it is now time to legislate.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I believe that ysbel has answered this part of your post, all I would add is that the only place some seem to think she is entitled to call private, is her flat. As I said in my previous post, the press, agreed at the IPC meeting when, where and what they would all deem public or private. They broke the voluntary code they had just agreed to, perhaps it is now time to legislate.

Yes, this is right. I think the law is on the side of any famous person who wants to take action, but many, most I guess, don't bother. At least in places like Britain and France who have very strong laws to protect celebrities, the celebrities have strong cases on their side.

 

[Avalon]

Kate Middleton Current Events 20: 12-15 April 2007

Welcome to the new thread (Part 20) of the Current Events
of Kate Middleton.


Part 19 is here.​

 

[Avalon]

Closed thread

Time to close this thread.
The new thread for the Current Events of Kate Middleton can be found here.

Thanks to everyone, who contributed!

 

[Luv2Cruise]

Who's on first?

 

[Warren]

Current placings

Who's on first?

Looking at it another way, here's the current score:
Chelsy: 5
Harry: 15
William: 16
with no stumbles, and leading by a country mile, an outstanding achievement by Ms Middleton: 20 !

 

[maymayflying]

Looking at it another way, here's the current score:
Chelsy: 5
Harry: 15
William: 16
with no stumbles, and leading by a country mile, an outstanding achievement by Ms Middleton: 20 !

It's funny!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I don't envy the moderators who have to monitor the Kate Middleton thread, with people like me.... I know I keep them on their toes with my sometimes heated defense of Middleton....:bash: That's me 'taking care of' the Anti team.

 

[Warren]

The 'Sun' story of the breakup was first posted by Principessa Cano in the Prince William current events thread.

Rather than duplicate posts across threads the follow-up stories should be posted in the new thread covering the breakup, here.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[HRH Kimetha]

I surmise that the Kate Middleton thread will soon become a thing of the past tucked away in the archives drawing moths and dust. Hopefully not, but we do not know the woman and if she was an ideal partner for William. William has a need to be a womanizer first like perhaps his contemporaries in the barracks with a need to flirt and 'get-it-on' with another before settling in to hopefully, marital fidelity.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Kate Middleton leaving her family home in Bucklebury with her siblings yesterday

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r268/HRHRafa/katemleavesparentshouse1.jpg (Big Pictures)
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r268/HRHRafa/katemleavesparentshouse.jpg
With sister in the back, and brother driving

 

[Warren]

The End

As Ms Middleton's association with the Royal Family has now ended, it is no longer appropriate to have a current events thread in the British Forums.​

It's been an entertaining ride, with a shock twist at the end.​

Thanks to all who have contributed to the 20 Kate Middleton current events threads, and a bigger thank you to those who have participated in good humour. ​

Avalon, Warren and ysbel
British Forum moderators​

  ​