The Duchess of Cambridge Current Events 1: April 29, 2011-January 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there's a difference between snapping a picture of your favorite celebrity/public figure for your own collection, and snapping the said picture to sell to a newspaper to make a profit. Personally, if I were to see Catherine on the street, running her errands, I probably won't be able to recognize her (I don't recognize people easily, unless they're in a setting I've associated with them, especially if they're public figures and such), so there won't be any picture-taking going on. However, if my visual impairment wasn't an issue, I'd snap a picture (hopefully of her just walking down the street but won't even attempt one if she were inside a store shopping, too instrussive), but keep it, and not share it with any press. It's my memory, and has meaning to me, and no one else. I guess for that same reason I refuse to sell any of my pictures taken with Broadway performers.
 
I don't see that it's a big deal that she was photographed in the grocery store. She is in a public place and with dozens of other shoppers, so anyone could have taken a pic with their cel phone with her hardly noticing. She knows that when she goes out in public, that is the risk she takes. Actually, it rather amazes me that we haven't seen more pics of in the grocery store since she does all their grocery shopping. That is a testiment to the people of Anglesey who try to allow her and William a level of privacy.
 
NONSENSE!!! It is the tax payers' money she is using! Itemized groceries, hah! What detergent do they use! What type of body soap, deodorant and toothpaste is being bought with the tax payers' money. It is our right to know. (Sounds like a line from a movie script, huh?)

She isn't using tax payers money to buy groceries. They aren't on the civil list.
 
I really don't think getting photos snapped while shopping really annoys Kate too much. She probably has come to expect it. As long as people aren't interfering with her task at hand, she'll just grin and bear it.

On the other hand though, I can imagine her thinking to herself that she IS in the public eye and therefore uses common sense in what she buys. Most women could pop into any store and pick up an EPT but should Kate do that, it'd fan the press into overdrive for sure. Kate has a very level head on her shoulders, presents to the public a woman that does ordinary things just like we all do as wives tend to do yet when the situation calls for it, she steps into her royal role and does it with grace.
 
To me, it does seem to have a much higher level of creepiness than being photographed walking on the street. Agreed.

I think taking her picture going in or coming out of the store is probably expected and even tolerated but taking pictures of her inside the store as well as itemizing what she bought is too much for me.:eek:
 
...Personally, if I were to see Catherine on the street, running her errands, I probably won't be able to recognize her (I don't recognize people easily, unless they're in a setting I've associated with them, especially if they're public figures and such), so there won't be any picture-taking going on....

That reminded me of what I've read in the past--apparently the Queen herself can sometimes be mistaken for a normal woman and not be recognized. There have been number of stories where normal people run into her and not recognize her as The Queen of United Kingdom and other Realms over the Seas. Only later did some of them realized they had met the Queen herself and not recognize her! Also often people might approach her to say she seems to resemble the Queen, which she'd say something like "Oh, I've been told that often". :lol: Apparently she really get a kick out of that. ;)
 
To me, it does seem to have a much higher level of creepiness than being photographed walking on the street. Agreed.

Agreed--no reason to take picture of her (or any other royals) if they're just going about their business. But I don't think this is as bad as with Lady Diana--at least we haven't seen as many pictures of her as we could have, right?
 
I've really enjoyed reading the posts. If you saw Kate, had your cellphone and could get a good photo of her, I have no doubt any one of you would take the snap. I'm only a marginal Kate-o-phile, but I'd be all over getting a photo.

I have to say that I probably wouldn't. Whenever I have seen a celebrity, I've certainly taken a discreet look at them but I've never approached them or taken a picture of them as I felt they were entitled to their privacy, regardless of who pays their wages or the fact that they are a public figure.

When Prince William visited QLD earlier this year after Cyclone Yasi I went and saw him at one of his public appearances. Watching him and the photos being taken of him by the general public made me feel that he was like a monkey in a zoo. I know that is his role and constant photography is one of the prices to pay for their privileged positions, but I think sometimes we forget that regardless of their status and celebrity, they are still human beings. Yes I expect to see photographs of them when they are in public places conducting their private life, but I think there is a fine line and these photos cross that. If she is on the street fine take photos, but once she is inside a building leave the woman alone.
 
http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=9962371&postcount=918
how crazy is that to take pic of her while she does her shopping!!!! that is sick...imo kate is being treated like princess di

It's not 'sick' at all. She chose to marry the future King therefore she puts herself in the line of the camera lens every single time she goes out. Just because Catherine is being photographed every time she goes out that makes her like Diana? I don't think so as that happens to almost every royal.
 
She isn't using tax payers money to buy groceries. They aren't on the civil list.

So the taxpayer isn't paying for her pound of butter etc. but they are paying for her security and everything else. I am sick of this "private income" fallacy.
 
So the taxpayer isn't paying for her pound of butter etc. but they are paying for her security and everything else. I am sick of this "private income" fallacy.

Question: Do you pay tax in the UK that goes towards the civil list?
I do, I pay what is it 61p a year towards the monarchy and I along with quite a few other people are rather happy with the way that 61p is spent. The small minority who don't, are very small. They are not on the civil list, but they receive money from Charles, who gets it from HM presumably. They also have William's army wage and his trust fund (though I doubt they're dipping into that).
 
I never answer personal questions and I don't really want to know how much tax you pay, or how much your parents pay, as you have often said that you are a student.
By the way a minority is usually small, if not it would be a majority. The constant affirmation that the royal family only costs a few pence to each taxpayer is a fallacy, but if, as you say most people like doing this(I presume you have a way of knowing this) then I will have to take your word for it.
 
expat said:
I never answer personal questions and I don't really want to know how much tax you pay, or how much your parents pay, as you have often said that you are a student.
By the way a minority is usually small, if not it would be a majority. The constant affirmation that the royal family only costs a few pence to each taxpayer is a fallacy, but if, as you say most people like doing this(I presume you have a way of knowing this) then I will have to take your word for it.

Can you prove that it's a fallacy or is it your theory? Surely if people had a problem with the amount going to the RF, they'd voice their problem. And seeing as you don't seem to live in England, or your information says you don't that answers my question :) I don't see why people object to something they don't actually do themselves. I pay tax, my parents do, my family does like most of the UK. Students can work too ya know ;)
 
So the taxpayer isn't paying for her pound of butter etc. but they are paying for her security and everything else. I am sick of this "private income" fallacy.

You don't appear to live in the UK, so not sure why this is an issue for you. She has no choice in having security. She is now a member of the Royal family and is required to have security 24 hours a day, regardless of whether she is at home or out in public.

And what exactly are your refering to when you say that the taxpayers are paying for "everything" else? Can you please be ore specific?
 
Last edited:
Lumutqueen said:
Question: Do you pay tax in the UK that goes towards the civil list?
I do, I pay what is it 61p a year towards the monarchy and I along with quite a few other people are rather happy with the way that 61p is spent. The small minority who don't, are very small. They are not on the civil list, but they receive money from Charles, who gets it from HM presumably. They also have William's army wage and his trust fund (though I doubt they're dipping into that).

Charles receives his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, not HM, from which he supports William, Catherine and Harry's official expenses. It would not surprise me one bit if Catherine's grocery budget comes directly from William's military paycheck. If I were a British taxpayer, I also would not have a problem with spending 61p towards the Monarchy....money well spent imo.
 
Normally I keep my mouth shut but since some people don't seem to understand why some members are referring to these photos as "sick" is not the fact she's being photographed because obviously we all know that comes with the title but the fact it's coming from INSIDE the grocery store. IMO that's crossing the line. Outside the store fine, but photos from what looks like the top of some sort of store window or something is a bit ridiculous. I think that's why people are comparing this to Diana. The first photos that come to mind that were overly intrusive of Diana were the gym photos. I've never seen shots like these for other members of the royal family.
 
It's not 'sick' at all. She chose to marry the future King therefore she puts herself in the line of the camera lens every single time she goes out. Just because Catherine is being photographed every time she goes out that makes her like Diana? I don't think so as that happens to almost every royal.

Exactly!!!

I personally wouldnt take a picture but I dont mind other people taking some. The royals use the media and the media uses the royals. Its the old story, you cant say "please take pictures when I attend this charity but back off when I go out shopping". To take pictures in public is freedom of press even though the royals hate it. Its a tough life, isnt it.

Kate is private within her own walls but not when out and about. If you dont like it, dont become a public figure, in her case even representative of State.
 
ghost_night554 said:
Normally I keep my mouth shut but since some people don't seem to understand why some members are referring to these photos as "sick" is not the fact she's being photographed because obviously we all know that comes with the title but the fact it's coming from INSIDE the grocery store. IMO that's crossing the line. Outside the store fine, but photos from what looks like the top of some sort of store window or something is a bit ridiculous. I think that's why people are comparing this to Diana. The first photos that come to mind that were overly intrusive of Diana were the gym photos. I've never seen shots like these for other members of the royal family.

Sorry I can't see the difference between outside and inside. It's just a photo of her shopping I'm sure she's not as worried about it as much as you are. She well and truly knew what it was going to be like when she married William. If she was worried about it she would have had home delivery
 
Sorry I can't see the difference between outside and inside. It's just a photo of her shopping I'm sure she's not as worried about it as much as you are. She well and truly knew what it was going to be like when she married William. If she was worried about it she would have had home delivery

Perfectly said. She would have home delivery, home hair done, and clothes ahopping from internet or catalogs. But she does not mind, she continuous her normal lifew.
She knows that since the last 5-6 years, she is pursued. She is prepared to that.
Diana was NOT.
And we should not forget that Diana was overreacting to this because her personnal life was in ruins.
Catherine is huppy in her life, and this hapiness in not harmed of some stupid photos
 
Perfectly said. She would have home delivery, home hair done, and clothes ahopping from internet or catalogs. But she does not mind, she continuous her normal lifew.
She knows that since the last 5-6 years, she is pursued. She is prepared to that.
Diana was NOT.
And we should not forget that Diana was overreacting to this because her personnal life was in ruins.
Catherine is huppy in her life, and this hapiness in not harmed of some stupid photos

Not to go TOO off topic and to make this about Diana. But the references to Diana, the Queen and the requests for the media to "back off" had nothing to do with Diana's personal life or the later years in her life.

I think what people need to understand that right after the 1981 wedding (actually during the dating and engagement), there was a level f interest in the British press (and the world press) towards Diana that had never been seen before. Yes, there had been interest in the BRF but the reporting that we see today (as evidenced by Leveson Inquiry) started to fester in 1981. So what is the norm today (pics of Kate shopping, walking down the street, etc.) became a real problem for Diana and was a somewhat unknown quantity. That's why BP complained. Of course, the well known and discussed issues of Diana and Charles added to that (and we won't get into that here) but in the beginning when we thought all was lovey dovey.....it was a different kettle of fish. An unknown kettle that we in 2011 take for granted but in 1981 it was something quite new.

Back to Kate.

So she probably does know the deal in regards to her public life. And I get what everyone is saying about public figures, and forgive me but I believe that thought is why you have the Leveson Inquiry going on right now. People (public figures who seek fame or have it thrown their way by way of a tragedy) are entitled to some type of privacy whether or not they sit in their house, talk on their phones, etc.
 
Here in the US the issue of photographing people (famous or not) is governed by the 'reasonable expectation of privacy', I assume the UK has something similar. Bottom line, if you are in an area where you can be seen then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes your own backyard and through your own windows (if your drapes are open)! It's too bad that what is 'legal' is not always 'ethical'.

Kate was in a public place. She should expect that people will want to take her picture, whether for their own 'memory' of actually having seen her or the paps wanting to sell them. Unfortunate part of her position, but there you have it. Legal, yes. Ethical to follow a young woman around snapping her photo 24/7? IMO, no. All I know is that I would hate to know that I couldn't even pop into the store without complete hair and makeup and reasonably nice clothes.

BTW- I will happily donate my $.95 (61p) to 'support' the BRF. Where do I send the payment? LOL
 
I'm waiting for the book of recipes created from the items Catherine bought since her wedding..... :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
So the taxpayer isn't paying for her pound of butter etc. but they are paying for her security and everything else. I am sick of this "private income" fallacy.

Does that mean we have a right to look right into any shopping cart and any wastebin that belongs to people living on social help.. so on the taxpayer? Yes, I know these people are of no interest to the "public" but they have a right to privacy that is respected. Ans Catherine does not?
 
There's a huge difference between Kate and Diana, IMO.
Diana was vaulted from total obscurity to an international level of fame- no wonder she was unprepared to cope.

Kate, on the other hand, has been with William a decade, and ought to be used to the press by now.
 
Sorry I can't see the difference between outside and inside. It's just a photo of her shopping I'm sure she's not as worried about it as much as you are. She well and truly knew what it was going to be like when she married William. If she was worried about it she would have had home delivery
I'm not saying she doesn't know it comes with it and trust me I'm not losing sleep over it but I do think to an extent taking pictures from a store window is a bit wrong. I don't even see these types of pics for normal celebs.Not that this thing is new it's happened before we've seen those cctv pics published in DM as well as those store photos taken from what looked like a fellow shopper and the ones of them in the theater.I don't think it's right and I never will, obviously these pics didn't harm her but I still find them a bit intrusive for my taste.
 
:previous: I believe Catherine has the right to expect privacy when she is engaged in private activities. I personally do not believe that Catherine doing her grocery shopping is "News" and it is certainly not a "Current Event"!

This is simple intrusion. Do we like the pretty pictures? Oh yes! Is it right that photographers can go to any extreme to get them? No! We are part of the problem and we justify ourselves by saying "she knew what she was getting into", but that does not wash.

If an Actor, and Actress and a Writer (from the Leveson Inquiry) believe they have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy except when promoting their work on the red carpet, can the royals not expect the same?

The press attention to Catherine is intrusive but not unexpected. However, when she becomes pregnant she will have to literally go into a form of social purdah, except when attending an official engagement. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.

Catherine Dashes to Hide Royal Tummy!


If the ramifications of that sort of headline don't give you the creeps, think "paparazzi in hot pursuit, purusing her on foot and in cars!​

Let's hope the Leveson Inquiry turns up some real "Rules" in the very near future.​
 
Kate should know being a royal you are a celebrity, and there are somethings like this are not ok to do as a royal,if I was her I guess the correct thing to do was send a Clarence house chamber maid to do the grocery shopping,but I guess she just wanted to do this and knew the consequences but still for a royal to do commoner things is just weird, because they have servants now to do all that.
 
If she sent a servant to get her groceries, she would be pilloried. She's already accused of not doing very much, and she and William have made it clear that they don't want to have any staff while they're in Wales. Having a maid doing the shopping would make a lot more sense in London, because it's much more crowded and there's more paparazzi on the go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom