William, Harry, their Girlfriends and the Press

[Opal]

HELLO magazine had apologized to William for invading his privacy by publishing CCTV photographs of William shopping in Wales.

From his lawyers' website:
Hello Magazine apologises to Prince William

 

[Opal]

I'm glad Hello apologized for printing these photos. It was inappropriate and such a gross invasion of privacy.

 

[Sereta]

It's interesting that they only apologize to William and not Kate. Hmm.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I don't think they consider Kate to be that important.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And they would be wrong. William is public property as the 2nd in line to the throne, but Kate is a totally private person until she has a ring on her finger and it was a total invasion of her privacy while William, in public places, is fair game - sorry but that is the facts.

 

[Osipi]

In this video case.. its not the matter that he's he heir of the heir to the gray hair that sits on a throne.. but it's a matter that anyone of us could bring to court of law and win.
The CCTV is there for protection of the establishment its installed in. My question is.. who in the store gave over the tapes?

 

[Opal]

And they would be wrong. William is public property as the 2nd in line to the throne, but Kate is a totally private person until she has a ring on her finger and it was a total invasion of her privacy while William, in public places, is fair game - sorry but that is the facts.

Apparently Hello doesn't feel the same way.

 

[sunshine_93]

I don't know if this is the place where I can post this,but I read in other forum about William and Miss Mystery.
Somebody knows something about it?

 

[Sereta]

Apparently Hello doesn't feel the same way.

Thank goodness HELLO sees William as a human being with human rights and not some "property" to be expoited!

 

[Nitefeatherz]

And they would be wrong. William is public property as the 2nd in line to the throne, but Kate is a totally private person until she has a ring on her finger and it was a total invasion of her privacy while William, in public places, is fair game - sorry but that is the facts.

There's no such thing as "public property" when it comes to people- slavery is illegal- people cannot and shouldn't viewed in a proprietary manner. Thus- there have to be limits upheld otherwise there will always be people who go too far.

If William is "fair game" anywhere in public the only place for him to get away from the reporters is in private on private property that he himself owns which a) isn't healthy and b) would lead him to eventually be an anti-social hermit that no one knows or likes.

I'm glad Hello Magazine recognizes that privacy at least part of the time, whether he is in public or not, should be respected.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wiliam can't be seen as a private individual and therefore when in public he is fair game. The fact that some people respect him enough to allow him to go about in public without reporting is great but Kate is a totally private person and shouldn't be photographed at all unless she is with William so if an apology is given to William for using the CCTV photos even more should have been given to the totally private individual, Kate.

The entire royal family, like all other celebrities, know that when they leave their homes they are fair game and that is the way it is due to people's belief that they have a right to know the ins and outs of famous people's lives.

The fact that boards like this exist and people like you and me discuss their day to day lives is proof positive that the royals, including William, have no true private rights when out of their own homes or those of their very close friends.

 

[nascarlucy]

Today no one has privacy. With a click of a button, one can find out information on just about anyone. The only ones here that have some degree of privacy is wealthy individuals.

Someone could be watching you right now and the average person wouldn't know it.

 

[Sereta]

I disagree that he's fair game. All businesses have security cameras now. A customer (no matter who they are) shouldn't be afraid of going to that store or business for fear the business is going to abuse their security system and sell photos to the press.
That's crossing the line imo.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I totally agree that the CCTV pictures shouldn't have been made public and that isn't what I meant by fair game. I meant that when in public he should realise that photos can and will be taken and made public - not that stores would sell the CCTV pictures as they are supposed to be there for security. However I do believe that an apology should also have been given to Kate.

If William is walking down the street and a person sees him and takes a photo with their phone and sells that to the press is what I meant by 'fair game'. Of course the press wouldn't simply print a picture of him walking down the street but if I saw him and took a photo then that would be ok in my book and he should know that.

If he and Kate are shopping and I took a photo of them with my phone again that is because he is 'fair game'.
I would draw the line at using the security cameras in a store.

 

[angieuk]

Prince William and Kate Middleton to marry in 2012 | News Of The World

So now we have another new date pulled out of the hat? I suppose it is as good as any other ...

So the latest is :

Spring 2012
St George's Chapel (so a big London wedding has been scrapped according to the above article). If it is St George's Chapel that is very low key indeed.

*No carriage drive to the church
* No balcony scene
*No carriage drive back to the church (unless a 5 minute drive around the tiny streets of Windsor)
*No leaving for their honeymoon by carriage as the station is next door to the Castle

Times have changed ... waiting for a grand wedding will be somewhat disappointing at this cut-price event!
I think William hates all the fuss and formality although I did read somewhere Charles enjoys it.

Who knows if this date is any better than all the others ... but I do feel William will NOT and does NOT want to get married next year either - 2011, so maybe it is 2012??

When Kate will be 30
And William will be 29

 

[Iluvbertie]

If it is to be 2012 then it would have to be low-key so as not to overshadow the Queen's Jubilee and the Olympics from both a publicity and cost angle.

I don't think he would want a big wedding anyway and do think that whenever he marries it will be St George's without all the fanfare of his parents', and the York's weddings. I do think we have seen the last of those kinds of extravaganzas in the House of Windsor.

A small wave to the personally chosen crowds such as Edward and Sophie and Charles and Camilla had over the security hassles and costs involved in those massive weddings.

Until the 20th C most royal weddings were the small type anyway - even Queen Victoria only married at the Chapel Royal at St James'.

 

[Mapleleaf134]

Actually I think PW will marry in the Abbey since he's the heir to the throne. But it will be not as good as Diana's imo. They would not like to outshine that one.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Who says anything about "outshining" Charles and Diana's wedding?
On their wedding day it should be about them, no one else and especially not there parents.

Charles married first in St Paul's then the Guildhall.
Anne married first in Westminster then at Crathie Kirk.
Andrew married at Westminster.
Edward married in St Georges Chapel.
Peter married in St Georges Chapel.

Queen Elizabeth married in Westminster, her father married at Westminster as did her sister.

 

[Opal]

... if an apology is given to William for using the CCTV photos even more should have been given to the totally private individual, Kate.

And yet it wasn't.

The fact that boards like this exist and people like you and me discuss their day to day lives is proof positive that the royals, including William, have no true private rights when out of their own homes or those of their very close friends.

Yes we do discuss them, but that doesn't mean they don't have a "right" to some privacy.

 

[Sereta]

I think they should make it illegal to use CCTV photos to sell to the press just like in the United States. If one business does it and gets away with it they'll all start doing it.

 

[Mapleleaf134]

What I meant was that I don't think his wedding will be as big as his parents. Of course it would be expensive. And yes, the wedding is going to be about them.

 

[Zonk]

I don't think the press has an inkling on any wedding plans regarding William and Kate.

While the wedding will certainly not be the same scale as Charles/Diana and Andrew/Sarah's wedding. Its going to be a bit more than Peter/Autumn and Charles/Camilla. I would think that the spectale and pomp of Edward/Sophie was the right mix.

 

[Mapleleaf134]

Maybe their wedding could be also like Fred/Mary. It wasn't that big but neither to low. It also had the right mix, imo.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They have a right to some privacy but when they are in a public place, like anyone else, they are no longer being private and thus as a public figure in a public place William has voluntarily given up his right to privacy - as we all do when we go out in public e.g. a friend of mine took a day off work to go to the cricket and was sacked from his job when his boss saw him on TV at the cricket. This friend had given up his right to privacy because he went into a public place. Had he stayed at home to watch the cricket the boss would never have known and thus he would have been fine but going into a public place means we all lose our right to privacy and public figures became 'fair game' for anyone who wants to take their pictures and then sell them.

The fact that they gave an apology to William and not Kate even emphasises that William is the public figure and should expect to be photographed as he was the focus of the photos. Would they have sold them if it had only been Kate? No - but the fact that she was with William and a private individual who should have greater rights to privacy and they didn't apologise to her makes them wrong in my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually I think PW will marry in the Abbey since he's the heir to the throne. But it will be not as good as Diana's imo. They would not like to outshine that one.

William is NOT the heir to the throne. His father is.

William is second in line and thus would be able to get away with a much smaller wedding than either his father or grandmother who were both heir to the throne at the time of their weddings (Charles was, and still is, the heir apparent - can't be replaced in the order of successsion, and Elizabeth was heiress presumptive and could have been replaced by a younger brother).

 

[Nitefeatherz]

The fact that they gave an apology to William and not Kate even emphasises that William is the public figure and should expect to be photographed as he was the focus of the photos.

CCTV isn't meant for public viewing- if I asked to see the security cameras from a particular day and time I would most likely be told a definitive "no." That's because they are meant for security purposes- not leisure activities such as magazine gossip. You shouldn't take something meant for security purposes and then trivialize it. Also- you have to worry then about what ELSE they are going to do with the footage- it opens up all sorts of legal issues- what if they decide to use footage for advertising? There are disclaimers in the stores I bet warning people that they are being taped- NOT what the footage is used for- which leaves legal loopholes for people to sue.

The CCTV was out of line IMO. Maybe you can say that in any sort of public place a person is fair game- but CCTV wasn't developed for use by the paparazzi.

 

[Opal]

It depends on what means the photos are taken. If they're acquired in an unethical way (harrassment, chasing them in cars, or CCTV cameras) then it's not okay. But in your friends case there was nothing wrong with it as the cameras were panning the whole audience. They weren't specifically trying to pick on your friend for any reason. That's a bummer that he lost his job btw.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Maybe I haven't made this clear, although I have said it twice already - but
I don't approve of the use of the CCTV cameras for this purpose.
I don't see anything wrong with a person who happened to be in the store taking a photo and selling that however.
There is a distinction.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

A lot of places (public businesses) don't allow photography on their premises done without permission for good reason- they want to control any publicity that might involve their business/property and publicizing the image of having customers (even famous ones) being stalked by anyone (even paparazzi) is bad for business.

No business I have ever run into would allow a person to come in, take a photo, much less sell it without at least sending the person off the property.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most businesses these days wouldn't even know if someone was taking a photo as people are taking them on mobile phones etc all the time. They have no control at all any more due to the availability of technology and the photos and film footage would be on the net within seconds now.