The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 09-15-2012, 11:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
So by saying she's not a victim, you're justifying the fact that someone else took the liberty of displaying someone else's body for the whole world to see. Without her permission. Nobody has the right to photograph you like this, even if she did take her top off. That doesn't justify it. At. All.

There should be an unspoken law for this. And that is; stop exploiting females. The fact that William is Diana's son, does not make it ok for Kate to be put out like this. That does not mean she should have to put up with this. Because if she wants to live a remotely down to earth life and provide her future children with a safe and carefree childhood, there has to be made a clear limit.

It blows my mind that quite a few women on this board are so easy to brush this off. You would not be doing the same if this was your daughter, sister, firend or yourself.
You are entirely missing my point. Life is not fair. Accept it. This is a case of cause and effect. For William and Catherine to assume that they will not always be a target for photographers (who by the way probably made a very handsome income from the photos) is simply naive. Princess Diana has already proved the point that there is no privacy.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it decent. But the reality is different. They will be hounded. It is up to William and Catherine to decide if they want to make the hounding profitable for the photographers and magazines.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 09-15-2012, 12:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
You are entirely missing my point. Life is not fair. Accept it. This is a case of cause and effect. For William and Catherine to assume that they will not always be a target for photographers (who by the way probably made a very handsome income from the photos) is simply naive. Princess Diana has already proved the point that there is no privacy.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it decent. But the reality is different. They will be hounded. It is up to William and Catherine to decide if they want to make the hounding profitable for the photographers and magazines.
If something is not right, if something is not decent then you don't just accept it. If people did we would be living in a very different world today. It is not naive for a woman, regardless of who she is, to expect not to have her body exploited by others. The idea that anyone would tell a woman who has had photographs of her nude body taken in a private place without her knowledge or consent to just accept it is just sickening.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 09-15-2012, 01:49 PM
Queen Penelope's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Camrose, Canada
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia

If something is not right, if something is not decent then you don't just accept it.
Well, they aren't accepting it (that's why they are suing) but it is, unfortunately, the reality of the world they live in. Hopefully this will be the "straw that broke the camel's back" as it were and because of this there will be substantially toughened laws to eliminate scum taking advantage of situations like this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 09-15-2012, 01:52 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
That's not going to happen.
It's against human nature, and things that are against human nature never work (think Shakers, or Communism).

No, people are curious, they have a prurient interest in these pictures, they like to see famous people unclothed.
It's happened before and it wil happen again.
The best thing for Kate to do is hold her head up and move on.
[my bolding]
Given the cheap outrage in this thread, I would say that the freedom of press combined with a healthy captitalistic desire to make money do not work as well. It is entertaining to see the western minds lost in the jungles of free press.
__________________
"To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill.
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return. To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands. To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." Zeami Motokiyo
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,710
Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".

I would think that the Cambridge's taking legal action against the French publication and photographer would serve as a deterrent to anyone going any where near these photos but seems like even legal action is just a small side effect of getting the voyeuristic scoop of the year to their credit.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:04 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,503

One lawsuit means nothing in this case. Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have to take legal action against offending parties the same way the Church of Scientology does.
__________________
"To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill.
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return. To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands. To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." Zeami Motokiyo
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".
Both Closer and Chi are owned by Silvio Berlesconi, the former Italian PM, so I don't think we should expect much in the way of integrity, descency or journalistic ethics (if such things even exist anymore).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:21 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".

I would think that the Cambridge's taking legal action against the French publication and photographer would serve as a deterrent to anyone going any where near these photos but seems like even legal action is just a small side effect of getting the voyeuristic scoop of the year to their credit.
Nothing will change until the consequences of being sued and losing cause actual pain to the people who take the pictures and the people who choose to print them. Look at the dollar number from the sales of the magazine that have these pictures in it. Look at the projected revenue from the website pictures. Add those numbers and multiply it by some arbitrary factor to account for all the indirect publicity the magazine got just from people knowing the photos existed - and that's your fine. Setting a minimum fine but then giving judges some discretion to add onto the minimum for more egregious violations would be an effective deterrent, IMO, without infringing on the freedom of the press. Media is a business like any other - they like to talk about separation of the financial and editorial components of journalism, but they need to make a profit, or at least not lose money.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:25 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
The Italian magazine is publishing a 26-page special dedicated to these pictures apparently.

The Irish Daily Star newspaper has also published the pictures today. That publication is a joint venture with the company who owns the British Daily Star, whose owners have now said that they will end the joint venture as they don't support the IDS decision to publish the pictures. I'd guess that'll mean the end of the Irish Daily Star .

I'm not surprised with the Irish press who'll always take any opportunity to embarrass a member of the British royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: indianapolis, United States
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
some people should calm down here. some examples on rape victims, for instance, are completely out of scope.

i have never gone topless in public places. i just don't find it appropriate and i guard my intimacy for myself. yet, not very many people would be interested in taking naked pictures of a stranger like me on a beach, let's say (unless they are a bit perverted, hence why i never had interest in doing it - because, as i said, precaution is the best safeguard).


i like kate, and feel bad for what's happened to her. i am by no means justifying the photographer or saying that it was only kate's fault. we don't tango alone. it takes two for this to happen. so if kate didn't want to see such pictures out there, if harry didn't want his naked pictures to be shared or if fergie didn't want the toekissing pictures to be public, don't do it in the first place. and by all means, don't do it in a semi-public place. to them as public people, the interest in high everywhere and you are just starting to feed the beasts by doing it. that's all. you can hardly expect that those pictures won't be used once they reach an editorial.
i agree with your comments, she wasnt raped, she had pictures taken of her. claiming this is the same as rape really demeans the people who are raped. the pictures were taken outside. not through a window.

if she didnt want the royal ta ta's shown in public...then dont bare the royal ta ta's in public, semi public, or what you hoped would be public. at least the werent doing 'IT'. :)

another thought, if you can get that close with a camera lense, who is to say you cant get that close with a niper scope? i really hope her security is on it a little better next time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:40 PM
Hollie's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: heartlands, United States
Posts: 73
Well, I don't get the "she should have known better" point of view. Even if no sensitive body parts were involved, the other pictures are still considered as a huge invasion of privacy. The main point should have been that long lens were used to take pictures from far far away.

And I don't think there is any problem with the security. The photos were taken using long lens from HALF A MILE away from where the royal couple were. They can't possibly ask their security to clear the whole area just for them whenever they are privately doing their stuff. Imagine the security cost it would take!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by bethaliz6894 View Post
i agree with your comments, she wasnt raped, she had pictures taken of her. claiming this is the same as rape really demeans the people who are raped. the pictures were taken outside. not through a window.

if she didnt want the royal ta ta's shown in public...then dont bare the royal ta ta's in public, semi public, or what you hoped would be public. at least the werent doing 'IT'. :)

another thought, if you can get that close with a camera lense, who is to say you cant get that close with a niper scope? i really hope her security is on it a little better next time.
Hmmm, so If I were to bring my camera to your neignbourhood as long as I stand on a public walkway you would not consider yourself violated if I took pictures of you through your windows or on your backdeck where you might expect to have some levels of privacy you would not consider yourself to have been violated? Good to know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 863
I wonder if this pervert of a photographer has been taking pictures like these for years? He may have a whole portfolio of those who have stayed at the Linley house. And if not, then who told him that there were famous guests staying there? Were I the Linleys, I would thoroughly question all who knew- housekeepers, gardeners, etc. Someone may have tipped off the creep who took the pictures.

And for those who are "blaming" the DoC, surely she was entitled to assume that her protection officers had considered all threats. But just because they failed in that duty (scouting out the countryside to see if there was a dangerous overlook) doesn't mean that she was expected to know better than they did. Those people should be reassigned- they failed- she didn't.

Just like Princess Anne was not responsible for her near-kidnapping, nor HM for the shots fired at her in the early 80's or the man who broke into her bedroom, nor Lord Mountbatten for his assassination, the Duchess was not responsible for the crime which was committed against her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:57 PM
Hollie's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: heartlands, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
I wonder if this pervert of a photographer has been taking pictures like these for years? He may have a whole portfolio of those who have stayed at the Linley house. And if not, then who told him that there were famous guests staying there? Were I the Linleys, I would thoroughly question all who knew- housekeepers, gardeners, etc. Someone may have tipped off the creep who took the pictures.
I won't even be surprised if this same pervert photographer stood on the same spot and spy on the couple for that 3 days, in order to get those scandalous shots.

The people in the airport could have tip him off too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 09-15-2012, 03:01 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
You are entirely missing my point. Life is not fair. Accept it. This is a case of cause and effect. For William and Catherine to assume that they will not always be a target for photographers (who by the way probably made a very handsome income from the photos) is simply naive. Princess Diana has already proved the point that there is no privacy.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it decent. But the reality is different. They will be hounded. It is up to William and Catherine to decide if they want to make the hounding profitable for the photographers and magazines.
Princess Diana is the perfect example on why it should be different for her sons and their partners.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 09-15-2012, 03:11 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
Rachel Johnson take on the matter in the daily telegraph, she is the sister of Boris and editor of the Lady (est.1885)

.....the rule of thumb is, basically: if you’re famous, and don’t want to appear in Paris Match half-naked, don’t take your top off.

France may have fierce privacy laws, but every summer, its weekly gossip mags publish intrusive photographs of celebrities “romping”.

Kate Middleton: the French will never spare a girl her blushes - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 09-15-2012, 03:42 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,229
I never said Kate was raped, I said the blaming of her for being violated is similar to those who blame a rape victim for not doing more to prevent her attack. Kate was on private property and expected to have said privacy respected. I tend to think she does this tanning thing in her home in Anglessey all the time which is why she felt comfortable doing it at Viscount Linley's home.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 09-15-2012, 04:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
[my bolding]
Given the cheap outrage in this thread, I would say that the freedom of press combined with a healthy captitalistic desire to make money do not work as well. It is entertaining to see the western minds lost in the jungles of free press.
Of course it works! It succeeded, didn't it?
That photographer can probably retire on the profits from those pics.The lawsuit won't mean a thing; these rags think it's a slow week if someone isn't suing!

And all the screaming and yelling and lawsuits won't change the fact that the pictures are on the Internet and everyone has seen them by now. So what difference who publishes them at this point?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 09-15-2012, 04:17 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 117
Given Prince William's attitude toward the media, this may the last straw and he may serious limit interviews.
He could continue royal appearances without uttering a word to the press. Just smile and wave.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 09-15-2012, 04:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: indianapolis, United States
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Hmmm, so If I were to bring my camera to your neignbourhood as long as I stand on a public walkway you would not consider yourself violated if I took pictures of you through your windows or on your backdeck where you might expect to have some levels of privacy you would not consider yourself to have been violated? Good to know.
if you take a picture of me through the window(inside) that is one thing...take a picture on me on my back porch(outside) is different. she wasnt inside, this wasnt taken through a window. all i am saying is you cant expect total privacy if you are outside.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge duchess of cambridge style duchess of cornwall fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander olympics ottoman picture of the month pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince laurent prince maurits princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]