Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I dont know why one cannot include the other? While I agree with what is said above, at the same time I wondering, what was she thinking???

In terms of winners, in Britain for certain. Rest of the world, I am not so sure.

Then rest assured, dear Duke. The rest of the world, or at least the only parts that are of importance to the BRF, are with the general population of Britain.

As for the US, I doubt that many there are even aware of the matter.
 
Then rest assured, dear Duke. The rest of the world, or at least the only parts that are of importance to the BRF, are with the general population of Britain.

As for the US, I doubt that many there are even aware of the matter.
Unless we are talking about the part of US population who have no Internet and/or TV, they most definitely ARE aware: the issue has been in the news for several days and was featured prominently on many news channels, from CNN to Fox.
 
Well, now, my family and friends know nothing of the kerfuffle and the New York Times doesn't rate it, either. I can't speak for Fox News, of course, but who would want to?

I was in LA when the Duke and Duchess were and it's true that many in that part of the world were delighted with the couple. Perhaps that's why nothing of this has actually registered with those who aren't into gossip magazines.

It's worthwhile noting that often, television news from the same source isn't always shown in all the countries where they broadcast. I have seen CNN's international news which has an Australian as the major presenter but this version is rarely seen in America. The same is true for major international publications like Time and Newsweek which frequently carry different stories for different readerships.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
I can't French braid, but I am willing to paint Polly's nails.
Fragile ego my black butt! His wife was violated for the world to see and people actually expect him to let it slide? Any husband would be pissed, I know a few who would have gotten their gun or opened a can of whoop a$$.

I think I would have been rather vexed with His Highness if he acted any differently. He acted like a gentleman that he is, and defended his wife's honor. That kind of behavior will ALWAYS get points from me.

Catherine J said:
Good article, actually.

I think, and it just hit me this morning, that my most enduring reaction is sadness. Profound sadness. We're such a sick, sad society that even people who are willing to give up 90% of their privacy and toil for the rest of their lives in service to us are not immune to our petty, selfish and small-minded intrusions and insults. This is no spirited discourse on their roles, how they play them or their value as "Royals" - this is prurient, debased, curiosity coupled with smug judgment from armchairs all over the world.

Question becomes: is there *anything* we will respect more than our curiosity and our "right to know"? Is there *anything* we hold in such high regard that we are willing to defend and honour that thing, even at the cost of aspects of our own lower nature? Is there *nothing* sacred anymore?

The answer, from all the things I have read seems to be "no". And not even a sad no, but a smug, self satisfied, "hell no!"

So, yeah. It makes me sad. I'm an idealist at heart, it seems.

I share your sentiments. It seems that today, everything is pretty much game. This quote from Broadway adaptation of Charles Dickens's 'A Tale of Two Cities' sums my thoughts up pretty well; 'It's not safe to go to the corner and throw up anymore'(spoken by the one and only Sydney Carton).

Zonk said:
And that to at least is what the whole thing is about. Its not about the topless pictures or even who she is (although they certainly play a BIG role) its about how this lack of privacy. Are we so desentitized by social media where people feel the need to share EVERYTHING that we don't get it when someone's feels that their privacy has been violated?

Well put! Agree wholeheartedly.
 
My experience, as a Canadian, is that there has been very little covered in the mainstream, "respectable" media and what has been covered was more to do with the fact that the Cambridges took legal action.

Most sources still available are internet based.

My first order of business every morning, right after I flip the switch on the coffee maker, is to read the news. Like anyone else, I imagine, I have my newsreader set to troll my areas of interest and my local and national issues. This issue showed up in my hot topics on the first and second day and thereafter has not been seen except when searched.

The news really stopped after the 19th when the Danish magazine published. I think the media, the mainstream, was anxious not to appear too tabloid-ish and even the string of "Sun" papers across the country has been quiet-ish.

I work as a writer. I am actually freelance but I have enough steady clients that I might as well not be. Interestingly, two of my usual clients (both hard news entities) have queried as to the interest in producing an in-depth feature on the matter ... a "where do we go from here" perspective. So, as far as I can tell (and I am not an "insider" by any stretch) the mainstream news is interested in it as a cautionary tale and as a potential lead for a more comprehensive study on privacy laws. The interest is there and attacked from the right angle it would only be exploitative in the best manner possible.

This is a good thing, IMO.

Maybe not the "shot heard around the world" but small steps.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, the act of stalking a married couple and photographing them with an 800 mm super-telephoto lens from over half a mile away on their large private estate is ILLEGAL. Full Stop! Clothed, partially nude or fully nude, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Can you tell us why it matters that they are a married couple? A few people have mentioned this and I don't understand why their marital status should make any difference. If it is wrong to stalk people and photograph them with a powerful telephoto lens, it should be wrong regardless of their marital status.
 
The Forbes article

Some have clicked on and commented on, the Forbes article. I didn't. I find the title of the article to be quite rude and vulgar- I would not want to see my name and my naked breasts put in a headline like that. Not worthy of a magazine of Forbes' stature. Just another article to titillate dirty old men.
 
Privacy is a fundamental right and we have to really start thinking about boundaries. In the U.S., the constitution recognizes the importance of a free press, but that was mainly because an informed populace was essential to democracy.

I think there are different layers of privacy. If I were in topless in a private area (it won't happen, don't worry), I would be outraged if someone posted pictures on the Internet. Obviously there would be no market for them, but I would be horrified if people I knew could see them.

Some people are comparing Catherine and William to Kim Kardashian, but that isn't valid. William was born as a public figure. He had no choice; and his role in life is to perform public duties. Therefore, he deserves a higher level of privacy than those who have chosen to become celebrities. Catherine obviously chose to be married to William, but to my knowledge, she hasn't courted the media. By that I mean, she doesn't tip them off when she goes out or give them intimate details of her life.

She, William, Harry and most of the rest of the royal family occasionally give interviews in which they provide the sort of anecdotes that most of us would feel comfortable relaying to casual acquaintances. I think they have the right to expect a higher level of privacy. Outside their official engagements, I think they should be pretty much left alone.

I was very upset when the media published pictures of Harry for profit. Yes, the person who sold the pictures could have published them of Facebook, but I think there is a difference between that and publishing the pictures for money. And I think the difference is even more clear with Catherine. She did not choose to socialize with the photographers.

The exceptions in the royal family are Charles, Fergie and the late Princess Diana. They all invited the media into their private lives. I think that puts them in the category of celebrities like Kardashian, but even they deserve a level of privacy.

For example, I think it was fair for the media to take pictures of Princess Diana when she was on a public street, but only after she started cooperating with the media. The press attention in the first few years of her marriage was out of bounds. But even after it was apparent that she was courting the media, there should have been limits. When she was in private places, like the gym, private estates, yachts, etc..., she had the right to expect to be left alone. Obviously airing the tape of her (and Charles's) telephone conversations was an outrageous violation of their privacy. But, frankly, she had to expect photographers when she was in public space; there are consequences to publicizing your private life.

Is there a statute of limitations for Charles because it has been more than 15 years since the book? I don't know. I do think it is fair for the public and the media to continue to delve into his first marriage, both he and Diana opened the subject--although he less than she. However, he has kept his second marriage private, so I think he has the right to expect that the media will not pry into his current private life.

As I thought this through, I realized that although Fergie has now opened her private life up to public scrutiny, by my standards she hadn't done so when the photographers caught her with whatever-his-name was.

Regardless, I don't think that the lawsuit will deter photographers in the future. Unfortunately, Catherine and William will probably become even more guarded and secluded in the future. It's ironic that people buy those magazines because they want more information, but that just forces people to withdraw.
 
Last edited:
Can you tell us why it matters that they are a married couple? A few people have mentioned this and I don't understand why their marital status should make any difference. If it is wrong to stalk people and photograph them with a powerful telephoto lens, it should be wrong regardless of their marital status.


Quite right.

When I have used it, it's just a piece of the rebuttal in advance for those who feel that Catherine was acting inappropriately. I could as well have said "two adults above the age of consent" - but even that is irrelevant, in context.

It's an interesting piece of evidence that we all suffer with our individual bred-in-the-bone and cultural sense of "rightness". Your comment made me ask myself the question "would you be as upset if it was (let's pretend he is unmarried) William and some unnamed female du jour with whom he had every right to cavort, wedded or no?".

Sadly, the answer was "no". I would still be outraged and angry - but not as offended, I think. That's a VERY long discussion, but, yes, part of my outrage is tied to the fact that this woman who willingly gave up most of her privacy for the love of a man, had the bit she thought she could keep taken from her.

That's the very long arm of Jane Austen, there :)
 
Roslyn said:
Can you tell us why it matters that they are a married couple? A few people have mentioned this and I don't understand why their marital status should make any difference. If it is wrong to stalk people and photograph them with a powerful telephoto lens, it should be wrong regardless of their marital status.

I personally am with you entirely. But tabloids are frequently able to justify their intrusions "if it's in the public's interest to know." And if the Duchess was sunbathing topless with someone besides her husband, well then the public wants and deserves to know, right? And the invasion of privacy is overshadowed by the marital scandal.

Pointing out that they're married is emphasizing how completely innocent the Cambridges are in this. There is NO greater story that they happen to be revealing through their invasion of privacy, there's only Kate's Boobs. Just when you thought the gutter press couldn't sink any lower, they prove you wrong.
 
This is all nonsense. It is over. No one, except people on this site, care. Most people I know have more important tasks in their lives than to dwell on this. That have had more than their moment of press, is certain. They are a lovely couple. They love each other. This is never going to make much difference in their lives, except to teach them, caution.
 
Can you tell us why it matters that they are a married couple? A few people have mentioned this and I don't understand why their marital status should make any difference. If it is wrong to stalk people and photograph them with a powerful telephoto lens, it should be wrong regardless of their marital status.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are married and they are the topic of this thread, so in my comment I used a 'married couple' . You're right, wrong is wrong regardless of marital status.
 
Last edited:
...... part of my outrage is tied to the fact that this woman who willingly gave up most of her privacy for the love of a man, had the bit she thought she could keep taken from her.

Fair point, and a valid one.

And if the Duchess was sunbathing topless with someone besides her husband, well then the public wants and deserves to know, right? And the invasion of privacy is overshadowed by the marital scandal.

But this is sexualising the situation and breasts, implying that her toplessness is somehow related to a sexual relationship. What if she was alone, or with female family or friends. Perhaps she has a history of sunbaking topless in the presence of male and female friends. The latter comment is pure speculation but it's entirely possible.

Why is she more innocent because she was doing it in the presence of her husband?

Either her privacy has been invaded in the particular circumstances or it has not; there are not degrees of expectation of privacy depending on whether or not the victim was baring her breasts to people to whom society considers it acceptable to bare them. Isn't holding otherwise tantamount to blaming the woman who wears a short skirt walking down the dark alley at night. Isn't the problem her decision to walk down the dark alley at all?
 
Last edited:
This is all nonsense. It is over. No one, except people on this site, care. Most people I know have more important tasks in their lives than to dwell on this.

The same could be said of the numerous threads about clothing. We are all different and find different things interesting. This topic involves cultural and legal issues which I find interesting.
 
The same could be said of the numerous threads about clothing. We are all different and find different things interesting. This topic involves cultural and legal issues which I find interesting.

I agree Roslyn. Heaven knows there are dozens of threads on here for all interests. No one is forced to read this thread or contribute to it.
 
This is all nonsense. It is over. No one, except people on this site, care. Most people I know have more important tasks in their lives than to dwell on this. That have had more than their moment of press, is certain. They are a lovely couple. They love each other. This is never going to make much difference in their lives, except to teach them, caution.

It's never nonsense to engage in reasonable discussion for the purpose of understanding, enlightenment or intellectual curiosity (and other things, I am sure). Never. All progress in this world happens because people seek those things.

I have always loved, and always will, intelligent discussion on topics that interest me. I'm still up for a discussion on Princess Diana, for starters. 9-11, for another. The Beatles. Tragically Hip lyrics from the 90s. The list is endless. Thing is, it's up to *me* and whomever I am talking with to decide what I want to discuss and for how long.

Never mind with the "...have more important tasks in their lives ...". That's just juvenile and immature and ... pffft. I notice your life has time to come and tell us our lives are ... um ... what is the implication? oh yes ... void of important things. Come on, you surely have something better than that?

What's nonsense, now that I think about it, is this sort of comment from an apparently petty and mean spirited individual who lacks the requisite social intelligence to understand she has just become a troll.
 
Last edited:
I know lots and lots and lots of people who go into their backyards and sunbathe in a disrobed state.
 
Thank you CatherineJ and Polly and others that have joined this discusion and spoken up. Your wit makes me laugh, your intelligence shines through, and your ability to put words/sentences/ideas together that answer the questions posed is a delight to read. Please keep on making sense and being sensitive! You are wordsmiths.
 
PrincessKaimi said:
I know lots and lots and lots of people who go into their backyards and sunbathe in a disrobed state.

I would never do that, mostly because I am self conscious and also the neighbors are too freakin close for that. But I won't hate on those who feel comfortable enough to do it; even if I stumbled onto someone's property and caught them doing that my first reaction is to excuse myself apologize and advert my eyes to let them get dressed. Not pull out my phone take a picture and post it on the Internet and send it to all my friends. When did human decency get thrown down the drain?

As for this discussion, I am tired of the talk about Diana on this board and people talking about her clothes, her death or whatever; but I stay away from the threads. I don't go in to complain about their convo and tell them to move on; if you're tired of the convo in this thread then stay out of it. No one is forcing you to come in here.
 
Last edited:
It's never nonsense to engage in reasonable discussion for the purpose of understanding, enlightenment or intellectual curiosity (and other things, I am sure). Never. All progress in this world happens because people seek those things.

I have always loved, and always will, intelligent discussion on topics that interest me. I'm still up for a discussion on Princess Diana, for starters. 9-11, for another. The Beatles. Tragically Hip lyrics from the 90s. The list is endless. Thing is, it's up to *me* and whomever I am talking with to decide what I want to discuss and for how long.

Never mind with the "...have more important tasks in their lives ...". That's just juvenile and immature and ... pffft. I notice your life has time to come and tell us our lives are ... um ... what is the implication? oh yes ... void of important things. Come on, you surely have something better than that?

What's nonsense, now that I think about it, is this sort of comment from an apparently petty and mean spirited individual who lacks the requisite social intelligence to understand she has just become a troll.

Thank you very much for your wonderful words of wisdom. :)
 
This is all nonsense. It is over. No one, except people on this site, care. Most people I know have more important tasks in their lives than to dwell on this. That have had more than their moment of press, is certain. They are a lovely couple. They love each other. This is never going to make much difference in their lives, except to teach them, caution.

I agree. Best comment I've seen in about the last 980 or so posts.
 
I agree. Best comment I've seen in about the last 980 or so posts.

You must be the cavalry :)

See, I just don't understand this.

I see that you spend a lot of time in the fashion threads. A place where I have been 3, maybe 4 times and don't believe I have made more than one post and that was quite some time ago.

Why is that, you might be asking (I am projecting, but that's okay, I talk to myself often).

Oh, so glad you asked.

I find the fashion threads silly. Can't imagine why it matters who wears what and what baubles they have on (although I do confess to an interest in the historical jewels of several Monarchies). Can't imagine engaging in what would feel, to me, to be a waste of my time, which I happen to consider fairly dear.

But it would be a bad reflection on me, I believe, if I were to wander over there and tell you all what I think of your discussions. Or worse, have nothing better to do than tell you to stop the nonsense already, it was boring me.

I assume I don't have to explain this. Your posts indicate that you are intelligent, quite witty if not acerbic from time to time, capable of intellectual reasoning and well spoken, if not articulate. I have been fairly impressed by a few of your observations, as I recall, and found several others to be quite funny.

Which makes your wandering over here just to poke a stick in the fire sort of ... confusing. Which is where my "cavalry" comment comes in. It's the only explanation I can think to apply.

Care to enlighten me as to why you found it necessary to make such a comment on a thread which you claim to have read in its rather imposing entirety? I would quite like to understand it.
 
Last edited:
Ha Ha!!! You are right!! He should never hope that he became soo rich!!

There ia another delicate pic, where William puts suncream to his wife "behind", for me worst pic than the topless.
How necessary was it for them to get the sun?
Truly they did not need this.
 
Fun is never "necessary." On the other hand, it is essential.
 
Pathetic trash rag Og Se Hor also publishes!!

I Heard that Kim Henningsen, Editor of the trash tabloid Og Se Hor in Denmark is publishing even more pics, more intimate pictures. His actions and the actions of the paparazzi and the editors are vile and sick. They should be subjected to what they have made Kate and others go through.
 
Posted here in a new thread


I Heard that Kim Henningsen, Editor of the trash tabloid Og Se Hor in Denmark is publishing even more pics, more intimate pictures. His actions and the actions of the paparazzi and the editors are vile and sick. They should be subjected to what they have made Kate and others go through.

In my mind this is the important question: why can this not be stopped?

Since the answer seems to be as elusive as a unicorn, the next question is what do we (society) need to do to get this problem of privacy invasion and unpunished ongoing, public acts of criminality under control?

I'm about ready to cash in my retirement fund and start a freaking one woman revolution. Seriously.

I was once stalked. And I mean for real. Not the way people mean it now when they throw it around like a chat about the weather. Phone calls saying "your daughter looks pretty in her dress today" and "I think you should have picked the red one, but the blue one looks good on you too", coming down to my kitchen in the morning and finding "presents" sitting on the table, culminating in a gun in my face at a remote cabin location. Without hyperbole, I tell you the end result is the stuff of after school movie specials. I was asked to go on a few talk/news shows ... that's how bad.

Why do I mention this? Because the slow escalation of events and the inability to stop him through all legal means, the sense of utter frustration that my life was being ruined and *no one* could do anything about it is not that different from what seems to be happening here. Even though what was happening was clearly illegal, I did all the right things and I was not in any way to blame, it ended violently, badly and I nearly lost my life. Which explains, I say without apology, why these issues are near and dear to me.

Projecting? Hell yeah :) Been there, done that.

But that's okay ... personal experiences are meant to lend you insight into what things you will do with the balance of your time/life/energy.

So this bugs me in ways I cannot begin to really describe to you. Not so much because it makes my scars itch, but because I understand it's a huge problem that is getting worse and we seem, as a society, to be doing so little to stop it - this disregard for the privacy and right to privacy of people we deem "interesting".

William and Catherine, as do all human beings, deserve better.
 
Legal experts say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can easily win an injunction in Denmark. Denmark has tough laws but it seems TRH have already made their 'point' and are not pursuing court action in Denmark. I don't know this for certain but just my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom