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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Granted I'm a guy and can't say for certain that Catherine isn't embarrassed, but if this happened to me, I would be angry, I would be outraged, I would be out for blood but I wouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed.
 
page 53
are you all going crazy???s

Is this world really loosing it minrd?

When I am in private Ia AM private, no matter who I am.

Everything esle is intrusion and WRONG.

Stop discussing this matter, stop looking at picturs and stop buying these mags. finished.

53 pages about a few pictuers which were taken without permission.

FINISH STOP GET A LIVE


Whoa there, cowpoke. Clearly you have not read the thread. There is no prurient interest here. We have been discussing privacy issues, amongst other things. It's a big topic and takes many words.

We are not to be grouped with the people looking at the photos and buying magazines. Read backwards. And could you stop yelling, we're not deaf.

We're pretty much just having a discussion about the other things you said - privacy, intrusion, etc.

Insofar as I believe you mean to say "GET A LIFE" ... it just makes me chuckle. And not in that "people are so cute" way, but in that other way, you know the one ... "people can be such idiots" way.

Here's some free advice: Some types of throws just say more about the pitcher than the catcher.
 
Granted I'm a guy and can't say for certain that Catherine isn't embarrassed, but if this happened to me, I would be angry, I would be outraged, I would be out for blood but I wouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed.

I think embarrassed is the wrong word. It has a common usage that implies an underlying sense of guilt as in you ought to be embarrassed!.

Let's say she has discomfort ... is uncomfortable that the parts of her she chooses to share only in private have been made public, that her sense of decorum has been breached and that she is sensitive to both her and her husband's positions. She can be uncomfortable/embarrassed that it happened, without being embarrassed in a body image or guilt induced way.

Reducing it: We can all agree that it is not proper to see the Queen naked. And we have seen her naked. And she will be Queen. It's a linear trip, and a short one, to discomfort. Which is what I mean when I say "embarrassed".
 
Last edited:
You know, I don't see why those who happen to have a different opinion should feel ashamed, inadequate or just "proven" to be wrong.

- Do I think the pictures, every single one of them, are gross invasion of Kate's (or any woman's) privacy? Yes, I do.
- Was it a private residence where William and Kate had the right to enjoy their privacy? Yes, it was.
- Did the incident cause considerable distress to William, Kate and their families? I should think so: no one deserves that kind of treatment.
- Did Kate and William show remarkably bad judgement? Yes, I strongly feel that to be the case.

I happen to think that no woman should change her bikini top and especially bottoms outside. Maybe it's old-fashioned and horribly un-feminist of me, but there you go. Forget about paparazzi, prying neighbours or perverts - what about the staff and/or security? Do not tell me they were naive enough to believe no one would be able to see them, especially since they are two of the most photographed people in the world. Like it or not, they can never be certain they are not followed, so why give the press such a field day? We are not talking about cuddles or sunbathing, it was full frontal nudity - a pretty damn bad idea even if you are Jane Doe and no one cares what you look like in the privacy of your own home or on a beach.

Just because I happen to like William and Kate doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't criticise them for what I personally believe to be a huge error of judgement. Those picture will always be there, they cannot be undone or forgotten.

Again, this is strictly my opinion. I don't expect others to agree with it but I'd rather not be slated for it either.

Agree with everything. Very well said.
 
We can all agree that it is not proper to see the Queen naked. And we have seen her naked. And she will be Queen. It's a linear trip, and a short one, to discomfort. Which is what I mean when I say "embarrassed".

But through no fault of her own have some people seen her naked and for me, the context of these photos is what is important and for the record, I certainly haven't seen our future Queen naked.
 
But through no fault of her own have some people seen her naked and for me, the context of these photos is what is important and for the record, I certainly haven't seen our future Queen naked.

:) Nor have I. But I know lots of people have.

Yes, of course, she did nothing wrong, in the moral sense. She has no need of guilt or shame. But it would naturally be uncomfortable.

We will all forget it. But she will be the very last one to do so, mark me.
 
Actually, I think it's almost a guarantee that she is embarrassed and has not "moved on" to use the common phrase. Rather I suspect she is "moving" because that's what you have to do to get to the past tense of the thing.

I think it's natural for her to be embarrassed, and I'm sure she hates the fact that photos of her breasts and/or the rest of her body have been published. But in the general scheme of things, it's not really a big deal and I'm sure she will be able to move on very soon if she hasn't already. She has the support of her husband and I'm sure the rest of her family and friends, and society generally.

If Camilla and Charles can move on from the tampon conversation, Kate and William sure as hell can put this in the past.

I am in no way a feminist. I identify as a humanist.

Really? You don't believe in political, economic, and social equality of the sexes? I certainly do, and I'm also a humanist; I believe the two theories can stand together.

That said, there are differences in the ways the genders deal with and are dealt with by the world.

Yep. Fact of life. There are differences between the genders. In Western society breasts have been sexualized but the extent to which they are taboo varies from culture to culture and demographic to demographic. I doubt that most of society will see Kate differently as a result of this and I sincerely hope her sense of her place in society has not been affected.
 
Really? You don't believe in political, economic, and social equality of the sexes? I certainly do, and I'm also a humanist; I believe the two theories can stand together.

Really :)

I certainly do believe in equality. I just refuse to sexualize it. I believe in universal, global, human equality. In the same way I bristle against gay rights, women's rights, children's rights. We just need equality. Period. It is my personal belief that being a humanist precludes being any other sort of "ist" because it includes all the "ists" naturally.

YMMV.
 
The whole thing makes me sick. It is sickening that some respectable news outlets have republished the photos albeit with certain areas covered up. It makes me sick that they are online for people to see. It is true a grotesque invasion of privacy. The pap who shot them should be caught I hope, d! Give the bloody *bleep* a taste of his own medicine.
 
For me being embarrassed does not have to mean you did something wrong, being ashamed implies guilt to me but not embarrassment. Walking around with your slip in your panty hose is embarrassing yet there is no guilt associated with it. With Kate I can imagine embarrassment that people have seen her body, the fact that it wasn't her fault doesn't take away the embarrassment that anyone who has access to the Internet can see parts of her she doesn't want seen.
Btw, I'm a woman and I am definitely not a feminist.

The pap who shot them should be caught I hope, d! Give the bloody *bleep* a taste of his own medicine.

SWEET! Let's strip him or her naked and take photos and every news outlet will publish them. Definitely a good idea, I'm taking videos as well.
 
Last edited:
... [snipped]
I happen to think that no woman should change her bikini top and especially bottoms outside. Maybe it's old-fashioned and horribly un-feminist of me, but there you go. Forget about paparazzi, prying neighbours or perverts - what about the staff and/or security? Do not tell me they were naive enough to believe no one would be able to see them, especially since they are two of the most photographed people in the world. Like it or not, they can never be certain they are not followed, so why give the press such a field day? We are not talking about cuddles or sunbathing, it was full frontal nudity - a pretty damn bad idea even if you are Jane Doe and no one cares what you look like in the privacy of your own home or on a beach.

Just because I happen to like William and Kate doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't criticise them for what I personally believe to be a huge error of judgement. Those picture will always be there, they cannot be undone or forgotten.

Again, this is strictly my opinion. I don't expect others to agree with it but I'd rather not be slated for it either.
I am in full agreement with you.
 
I also think that Kate erred in judgement. I highly esteem this young woman. I believe that she's intelligent and truly cares about people and their problems. I think that she'll be a fine Queen. But on this one occasion, she let her guard down a bit too much.

I happen to think that no woman should change her bikini top and especially bottoms outside.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I also think that Kate erred in judgement. I highly esteem this young woman. I believe that she's intelligent and truly cares about people and their problems. I think that she'll be a fine Queen. But on this one occasion, she let her guard down a bit too much.

She was with William, who's dealt with the press his entire life and he didn't warn her not to, because he assumed they were safe.

I don't think this was an error in judgement. I think this was a photographer going far outside the realm of common decency and invading their privacy in a totally unexpected way.
 
Really :)

I certainly do believe in equality. I just refuse to sexualize it. I believe in universal, global, human equality. In the same way I bristle against gay rights, women's rights, children's rights. We just need equality. Period. It is my personal belief that being a humanist precludes being any other sort of "ist" because it includes all the "ists" naturally.

I think I get that. :)
 
She was with William, who's dealt with the press his entire life and he didn't warn her not to, because he assumed they were safe.

I don't think this was an error in judgement. I think this was a photographer going far outside the realm of common decency and invading their privacy in a totally unexpected way.


Excellent point. IMO, this incident is similar to a peeping Tom situation when you're in your own home.
 
As former PM Sir John Major told the BBC after this disgusting incident took place, the person who took these photographs is a peeping Tom and in our country (Britain) we prosecute peeping Toms.
 
Last edited:
^^More & more law enforcement agencies, etc., recognize the seriousness of peeping Toms, I believe. Their potential for crime escalates many times to much more serious offenses. At least this is what happened in the small town I reside in.
 
As former PM Sir John Major told the BBC after this disgusting incident took place, the person who took these photographs is a peeping Tom and in our country (Britain) we prosecute peeping Toms.

that is exactly true. i hope the paparazzi gets caught
 
Well, the facts say that it *was* wrong to think they were not visible/could not be photographed, since they obviously were.

The reason I dislike the phrase "error in judgment" in regards to this is that implies carelessness.

You can make a perfectly reasonable decision, as they likely did for all the reasons stated in various posts: they have security, many other royals have stayed there and been undisturbed, the plain geography of the situation, French privacy laws, etc, and *still* be wrong. Not because your reasoning was flawed, but because the act that countered your reason was, in fact, unreasonable and could not be predicted or anticipated within a reasonable analysis. They thought, and had every reasonable expectation, that they were invisible to the photographic eye.

If this is true, and one must assume it is because they would not court this sort of thing, then whatever they did inside of that privacy is moot. Absolutely moot.

Just because some of us would not disrobe outside, as an example, does not mean it's wrong for someone else to have a different sense of things. Even under the caveat of "it was wrong for the pictures to be taken" when the "but" gets added and "poor judgement" gets thrown in we suddenly have a moral judgement being made and a whole different flavour to the opinion.

What I mean to say is that being wrong does not necessarily mean you showed poor judgement. I believe this is a vital distinction. In this case, I believe it is important to make the distinction because their judgement and our belief in it is an important commodity for them and for us.

I believe, after having read all these posts again, that what people are saying is more like "Geesh, I wish she hadn't taken off her clothes! Why did she have to do that?" which is a perfectly valid in-the-moment response, one I have had myself. But I think it is important to remember that wishing it didn't happen can easily be morphed into the sort of blame that is implied in the "error in judgement" phrase and we must all be careful to keep the blame where it belongs. It is a VERY thin ditch between "error in judgement" and "it was their own fault" whether you mean it or not. What you say is only half the communication equation ... what people hear and parse is another.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Unlike you, I can't read Catherine's mind so I'll have to take your word for it.

I'm not sure what you're saying other than trying to be sarcastic. I wasn't saying that I knew she was embarrassed I was saying that I didn't think it was overly dramatic for another poster to say this situation was embarrassing for Catherine.

To clarify I was trying to defend the words of another poster, not verify Catherine's feelings.

Go ahead and hit me up with your next sarcastic comment.
 
I've been away from my computer for the past month and so haven't read the comments that have been made previously. I'm not sure whether my POV has been posted by someone else - if it has I apologise for the unoriginality of my opinion.

I think the actions of the photographer and the magazines who printed the photographs are mercenary, unforgivable, a gross invasion of privacy and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Having said that, this appears to me to be no different to what happened to the Duchess of York and so it's not without precedent that a photographer would invade the privacy of a member of the Royal Family, snap photographs of her topless and then sell them to the highest bidder. If I remember correctly (and I admit I have not checked) Sarah was also on private property when the photographs of her were taken. The fact it has happened before should have put Catherine and William on notice of what can potentially happen regardless of where they were at the time.

I always thought Catherine was an intelligent young woman. Given this has happened before, I would call it an error of judgement on her part and that of William.
 
...The fact it has happened before should have put Catherine and William on notice of what can potentially happen regardless of where they were at the time.

I always thought Catherine was an intelligent young woman. Given this has happened before, I would call it an error of judgement on her part and that of William.


I can understand your reasoning.

For me, it comes down to the tree climbing analogy I used in another post. Kids falls from trees all the time. Some are injured. Some even die. So, using your reasoning, if I let my child climb a tree and something happens, then I have made an error in judgement and must accept partial blame.

If nothing happens, I am just a good mom who doesn't have over-protection problems.

Riding a bus, getting on a plane, driving a car ... these are all the same. Using that same reasoning, Princess Grace showed poor judgement when she decided to drive her car. Certainly there have been car accidents before.

While I respect your opinion and can see the logic used to arrive at it, I still believe this is a form, albeit very mild and genteel, of blaming the victim.

Based upon the logic, Catherine and William need to cloister themselves or else anything that happens to them will, logically, be the result of poor judgement because as Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" so every bad thing has a chance of repeating itself and has already happened at least once.

An extreme rebuttal, I know, and I do not mean to seem strident, but I do believe strongly that this opinion, however reasonably held, is part of the problem. Somehow, somewhere, we have become a society that believes, at some level, that most victims could have prevented their own injuries. I reject that solely on principle because it means, ipso facto, that I accept the way things are in this regard - and I most certainly do not.

You made a good argument. Always a pleasure talking with smart people :)
 
I can understand your reasoning.

For me, it comes down to the tree climbing analogy I used in another post. Kids falls from trees all the time. Some are injured. Some even die. So, using your reasoning, if I let my child climb a tree and something happens, then I have made an error in judgement and must accept partial blame.

Is it possible that both can be true - that the D and DOC are not to blame, AND that their security and choices can be better?

With the tree analogy, you are not to blame, but you CAN teach your child how to climb trees, which trees and branches are more safe and which are risky, how to establish balance and always have 3 points of contact. Without attaching blame - avoiding problems is always better than the mess after things happen. You can help your child be safer and make better choices.

I am not to blame if I get attacked on the street. However, I have learned behaviors that, if I get attacked, prepare me for self defense and also makes me seem a poor choice of VICTIM. In another forum, there was a post about Princess Anne's attmepted abduction and her screaming"NOT BLOODY LIKELY." No doubt that behavior helped keep her safe. I've been attacked twice and got away both times - because I was prepared. I am not to blame for being attacked but I do claim responsibility for doing all I can to keep myself safe or get away.

So I think it is possible for people in the public eye to make choices that minimize risk - just like the choices I make every day - and still be not to blame. I don't think I am to blame for what has happened - but I accept responsibility for living in the world that I do; for me it is not an either/or argument.
 
...it is not an either/or argument.

Yes, this is probably as close to "right" as we can get here. You make very valid points.

I continue to make and repeat (ad nauseum, I know) the argument because one of the things that happens when outrage becomes mitigated with anything approaching "well they should have known..." is that the outrage dies down and whatever we were outraged about becomes part of what we accept as normal, albeit distasteful, social behaviour. In other words, we lose our individual motivation to actively change it.

For some reason this issue has really offended my sense of rightness. So I am trying to make Gandhi proud of me by being the change I want to see in the world.

:)
 
This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.
 
This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.

These three sentences make all 140 some posts I have made on this thread worth it :) *

Yes. Yes, yes.


*Not that I am claiming to be the cause of those three sentences :) Just that I appreciate seeing them so much.
 
This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.

Green Bay people are the best. Good Common sense Grandma828:flowers:
 
Artemisia said:
You know, I don't see why those who happen to have a different opinion should feel ashamed, inadequate or just "proven" to be wrong.

- Do I think the pictures, every single one of them, are gross invasion of Kate's (or any woman's) privacy? Yes, I do.
- Was it a private residence where William and Kate had the right to enjoy their privacy? Yes, it was.
- Did the incident cause considerable distress to William, Kate and their families? I should think so: no one deserves that kind of treatment.
- Did Kate and William show remarkably bad judgement? Yes, I strongly feel that to be the case.

I happen to think that no woman should change her bikini top and especially bottoms outside. Maybe it's old-fashioned and horribly un-feminist of me, but there you go. Forget about paparazzi, prying neighbours or perverts - what about the staff and/or security? Do not tell me they were naive enough to believe no one would be able to see them, especially since they are two of the most photographed people in the world. Like it or not, they can never be certain they are not followed, so why give the press such a field day? We are not talking about cuddles or sunbathing, it was full frontal nudity - a pretty damn bad idea even if you are Jane Doe and no one cares what you look like in the privacy of your own home or on a beach.

Just because I happen to like William and Kate doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't criticise them for what I personally believe to be a huge error of judgement. Those picture will always be there, they cannot be undone or forgotten.

Again, this is strictly my opinion. I don't expect others to agree with it but I'd rather not be slated for it either.

I completely agree with you!
 
Back
Top Bottom