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
 
  #701  
Old 09-20-2012, 09:53 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I apologize in advance to anyone who's already commented on this post. Under English Common Law, the female spouse takes the surname and/or title of the husband. Therefore, Catherine is legally HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. That's her name.
I take issue with that. I understand it's merely tradition, not law. The female spouse is entitled to take the surname and/or title of the husband, but she is not legally compelled to do so; it is not law, common or statute. I have never used my husband's surname, and I am not legally obliged to do so.

ETA See Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 09-20-2012, 11:29 AM
Tosca's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in the middle of the River Po Valley, Italy
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
Chi and Closer are both owned by Berlusconi. The injunction in France only applies in France itself. Chi is not affected by the law suit.
They're owned by Marina Berlusconi. I haven't heard of 'Chi' getting sued so far, and people here have other fish to fry at present, so most of them seem no to be interested in those photos. Gone are the days when Novella 2000 sold tons of copies back in 1977 when Princess Caroline went topless sunbathing on a boat with her then boy friend Junot. She' d taken off her top with much more class than Kate did. Well nowaday's princesses are not the ones they used to be.

BTW pictures of Marina Berlusconi- topless sunbathing in Southern France - were published by Chi...
__________________

__________________
Let's go back to the old, and we'll have a progress! (Giuseppe Verdi)
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 09-20-2012, 12:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 906
I have never seen the pictures up to now, don't want to either and if I ever accidentally stumble across them I will click my screen away.
Moreso, I find the opinion of the posters who think that this is her own fault disgusting. Royal or not, privacy is a basic human right and her being different because she is the future Queen of England has nothing to do with it.

Respect and dignity in this society have really taken a downfall. And all this is just my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 09-20-2012, 12:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Claims paparazzo is British and was commissioned by French Closer

Kate Middleton topless photographer is 'British and was commissioned by Closer magazine France' | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 09-20-2012, 12:51 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,348
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Thomas Hansen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 09-20-2012, 01:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.
This act is to be sincerely applauded. It might be more widespread than just this one business but the fact that some of us "ordinary" people with small businesses can and do take a stand for what they believe is common decency reminds us that there are decent people in this crazy world.
__________________
“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
  #707  
Old 09-20-2012, 01:25 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.


Bravo for M. Henningsen! Too bad we can't get an avalanche of that ... then the press would realize the power of the press, so to speak, is nothing, nothing at all, when compared to the power of the people.

In fact, it is the ONLY thing that will stop it. Eventually we will understand our power (the individual, the everyman) when we stand united and firm instead of whinging about how bad it's all becoming.

You know that phrase, "Someone ought to do something"? Well, M. Henningsen decided to be the someone. I am impressed beyond words.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 09-20-2012, 01:30 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.
Oops. Me again.

Someone (irony alert) who has a facebook account needs to post this. Everyone should , I think. And someone else on twitter. And so on. I've emailed it to all my contacts in the media. Sometimes, even the worst media situations can be turned into positive ones, simply because "someone" started a ball rolling down a hill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 09-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,074
Se & Hør has always been and will always be a scum magazine, I would never even consider spending my money on that filthy piece of crap. No one in their right mind would.
__________________
"Blessed be god, the king, the queen and all our sweet children be in good health."
— Lady Margaret Beaufort, April 1497

Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 09-20-2012, 03:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.
Good for him! Was it Se & Hor that printed the pictures of Christian nude at the beach over his parents' objections? I can't remember now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 09-20-2012, 04:16 PM
COESpiral's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The South, United States
Posts: 181
For the last time, if you need a telephoto lens from half a mile away to get a picture of someone who is not out in public, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you're photographing is famous or not, if you are that far away because you know full well you wouldn't be able to get a picture close enough so they can see you, you are invading that person's privacy and should be prosecuted. The end. It does not matter what the people involved are doing, if they are alone and under the full belief that they are alone, YOU ARE INVADING THEIR PRIVACY.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 09-20-2012, 04:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 970
Hear, hear! I have been shocked at the propensity of some to 'blame the victim.' At any rate, if anyone 'should have known better', wouldn't that be the security team, who have presumably been trained to anticipate such problems? Or even William himself- although I don't assign blame to him- who has been a royal all his life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 09-20-2012, 04:41 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Good for him! Was it Se & Hor that printed the pictures of Christian nude at the beach over his parents' objections? I can't remember now.
I believe so. M&F were pretty annoyed!
However that was a fairly innocent photo on public beach, and M&F knew the photographers were there.
It was just that the magazine refused to respect a request from M&F. - Annoying other photographers, because that may have ruined the chances of similar future photo-ops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COESpiral View Post
For the last time, if you need a telephoto lens from half a mile away to get a picture of someone who is not out in public, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you're photographing is famous or not, if you are that far away because you know full well you wouldn't be able to get a picture close enough so they can see you, you are invading that person's privacy and should be prosecuted. The end. It does not matter what the people involved are doing, if they are alone and under the full belief that they are alone, YOU ARE INVADING THEIR PRIVACY.
It's as simple as that.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 09-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Hear, hear! I have been shocked at the propensity of some to 'blame the victim.' At any rate, if anyone 'should have known better', wouldn't that be the security team, who have presumably been trained to anticipate such problems? Or even William himself- although I don't assign blame to him- who has been a royal all his life.
I feel that in this discussion there has been a bit of a misunderstanding or confusion or unintended emphasis given to comments made by some of us, myself included, about Kate and/or William knowing better. It's not blaming Kate, i.e. saying it was her fault rather than the perpetrator's. It is merely saying that in much the same way as people who choose to swim in the surf on Western Australian or South African beaches at dusk run a very real risk of being attacked by a great white shark, there was a very real risk. Like the surfer, Kate and William should have been aware of the risk of a hidden predator attacking and they assumed the risks inherent in the activity.

When there is as much interest in you as there is in Kate, unless you are 100% sure that there is no way someone could photograph you with a modern telephoto lens, i.e. unless your security people know the location well and have made lengthy and thorough checks to ensure there is nowhere from which a photographer with the right equipment could snap a pic - and, IMO, in view of the prominent location of that residence in hilly country, there should have been real doubt about that - you don't do something that you wouldn't mind seeing immortalised in a photo on the front page of the paper.

It was most certainly an invasion of their privacy, but they should expect their privacy to be invaded, because, like it or not, that's an incident of their lives, which, again like it or not, are lived in the public these days. The line between public and private is a fine one due to modern technology and instantaneous communications. And William, who has been royal all his life, and the son of Diana, should, of all people, be only too well aware of these facts. He might not like it, and I'm sure he'll huff and puff about it and denounce the paparazzi and issue lots of lawsuits, but, like shark teeth, new paps will keep popping up the moment one is knocked out. It will never end for them. I hope he accepts this and accepts the need to behave very cautiously in future and doesn't make it a mission to tantalise the paps and then chase them in Court. That could get tiresome.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 09-20-2012, 07:45 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,352
If someone is on private property and they are topless, it's a gross invasion of their privacy when someone takes pictures of them and sells them. It would be a different story if they were walking down the street or in a public area or on a public beach and they took their top off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 09-20-2012, 07:54 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I feel that in this discussion there has been a bit of a misunderstanding or confusion or unintended emphasis given to comments made by some of us, myself included, about Kate and/or William knowing better. It's not blaming Kate, i.e. saying it was her fault rather than the perpetrator's. It is merely saying that in much the same way as people who choose to swim in the surf on Western Australian or South African beaches at dusk run a very real risk of being attacked by a great white shark, there was a very real risk. Like the surfer, Kate and William should have been aware of the risk of a hidden predator attacking and they assumed the risks inherent in the activity.
I think it is a little much to expect Catherine to be on long lens alert this early in her marriage. Now William, he's lived with it all his life and yet even he was obviously comfortable thinking they were secure and private. I am not saying it was their fault, just pointing out to those who do that even a life-time of paparazzi attention hadn't made William that paranoid.

For all the talking about his early life, his mother and her death, etc. I think there was still a little part of William that hoped that things had changed and he was still allowed a small semblance of a private life. I am guessing that has changed. And that, to me, is sad.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 09-20-2012, 08:12 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
For all the talking about his early life, his mother and her death, etc. I think there was still a little part of William that hoped that things had changed and he was still allowed a small semblance of a private life. I am guessing that has changed. And that, to me, is sad.
I suspect that if he were not Diana's son, he and his wife would not be subject to quite the same level of public scrutiny. I'm a little worried about the attention they are getting, actually. It seems excessive. Kate seems to be on the cover of every woman's magazine here. I think one of the mags has her pregnant with twins, too. :eyeroll:
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 09-20-2012, 08:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,524
Oh, come on, they live by publicity. Sure they are entitled to privacy, but these are people who know the invasive nature of the Pararazzi and the public. Harry in Las Vegas, wow, what a revelation, Fergie having her toes sucked or come on. They court what they think is positive publicity, but once you do that, you are open to all scrutiny. Yes, of course, they are victims, but that is their lives. They are "celebrities", as all "royals" are, they court the press for positive press, they will, also, get negative press. The days of the sacrosanct "royal" being is gone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 09-20-2012, 09:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,068
If being in this private situation and believing themselves to absolutely being alone is something that the "royals" can't expect from life and Kate was just "asking for it" when she took her top off, what I want to know is why this photographer didn't feel comfortable enough to walk up to them and thank them for the photo op.

It was a sneak attack and the photographer knew what he was doing was illegal and would incur the wrath of the Cambridges. He decided to go ahead with it. Blinded by dollar signs methinks.
__________________
“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
  #720  
Old 09-20-2012, 11:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,524
Of course, he knew he'd make a fortune. There is no alone, if you are a celebrity. Yes, all people have the right to privacy and I don't buy or read this junk, but, obviosuly many do, otherwise it would not be worth a fortune. Injunction or not, those pics will show up somehwere and I am sure at a great price. Also, if everyone, totally ignored it, it would have died on its own.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.

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]