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
 
  #961  
Old 09-26-2012, 02:57 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 09-26-2012, 02:59 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:24 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:42 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk

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 guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:49 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 09-26-2012, 07:12 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 09-26-2012, 07:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 968
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 09-26-2012, 07:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 850
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 09-26-2012, 07:53 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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 :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:10 PM
DCVO's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Tacoma, United States
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #971  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,524
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #973  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:34 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
...... 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCVO View Post
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:42 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #975  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 09-26-2012, 08:53 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #977  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:41 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I know lots and lots and lots of people who go into their backyards and sunbathe in a disrobed state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 09-27-2012, 12:17 AM
awcblue's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 34
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 09-27-2012, 05:15 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi
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.
__________________
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
  #980  
Old 09-27-2012, 06:25 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: indianapolis, United States
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
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. :)
__________________

__________________
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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
belgium birth carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 official visit ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski 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 laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 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]