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
 
  #1061  
Old 09-29-2012, 10:29 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
... [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 never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #1062  
Old 09-29-2012, 11:36 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,271
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
I happen to think that no woman should change her bikini top and especially bottoms outside.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1063  
Old 09-29-2012, 11:59 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1064  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:00 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1065  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:55 AM
Bensgal's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1066  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:00 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1067  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:15 AM
Bensgal's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indianapolis, United States
Posts: 42
^^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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1068  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:44 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: singapore, Singapore
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1069  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:34 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1070  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:46 AM
Noble Consort Ming's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Detroit, United States
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
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.
__________________
How can I dislike the Vasas for running my country when their babies are so cute!
Reply With Quote
  #1071  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:56 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Consort Ming View Post
To clarify I was trying to defend the words of another poster, not verify Catherine's feelings.
Very noble of you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1072  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:35 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
Very noble of you.

Yes, that's what I thought, too.

Providing polite clarification in defense of another when it seems that a communication breakdown has happened is an act of decency, imo.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1073  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:59 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 343
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1074  
Old 09-30-2012, 08:38 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
...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 :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1075  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:01 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1076  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:14 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
...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.

:)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1077  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 530
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1078  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:39 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandma828 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1079  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:17 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandma828 View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1080  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:31 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia
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!
__________________

__________________
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
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola 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 winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

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

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]