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
 
  #1161  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
This where some of us disagree, I think. The house was in hilly territory and visible from the surrounding land and the road. If they could see the hills, it's feasible that someone on a road in the hills armed with high powered telephoto lens and a video recorder could see them. I don't think it was safe for her to assume she was safe from prying eyes.
Quite a sensible response. They let their guard down. And, other than here, I think the hoo-ha has passed. They will be smarter and I think, depending where they are, the paparazzi will have a more difficult time and that is good.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 10-04-2012, 10:06 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
This where some of us disagree, I think. The house was in hilly territory and visible from the surrounding land and the road. If they could see the hills, it's feasible that someone on a road in the hills armed with high powered telephoto lens and a video recorder could see them. I don't think it was safe for her to assume she was safe from prying eyes.
And that's precisely why the British taxpayer spends a great deal of money providing security and protection for William and Catherine.

I repeat: she had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.

I cannot understand those who are defending the press and sheeting home blame to Catherine (not William, as I've noted) nor her protection unit. That the matter has mushroomed to an international consideration and re-evaluation of the gutter press seems to have passed by so many critics.

It's really not easy being rich, intelligent and very attractive, as Catherine has discovered. Nonetheless, it's pleasing to see her continue to carry herself with aplomb and dignity.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 10-04-2012, 11:46 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
And that's precisely why the British taxpayer spends a great deal of money providing security and protection for William and Catherine.
Well they need to employ more or different people, or extra training, if she plans on taking her clothes off outside, since the ones who checked out the place they were staying were not thorough.

Quote:

I repeat: she had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.
This is your opinion, to which you are entitled. I happen to disagree, for reasons I have already stated.

Quote:
I cannot understand those who are defending the press and sheeting home blame to Catherine (not William, as I've noted)
William is her husband, not her keeper. Unless he told her to take off her bikini against her wishes and against her protestations that there could be people watching, he cannot be responsible for her actions.

Quote:
nor her protection unit.
I consider her protection unit has some responsibility in this, or security, or whoever it is who should have "cased the joint" thoroughly.

Quote:
That the matter has mushroomed to an international consideration and re-evaluation of the gutter press seems to have passed by so many critics.
The gutter press thrives because people buy what they publish. I am not condoning or excusing what they do, but I accept them as a fact of life, like ticks. I wear tick repellant when I am working in the garden, and heavy boots and two pairs of jeans because I know there are far more Eastern Brown snakes out there than I ever see.

Quote:
It's really not easy being rich, intelligent and very attractive, as Catherine has discovered. Nonetheless, it's pleasing to see her continue to carry herself with aplomb and dignity.
Kate has been rich, intelligent and very attractive all her adult life. What she has now amounts to celebrity status. And yes, she has great aplomb and dignity, as she continues to demonstrate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 10-04-2012, 11:53 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,193
She was NOT "in front of a road." She was in a private location far from the road. Sophisticated long-distance cameras were needed to get the pictures. Apparently there are hundreds of pictures and a video. A decent/moral photographer wouldn't have used long-range photography equipment to begin with; but having seen a lady in the "all-together" would have put the camera down.

Personally, I believe that people should take their clothes off only within their own four walls; but I realize that others view such things differently.

The law was broken in any case. Full stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosana View Post
^Which bullying? She took the bikini off in front of a road for god sake! .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:54 AM
Queen Penelope's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Camrose, Canada
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962
She was NOT "in front of a road." She was in a private location far from the road. Sophisticated long-distance cameras were needed to get the pictures. Apparently there are hundreds of pictures and a video. A decent/moral photographer wouldn't have used long-range photography equipment to begin with; but having seen a lady in the "all-together" would have put the camera down.

Personally, I believe that people should take their clothes off only within their own four walls; but I realize that others view such things differently.
Yes, long lenses, all the more reason to err on the side of caution when dealing with paparazzi scum. It's not right, but until legislation is brought in to stop this, just take reasonable precautions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:46 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
McInnes: Old notions of privacy slipping away in the digital age

Nude duchess photos that reach new lows
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 10-05-2012, 03:24 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,127
An update on the Se & Hør part of the whole affair: Se og Hør-boss: Kates bryster var millioner værd - Danmark | www.bt.dk

The magazine sold 8.000 extra copies the week they showed W&K, which amounts to 250.000 DKK more that week or roughly 27.000 £.
As the mag sells about 121.000 Issues a week, that extra sale counts.
However, as the prize for the photos are estimated to have cost at the very least 100.000 DKK, the surplus may have been limited after all. - Even with the added income from adverts.

Kate's breasts are not the only ones exposed. Two local celebs have also had their attributes shown in the magazine very recently, in a similar manner, but that's just a coincidence reassures the editor, Kim Henningsen.
One of the two other women has sued. The other, well, I think she will sue as well.

The Danish media watchdog, Pressenævnet, will not interfere in the matter of Kate on their own. The watchdog rarely intervene unless someone file a complaint. - So no one from the BRF have filed a complaint.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 10-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by bethaliz6894 View Post
What I do find ridiculous is you taking a whole paragraph to not answer my question. My question was, what is the law about going naked in France?
No, that wasn't your question.

To set the record straight, this is what you asked (#1157):
"What is the law about being bare chested out in public?"

to which Catherine J responded (#1158):
"The Duke and Duchess were on private property that was NOT visible to passersby (unless they found the exact right spot and possessed a professional grade very long telephoto lens).
In this specific situation they most assuredly meet the legal standard of "reasonable expectation" of privacy.
The taking of the photographs and the subsequent publication of them is a prima facie infringement of their rights and an indefensible violation of the law.
"

I agree that Catherine J did not answer you precisely but as the Duchess was not "bare chested out in public" the question hardly seems relevant.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,042
If I was in Kate's position I wouldn't have taken my clothes off outside full stop. I wouldn't even do it indoors without making sure every blind was shut because I would be working on the premise that you simply can't always know when there is a lens pointing at you. I don't blame her as such but I am VERY surprised she wasn't more aware. BTW I am not saying this in hindsight as I can assure you that my very first instinct if I had ever joined a royal family would be a healthy paranoia of the paps.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 10-05-2012, 07:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,046
Why is this thread still open? The Ds of C have moved on...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
Why is this thread still open? The Ds of C have moved on...
I agree. It has outlived it life, far more than it should have. It is done. The Danish magazine made a fortune, which is why things like this are done. Catherine has moved one and, probably, know a whole lot more, now. Let us move on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
Why is this thread still open? The Ds of C have moved on...
Of course life goes on and William and Kate have never at any time let this affect their lives. I would be willing to bet though that this matter is far from filed in the ancient history files and their legal beagles are on top of all this still. The Cambridges are treating this like it is... a private, personal battle. Neither one of them has yet to issue a public statement on this issue and I'd be really surprised if they ever do.

The discussion here really makes me realize just how much legislation is needed to be curb infringements of privacy violations worldwide. This issue just adds to the many incidents that have made world news recently like NotW, Wikileaks and such.

I bet never in his wildest dreams would George Orwell have been able to dream up how big and nasty Big Brother has gotten eh?
__________________
“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
  #1173  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
Actually, you are asking for Big Brother. Ugly (and it is) or not the otherside is freedom. What happens has consequences, if you legislate to protect nonsense like this, you do curb freedom. You have to use your own brain (they have paid security, come on), not depend on restrictive rules.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 10-05-2012, 11:15 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I agree. It has outlived it life, far more than it should have. It is done. The Danish magazine made a fortune, which is why things like this are done. Catherine has moved one and, probably, know a whole lot more, now. Let us move on.
If this topic is so upsetting and annoying for you, why on earth do you keep visiting this thread? Just because you feel that the topic has 'died', doesn't mean the rest of us share in your opinion. You've voiced it several times, and as you can see, the thread goes on. Perhaps you ought to find a better way to spend your time, because there's no point being on a thread/forum that aggravates you.
__________________
"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
  #1175  
Old 10-05-2012, 11:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I agree. It has outlived it life, far more than it should have. It is done. The Danish magazine made a fortune, which is why things like this are done. Catherine has moved one and, probably, know a whole lot more, now. Let us move on.
I kind of doubt they made a fortune. Denmark is a pretty small country, and even taking all of Scandinavia into account after paying for the pictures and the cost of publishing a magazine the profits could not have been that large. Bigger than a normal issue might sell but fortune is questionable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:06 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Roslyn, you say: William is her husband, not her keeper. Unless he told her to take off her bikini against her wishes and against her protestations that there could be people watching, he cannot be responsible for her actions.


I think this an odd interpretation of my words. Reportedly, William, too, was 'undressed', which I don't find remarkable in any way, but he's escaped censure and public exposure. There is, of course, the usual double-standard operating here, as we saw when Prince Harry's nude photos were published. They were hard to escape and every one I saw, both in Australia and in the international press, had his buttocks obscured. Now, why would he have such an (understandable) courtesy offered and not Catherine? Harry had no expectation at all of total privacy, not that I think that his behaviour was particularly unusual for an exuberant young man in happy-go-lucky party mode.

The Duke and Duchess were sunbathing by a pool. This is hard to do indoors, and it's common enough when on holiday to want to catch some sun and even remove one's clothing. Of course they wouldn't have done so had either thought that there was the remotest posssibility of being spied upon. What the press did was unforgiveable. Even Richard Desmond criticised the decision to publish these illegally taken photographs, and he, we recall, made his fortune in pornography- from Penthouse to Readers' Wives. The big difference was apparent to him, too, to the extent that he suspended the editor of his Irish newspaper.

This is the crux of the issue - the so-called freedom of the press. It is not what was intended and the press needs to show that it's 'in the public interest' when it reports on the private lives of any individual. Apart from that, it's to ensure freedom from political intervention. It is not supposed to be a free-for-all to slander, besmirch and humiliate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:24 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 215
Just because something is "of interest to the public" does not mean it is "in the public interest". The two are not the same thing. And that is all I will contribute on this whole debacle...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:34 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Roslyn, you say: William is her husband, not her keeper. Unless he told her to take off her bikini against her wishes and against her protestations that there could be people watching, he cannot be responsible for her actions.


I think this an odd interpretation of my words. Reportedly, William, too, was 'undressed', which I don't find remarkable in any way, but he's escaped censure and public exposure.
My comment was in response to yours: "I cannot understand those who are defending the press and sheeting home blame to Catherine (not William, as I've noted) nor her protection unit."

Since it is mainly the photos of Kate in varying states of undress which are the subject of this controversy, and whether she should have taken off her bikini top and/or bottom, I took your comment to be referring to her alone. I doubt the sales of the magazines in question have been increased by the promise of photos of William in his bathing costume.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 10-06-2012, 04:46 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I agree. It has outlived it life, far more than it should have. It is done. The Danish magazine made a fortune, which is why things like this are done. Catherine has moved one and, probably, know a whole lot more, now. Let us move on.
Big words coming from someone who just can't stop commenting in the thread that has "outlived it's life".
No one is forcing you people to come in here; if u think the discussion is done then go to another thread.
__________________
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
  #1180  
Old 10-06-2012, 04:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
I believe the publictaion of these pics, the negative reaction to it and the topic of this article are just different sides of the same coin:

Orders pour in for Leicestershire jewellery maker since Duchess of Cambridge wore her earrings | This is Leicestershire

People are interested in Catherine. As she is not touchable for most of them, they look for some other sort of "connection" to her: seeing more of her, owning something she has as well, support what she supports. And some people simply want to feel they are superior to her, even in small matters - this is some sort of "connection" as well. So they critisized her or delight in the fact that they can have something she who has it all and in abundance - cannot have: personal freedom. And so they applaud those who take this freedom from her on invading her privacy, especially as they get more from her in the process.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history 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 olympic games olympics ottoman poland prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 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]