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

[COUNTESS]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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?

 

[COUNTESS]

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.

 

[Daria_S]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[Polly]

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.

 

[LauraS3514]

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...

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

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.

 

[Kataryn]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

Interesting point, Kataryn. I think you're right. And I believe there's a strong element of Tall Poppy Syndrome involved.

The article reminded me of something that amused me very much when I first saw it; on the main page of this site there is an ad informing us that we can own a replica of the Kate Middleton engagement ring. For so long it was distinguishable as Diana's engagement ring, but it's only taken this long to become known as Kate's. She is now the one everyone is interested in and wants to see and "own".

 

[Warren]

...It has outlived it life, far more than it should have. It is done...Let us move on.

Participation in discussions is not compulsory.
You have made 21 posts in this thread, 11 of them in the last five days.
While I'm certainly not discouraging further discussion, it seems rather pointless calling for others to "move on" while you continue to be an active participant.

 

[COUNTESS]

Just like a fly to a decomposing body. Administrators have closed far more interesting discussions, simply because they became, mentally, thought prevoking. Not the same overused words.

 

[cepe]

I haven't joined in this debate except to say that this couple are not celebrities. I missed the tour because I've been on holiday in the US. I've just watched the ITV programme on the tour.

The two camps in this thread - "privacy breached/against the law in France" vs "She (I think that is irritating because it should be they, but I'm not going to debate it ) should have known better" do not seem to be prepared to give ground - and there is no reason why you should.

However, my point is that NO ONE can deny that this couple behaved, under very difficult circumstances, in a most exemplary fashion on this tour and in the final analysis, they should be judged on how they do their job. And I think that they did GB proud. Professional, approachable, and great ambassadors.

 

[AdmirerUS]

However, my point is that NO ONE can deny that this couple behaved, under very difficult circumstances, in a most exemplary fashion on this tour and in the final analysis, they should be judged on how they do their job. And I think that they did GB proud. Professional, approachable, and great ambassadors.

I completely agree. As we say in the states, they are a class act. It was a pleasure to see two people their age cope so very well, support one another and do their job.

 

[Daria_S]

However, my point is that NO ONE can deny that this couple behaved, under very difficult circumstances, in a most exemplary fashion on this tour and in the final analysis, they should be judged on how they do their job. And I think that they did GB proud. Professional, approachable, and great ambassadors.

I completely agree. As we say in the states, they are a class act. It was a pleasure to see two people their age cope so very well, support one another and do their job.

I'm with both of you one hundred percent. They do the Royal Family and United Kingdom very, very proud, and as we had a chance to witness, can handle working under some rather nasty circumstances. The fact that they didn't let this occurrence consume their public lives says a great deal about how serious they are about their work and what is expected of them. They'll be a tough act to follow, that's for sure.

 

[VictoriaB]

The two camps in this thread - "privacy breached/against the law in France" vs "She (I think that is irritating because it should be they, but I'm not going to debate it ) should have known better".

I'm not sure it's as black & white as that.

I agree their privacy was breached, it should not have happened and the photographer should be prosecuted if that's what the French law is. I also think William and Kate made an error of judgement given the fact there is a history of this type of press behavior.

I don't think the two views are mutually exclusive.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Just like a fly to a decomposing body. Administrators have closed far more interesting discussions, simply because they became, mentally, thought prevoking. Not the same overused words.

That's about 22 threads in this topic you deem oh so trivial and redundant.

 

[Kit]

I'm not sure it's as black & white as that.

I agree their privacy was breached, it should not have happened and the photographer should be prosecuted if that's what the French law is. I also think William and Kate made an error of judgement given the fact there is a history of this type of press behavior.

I don't think the two views are mutually exclusive.

Great post! I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Osipi]

Just like a fly to a decomposing body. Administrators have closed far more interesting discussions, simply because they became, mentally, thought prevoking. Not the same overused words.

Kind of like lodging the same complaint over and over ad nauseum. I seriously think that if the moderators deem the thread a valid discussion, if you have any further beefs about it, take it up with them. Leave the thread to those that are honestly enjoyng the discussion please.

Thanks

 

[Artemisia]

I'm not sure it's as black & white as that.

I agree their privacy was breached, it should not have happened and the photographer should be prosecuted if that's what the French law is. I also think William and Kate made an error of judgement given the fact there is a history of this type of press behavior.

I don't think the two views are mutually exclusive.

I completely agree with you as well, VictoriaB.

The taking and subsequent distribution of the pictures was a violation of their privacy and those responsible should be persecuted if that's what the French law states. However, they should have known better. Removing ones bikini bottoms outside is never a good idea, even less so if you happen to be one of the most photographed people in the world.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Topless Kate Middleton spins web of intrigue - Telegraph
Not sure what's going on here

True royal watchers aren't looking at topless photos of Kate | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

True royal watchers aren't looking at topless photos of Kate.

 

[Osipi]

Not sure what's going on here

After reading the article I have no clue either. I am glad though that the website has disappeared.

 

[Daria_S]

True royal watchers aren't looking at topless photos of Kate | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

True royal watchers aren't looking at topless photos of Kate.

They got that right. Out of respect for Her Highness (and in general), I won't look at those types of pictures. It's bad enough they're out there.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, this is what I believe as well. I hope that the photographer/s are punished as strongly as the laws allow.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the pictures taken with a long-distance camera were published in a magazine called "Closer"?

I agree their privacy was breached, it should not have happened and the photographer should be prosecuted if that's what the French law is. I also think William and Kate made an error of judgement given the fact there is a history of this type of press behavior.

I don't think the two views are mutually exclusive.

 

[Polly]

Of major, on-going concern is the function and proper role of the press and the way in which it intrudes and manipulates. The Duchess was a victim of inappropriate exploitation and thus became the catalyst for the current debate. That is why the discussion is an important one: Catherine's role is of primary concern as her debasement was the means to an unethical and humiliating outcome. This is why the 'she shouldn't have done it' chorus was well off the mark, in my opinion: the entire point was lost on them.

We know that porn is readily available on the internet, but transnational humiliation was partly the name of this game. In sum, to my mind, debasement of any human being equals ultimate porn.

​

 

[COUNTESS]

This is a legitimate question, do you think they did this to humiliate her or to just sell whatever the junk they sell, because it would be sensational to some degree. I agree they didn't do this for porn. I, also, question that it may have been humiliating to Catherine, was that the intent? It is debasing, no question, I am just wondering at the actual motive and I, just, IMHO think it was quick cash.

 

[Roslyn]

I believe the motive was quick cash, nothing more. I doubt the photographer/s had any intention of debasing Catherine. They just saw an opportunity to flog some photos of her nekkid. Nekkid royalty = cash. Simple as that.

If they intended to do it for porn, it's very bad porn. Though of course I haven't seen the video; maybe it's actually very good porn. And anyway, is pornography necessarily debasing? I don't think so, but I'm sure this is another subject about which we would get a very wide range of opinions here.

 

[COUNTESS]

I believe the motive was quick cash, nothing more. I doubt the photographer/s had any intention of debasing Catherine. They just saw an opportunity to flog some photos of her nekkid. Nekkid royalty = cash. Simple as that.

If they intended to do it for porn, it's very bad porn. Though of course I haven't seen the video; maybe it's actually very good porn. And anyway, is pornography necessarily debasing? I don't think so, but I'm sure this is another subject about which we would get a very wide range of opinions here.

Oh, I never thought it was porn. Catherine is stunning, but not the crap porn addicts, usually, look at, of course, what do I know. I don't even know that the photographer knows the word debase. I think he knows quick, big cash. None of this makes it right.

 

[cepe]

The photographer probably did it for cash. The question is - why did the publishers publish??

In the UK publishers are political and all have agendas but I don't know about the case in Europe.

Interesting perspective COUNTESS.