Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 4: Sept 2012 - Feb 2013

[XeniaCasaraghi]

To the people who insist WnK are up in arms about this I would like to understand what is going on in your head. No where was it said that either of them are upset or are taking action. So why this desire to paint William in particular as livid over this situation and some kind of bully?
As for just accepting this crap because they are rich and have nice lives, what is the deal with this mentality? Because someone has money they should just lie back and accept people using them and invading their lives? These are human beings not zoo animals! Not expressing opposition to such actions would come off as accepting them; and no matter what a few jealous magazine readers feel about my life of luxury, I would never accept being treated like an animal because people think I'm a celebrity.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Surely you jest. I would never pass up an opportunity to snap a future Queen of England in a bikini, pregnant or not. I can't say that I would not offer it for sale, either.

If we can't be honest, we can't be anything.

In the spirit of honesty then, would you ask permission, first seeing as they are not "at work" I.e. not on an official visit for the Crown? If not, what bad manners ! And then to sell such pictures.....

[angela]

They aren't at work when they are pictured out shopping or she's watching him play polo etc but the media in the UK publish these so why didn't they publish the holiday or the Christmas day pics? there is no difference. The only ones that were controversial IMO were those topless ones. Really don't know what the big fuss is. Maybe they don't like getting there pics taken but life isn't perfect for anyone and as long as the pics are't embarrassing or hurtful it's nothing to the inconveniences most people in the world have to endure.

[Trillian]

This is the same media "scrum" that is subject to the Leveson Inquiry regarding their "ethical practices", yes?

[Alison H]

I don't think anyone finds the idea of bikini photos distasteful, but it must be pretty annoying not even to be able to walk along a beach on holiday without photos being taken of you and ending up on the front pages of magazines.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Security:
IF you believe last year's DM article about the Middleton Mustique holiday, the Middletons borrow a 3-5 BR resort from a friend. It is called Aurora. You can see it here - down to a floor plan and video tour: Mustique - Aurora

Did anyone notice the contact details for Aurora?

UK Office
pippa@mustique

[HRHHermione]

Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE

Did anyone notice the contact details for Aurora?

UK Office
pippa@mustique.vc
Tel +44 207 201 6831

Is posting that information allowed on these boards? Everywhere else I post frowns on the posting of email addresses and phone numbers.

[blauerengel]

Originally Posted by cepe

A couple of points

1. Let's just say that on this Forum there are differences of opinion between some Australians and UK/European and leave it at that.

2. Even if William decided to give up his royal status, there is no way he suddenly becomes an ordinary person. He would have unique status and he and Catherine would still be targeted. Naive to think otherwise.

3. They should have stayed at home

4. He is 6' 4"

I agree with 1/2/3 &4,but I believe they also deserve holydays like everyone else

at 2.:If they became private citizens they would lose most of the protection&bodyguards,the press would be even more intrusive than now-If you remember,Diana has been much more followed after her divorce but didn´t believe she needs so much security,which was a mistake (I know its a futile comment but I still find it very sad that she passed away)

[cepe]

I think that key royals would have protection for ever. Like ex prime ministers and presidents. Diana should never have turned down the protection offered.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

Is posting that information allowed on these boards? Everywhere else I post frowns on the posting of email addresses and phone numbers.

I would imagine that as its a public information number, posting it doesn't really do any harm. Kind of like posting the address for Buckingham Palace if someone inquired about it. But then again, I could be wrong.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

Is posting that information allowed on these boards? Everywhere else I post frowns on the posting of email addresses and phone numbers.

That email appears to be part of an advertisement placed on the purposely over the internet for the purposes of selling vacation time, rather than revelation of a private email.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

To the people who insist WnK are up in arms about this I would like to understand what is going on in your head. No where was it said that either of them are upset or are taking action. So why this desire to paint William in particular as livid over this situation and some kind of bully?
As for just accepting this crap because they are rich and have nice lives, what is the deal with this mentality? Because someone has money they should just lie back and accept people using them and invading their lives? These are human beings not zoo animals! Not expressing opposition to such actions would come off as accepting them; and no matter what a few jealous magazine readers feel about my life of luxury, I would never accept being treated like an animal because people think I'm a celebrity.

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

[AfricanAUSSIE]

There, I have removed the phone number and the end of the email address, will that do?

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

You are too much Giraffe!!

[Sun Lion]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Surely you jest. I would never pass up an opportunity to snap a future Queen of England in a bikini, pregnant or not. I can't say that I would not offer it for sale, either.

If we can't be honest, we can't be anything.

Poor you KittyAtlanta - seems your post has brought a bit of Forum "heat" your way.

I'm with you and would snap off a few photos if I was in a situation to do so.

(I have many "exclusive"photos of CP Mary of Denmark, taken by me, from her last visit - one of them is my avatar.)

But when I went to see Prince William, in Sydney before his wedding, I didn't bother to take my camera.

That was a bit silly really, as much to my amazement, I was able to watch his entire speech with no-one around me and with a totally unobscured view.

I found a position on a small rise just behind the two tents that had been put up to block the un-paying/un-invited masses away from the function he was attending.

All the other "masses" crowded up outside where he had gone in.

Which brings up the security issues some have raised, as in this case - (it was outdoors and he faced me the entire time and I was close enough to hear every word of his speech) - if I had been a different kind of person, there was a ten or so minute opportunity with no security or police around.

I think this must have been some kind of failing, as there were certainly a lot of obvious security agents swarming about as he entered and then as he left.

I sat on the grass amongst them as they milled about after he was driven away, so I think they just didn't realise this vunerability, and were concentrating on watching those people who attended and were in the closed off area with him.

Anyway, happy to admit I will be skipping down to my corner store Monday morning to buy the "Woman's Day".

I've got the "Honeymoon" issue, so will stash the "Babymoon" issue with it.

This is such a long post, but want to say I found a "New Idea" I had still, with Princess Beatrice of York on the cover - two photos in swimsuits, before and after her weight loss, with four pages inside, three of which are just photos of her on holiday in her swim-wear.

Also want to say I wasn't offended by your use of "shut up" Duke of Marmalade - normal everyday expression here - totally inter-changeable with "they should keep quiet", "they should not draw attention to" etc.

Best Wishes Fellow Posters, Sun Lion.

[royalistbert]

The sooner the 19th comes the better.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

How big were the "masses" Sun Lion?

[Tiggersk8]

I have literally just spent the better part of an hour w/my mouth dropping lower and lower over some of the posts that..that...that...I can't say what I'd love to say, as I'd get banned, so will have to do w/certain members have posted.

My God...Some of you really need to be stalked to get it I think. I have been. I have always said I would never wish that Hell on anyone, but I'm starting think there are some on here who need to be, if only for one day. Just so they can get a swift kick in the butt w/some compassion.

And as for the "Well...There are camera phones everywhere now, so that's okay" excuse. ...Words fail me!! No, it't NOT okay to take a picture of someone w/out their knowledge when they aren't "on duty", such as William and Kate were here.

It's not that hard a concept to figure out. However, I guess if you're a part of the ever growing and sad majority of "Well, they're famous, so they're just asking to get a picture taken regardless of where they are" stupidity, then I worry for our Future. It just seems that what is really wrong is okay these days and what's worse is no one seems to realize that anymore. Or if they do, then they're "not cool or not living in reality".

Sorry for the rant, but nothing makes me see red then this issue. As I said, I've been there and it's not fun.

Originally Posted by casualfan

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to live vicariously thru them. I look at their fashion, I read about their work, and I'm interested in royal history. I have no interest in seeing their every move, especially if it's private.

And by the way, I despair of this situation because it represents a troubling combination of disrespect, unreasonableness, breach of privacy, and an abandonment of common decency-some of the qualities that I associate with man-made disasters like famine, too.

Exactly!! Just because they're famous, doesn't mean we need to be in their faces 24/7 and there are lines that shouldn't ever be crossed. Sadly, that's happening all the time these days.

Originally Posted by MichelleQ2

I have an issue with 'public' beaches being the mitigating factor that they shouldnt be surprised for being photographed. The beaches are open to the guests of a private island.

This is not your typical caribbean vacation. Will & Kate vacationed on an island that is promoted as a private island where paparazzi are not tolerated
www.mustique-island.com/

It is a reasonable expectation that their privacy along with the others on the island should be protected.

I am sure the person who sold the pictures will never be welcome back.

Thank you for saying that. If it was an actual public beach, then... However, it wasn't. It's a private island, meaning private beaches, meaning an expectation of privacy period!!!

Originally Posted by Trillian

That's what I don't understand either. If more people do what I did, i.e. STOP buying these puerile publications, then just maybe they could be left alone occasionally. Good G*d, they are Hunan beings, not wind up toys or mannequins!

Well said!!

Originally Posted by royalistbert

Is it not much to ask for some PRIVACY? When your entire life is in the spotlight. I don't blame them wanting some privacy. I think some posters need to understand that having your entire life in the spot light since you were born it's nice for once in a while to get away from the cameras. The only pics they probably expected was them stepping of the plane like last year and nothing else.

This!! I'm sure this is exactly what they were expecting. Sadly, didn't happen. :(

[cinrit]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

Actually ... and sadly ... the answer is yes, since in the U.S., animals are considered property. Zoo animals are then considered public property, since most zoos charge an admission price, and all zoos exist for the "viewing entertainment" of the public.

Originally Posted by Sun Lion

(I have many "exclusive"photos of CP Mary of Denmark, taken by me, from her last visit - one of them is my avatar.)

But when I went to see Prince William, in Sydney before his wedding, I didn't bother to take my camera.

That was a bit silly really, as much to my amazement, I was able to watch his entire speech with no-one around me and with a totally unobscured view.

In both instances that you cite, Mary and William were "on the job", in public, performing duties. The Cambridges were in public, granted ... but they were on vacation on a private island where they should have been able to have an expectation of privacy. But I doubt the fact that pictures showed up
surprised them in the least.

[Baroness of Books]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

On behalf of all zoo animals, I take offense. Is it okay for you to photograph me because I'm cute and not human?

Ah, Gracie, trust you to address this issue from a giraffe's point of view!