The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 12-22-2009, 12:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197

Centrepoint is NOT on the royals private property and that is where the issue of the photographs comes in - the Queen has objected to photos of the royals off duty on their own property being photographed.

There is a difference to that and having a photograph taken while being in a public place.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 12-22-2009, 05:42 PM
Opal's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coastal, Ireland
Posts: 2,520
Good point Iluvertie. It sounds like the press is bitter about not being able to take photos of the royal family anymore at their private estate Sandringham, hence the nasty article.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 01-15-2010, 07:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Some more about the case against the photographer:
Roy Greenslade: Photographer at the centre of Kate Middleton controversy | Media | guardian.co.uk

Quote:
It is even suggested that he was responsible for trying to obtain pictures of the Middleton family during their Christmas lunch. It is claimed that he was spotted with his camera outside the window of the Middletons' home
I really hope this bit turns out to be false, it must have been awful if it is true.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 01-15-2010, 07:41 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Quote:
It is claimed that he was spotted with his camera outside the window of the Middletons' home
Kate spent Christmas at Restormel Manor in Cornwall. Which is not her home.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 01-16-2010, 09:05 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Your opinion is your and that is fine but I will agree to disagree for the following reasons:

Like you stated she is not a Princess yet she is a privite person with a right to have Christmas lunch at a table with her family on private property with out having to move it or having someone (job or not) take a photo of her up to the window or form up in a tree it is a invasion of privacy at least.

What do you mean if she had issued a statement asking not to have pictrues taken of her? For that matter if you were looking at this form the point of she could be the next princess or maybe some day Queen should she really have to ask for privacy and above all respect???

Your talking about a woman who covers her face when out on daily events. Last year the Middleton family left the country for Christmas to avoid the media. This year they rented a private home, also she has filied complaints in past years for lesser days( meaning Christmas is a holiday) Why would they not think she would have a second thought about suing.

While it might be a fine line in court IMO it will not make it to court they will most likely settle outside of court like last time. I do thing that when she steps out with William she exspects to have photos taken but when she is not with him have some rights as a person.

I don't even want to comment on the Diana being a healer part of your post... she was a wonderful person who did great things for charity but a healer and the compairison to Christ??


Quote:
Originally Posted by piano View Post
Mermaid,

I think W. wants to extend this to his girlfriend too. However, in public perception, she's not a Princess yet so that warning didn't extend to her and it's sort of a test in how she'll be able to handle the press.

The royal family issued a notice about being photographed at Christmas but I didn't hear about one being issued by the Middletons. Maybe if they had, and asked for privacy and respect, it would be different.

If someone went onto private property and pressed their lens against the glass to take photos of Christmas lunch, that would be one thing, but how were they taking photos of lunch through the windows and this was so bad, if they were always on public property? Maybe they shouldn't have had lunch by the window if it's that easy to photograph, or, if its long lens, which I do think is sort of different...how were they to know they'd be sued over it? In their minds, they were doing their job and got some good photos, and might make money off of them, and then they get hit with an injunction. So the stake-out was a waste of time, which I'm sure doesn't hurt them, but I don't think they had notice beforehand.

I think it will be a fine line, in courting the press and respecting their work, and also keeping healthy boundaries up. I agree that the more that can be done to keep up boundaries or make new ones, is good. If they are reassured by a "coming out" now and then, that should be enough. But I mentioned the tree thing because for some people, it's really that important, that someone they admire so much, is accessible to them and they might even climb a tree to get their attention. Even papparazi. Let's just hope no one gets the idea to climb a tree and enter in through a bedroom window. !
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 01-16-2010, 09:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Kate is a private person.

She was having Christmas lunch on private property.

She was playing tennis on private property.

She is NOT public property. We do NOT own her.

She has as much right to privacy as anyone else.

If someone decided to stand on the street, up a tree or anywhere else to take photos of me while I was doing private things I would be suing the pants off them.

Kate should be able to go about her business without the intrusion of the press who only want to take photos to sell to magazines etc who believe that the general public want to have these photos.

The general public have to wake up and realise that these people are still people and have rights to privacy, especially on Christmas Day when having lunch with their family.

I wonder if it really is William dragging his feet or whether Kate is shying away from the publicity side of things and will remain the 'girlfriend' for another 5 or so years until the biological clock says - 'Now or never'. Then again they might never marry and just live together leaving no direct heirs. A relationship like Andrew and Sarah, without having had the heirs first.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 01-17-2010, 06:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
When Diana was hounded by the press on a daily basis she was protected by that Human Rights Act, which came into force in 1998.
Yes she's a private citizen, but even without William there she is still his girlfriend, she should expect to be followed, and to be photographed. Do you think newspapers and magazines care about stalking, a photograph of Kate Middleton is worth the sacking of a photographer if it comes to that.
Sorry but how could Diana had been protected by the Human Rights Act if it came into force in 1998?!!!!! Diana died in 1997! (Caroline of Monaco didn't get her judgement until 2002 and that's the one that established even public figures have a right to privacy)

So in your opinion since Kate is William's girlfriend she is entitled to fewer legal rights and protection than any other European citizen, including royals. No other citizen in Europe, royal or otherwise, is allowed to be followed and photographed against their will, but Kate is? British magazines and newspapers aren't all that interested in having pictures which are obvious paparazzi photos and hence the ones the Middletons are taking action over were never published in the UK.

The paparazzi are freelancers, they can't get sacked! They sell their pictures to agencies (which is why the legal action is also against Rex Features) and they sell them on. (Or in Sienna Miller's case she sued the paparazzi agency, and now none of their photographers can take photos of her)

Now if you personally as a private citizen have no problem being photographed from a distance by a total stranger, or have a total stranger try to take a photo of you from outside a window and then sell that photo. Then that's fine, that's your choice, the Middletons (all of whom are private citizens) on the other hand have chosen not to be photographed in their private sphere and are taking legal action, as is their right.
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 01-17-2010, 07:10 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
All I'm saying is she doesn't have the right to moan about getting pictured.
Yes she can sue who she likes, but don't make a fuss about it.
My reference to the act, was that she couldn't of been protected by it before her death, or marriage, because it wasn't there.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 01-17-2010, 07:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
All I'm saying is she doesn't have the right to moan about getting pictured.
Yes she can sue who she likes, but don't make a fuss about it.
My reference to the act, was that she couldn't of been protected by it before her death, or marriage, because it wasn't there.

Of course she has the right to moan about getting pictured.

She is a private individual with the same right to privacy as you or me.

How would you feel if you were sitting down to Christmas Dinner with your family and some photographer took photos of you to sell? You wouldn't like it and would complain about it, wouldn't you?

Kate is a private person, who happens to be the Queen's grandson. If he is entitled to privacy then so is his girlfriend. Even more so as she is simply the girlfriend and nothing more.

She has every right to establish the boundaries and I wish that more public figures would do so to stop the ghoulish pleasure many people in the public get out of photos of these people doing ordinary things.
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 01-17-2010, 07:37 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
I'm sorry but for one i'm not dating the Queens Grandson, he comes with press, thats his "baggage".
They've been together 8 years, no engagement the press are getting anxious.
If I was in Kates shoes and I was the one being photographed, yes I'd sue, but I would've expected this to happen.
When she has a title, she can moan.
Thats my opinion.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 01-17-2010, 08:04 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom
Posts: 46
I think it's horrible how some people think she should put up with not being allowed a private holiday or any private moments. I'm surprised she hasn't sued these parasites before. So what if she is dating the Queens grandson, even if she marries him, it doesn't give anyone the right to take pictures when she is just living her life. God it's people with that belief that contributed to the death of the princess.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 01-17-2010, 09:59 AM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
I agree,to a point but, I was being smart to my friend with a dry sense of humor ... sorry next time I will PM it ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You know I took it as a simple acknowledgement that along with the families the girlfriends also knew what the young men had gone through rather than a specific reference to Kate.
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 01-17-2010, 10:22 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
I'm sorry but for one i'm not dating the Queens Grandson, he comes with press, thats his "baggage".
They've been together 8 years, no engagement the press are getting anxious.
If I was in Kates shoes and I was the one being photographed, yes I'd sue, but I would've expected this to happen.
When she has a title, she can moan.
Thats my opinion.
To be honest I don't understand your point. Do you mean if one day they do marry and she is a public figure then she has the right to complain but now when she is a private individual she doesn't?

IMO I'm sure she does know that she will be photographed when she is out and about in public places, attending events with William, at clubs or watching William playing polo etc and imo she deals with it all quite well. Being photographed during your Chirstmas holidays with your family while on private property is another matter altogether, especially when the Royal Family are able to demand no photographs be taken of them while doing private things during their holidays.
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 01-17-2010, 10:28 AM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
Being photographed during your Chirstmas holidays with your family while on private property is another matter altogether, especially when the Royal Family are able to demand no photographs be taken of them while doing private things during their holidays.

I think you have made the best statement yet on this thread. Hit the nail on the head. Thank you....
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 01-17-2010, 03:01 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opal View Post
I don't think so. I'm sure William wasn't the only one who had a girlfriend out the group of young men. Charles was obviously aware that none of the young men were married yet (I'm sure he found out beforehand), as he didn't mention "wives". Hence, he said "your parents and girlfriends".

Maybe, Maybe Not, who knows it was a nice gesture to all then. right...
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 01-17-2010, 03:16 PM
Opal's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coastal, Ireland
Posts: 2,520
Yes Lady Ann it was a nice gesture to all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
Being photographed during your Chirstmas holidays with your family while on private property is another matter altogether, especially when the Royal Family are able to demand no photographs be taken of them while doing private things during their holidays.
Just to clarify, the Middleton's were on a commercial property.
I don't care if the Middleton's sue the press, that is certainly their right. However, I wish they would stop dragging the Royals into their personal issue. It's as if they're using the Queen's statement a while ago as their "excuse" for suing. The Queen was not referring to wherever the Middleton's spend their holiday. The Royal Family were referring to their own private property at Sandringham. The Queen is trying to put a stop to papparrazzi always sneaking onto her private estate to take photographs.
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 01-17-2010, 04:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
How are the Middleton's using the Queen's statement?
They are demanding the same rights as any other private family whereas the Queen's family is a public family.
If the Queen can have privacy on her private property why can't private individuals have privacy on private property that they are using at the time?
What you seem to be suggesting is that the Queen can ask for privacy but private individuals can't.
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 01-17-2010, 04:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
It doesn't matter if the property is available to rent or not, it is still not public property. They have as much right to be able to go about their daily lives without being photographed there as they do in their own home. They were not playing tennis on a public tennis court, they were not eating their Christmas lunch (if that turns out to be true) in a public dining hall, they were in a property that they had rented (or if the daily star is right, were given) for the holidays.

How are they dragging the Royals into their personal mess exactly? The only reason that Kate is being photographed is because of her relationship with William, if anything William being Royal is what dragged Kate into this (yes I know she has a choice). The Queen is trying to put a stop to the paparazzi, so is Kate. Why is it OK for the Queen to demand no photos during Christmas (which mostly are taken from the roads and not by people sneaking onto the property) and not for Kate? And while the Queen may or may not have meant for Kate to be included in her warning the British press seem to have included her as not one of them published the photos.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 01-17-2010, 04:38 PM
Opal's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coastal, Ireland
Posts: 2,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
How are the Middleton's using the Queen's statement?
In the articles they made many references to Royalty including the Queen's statement she made awhile ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
They are demanding the same rights as any other private family whereas the Queen's family is a public family.
I never said they couldn't. Quite the opposite, I said "that is certainly their right".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If the Queen can have privacy on her private property why can't private individuals have privacy on private property that they are using at the time?
This is not a private property. It's not owned by a private individual. It is run by the Duchy of Cornwall entity and let out to the public. It has nothing to do with their right of suing or not, I was just clarifying that it is a commercial property since people keep calling it a private property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
What you seem to be suggesting is that the Queen can ask for privacy but private individuals can't.
No I was not suggesting that nor did I say that.
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 01-17-2010, 05:07 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
About the Duchy - The Duchy of Cornwall Cottages
The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate which funds the public, charitable and private activities of The Prince of Wales and his family. The Duchy consists of around 54,521 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. Restormel Manor is one of the most historic and cherished houses owned by the Duchy of Cornwall and sits within the heart of the Duchy of Cornwall's historic estate approximately 1 mile from the attractive medieval town of Lostwithiel.

So although it is not the POW private property it is a private estate of the Duchy of Cornwall. Which was either rented by the Middleton's (kate) or gifted for Chrismas or should I say gifted to Kate and in fact it is Kate that is suing the press not the Middletons. I think as a private person Kate has more right to say don't take my photo then any one in the Royal Family.... you know with them being Public figures and all not that I think them Public property. like some IMO of course. Anyway, this could go on for ever before the mods come and tells us to move on maybe we should.

oh just becuse an articale say "the statement of the Queen" or makes a refrence to Royalty does not mean that Kate is using those details in her law suit.
__________________

__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
chelsy davy, kate middleton, paparazzi, prince harry, prince william, tabloid press


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Haakon and ex Girlfriends sm1939 Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 57 11-12-2015 09:11 PM
Prince Felipe's Ex-Girlfriends Lorraine King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 278 03-18-2015 08:03 AM
William, Harry and their Scottish Identity rob2008 Prince Harry and Prince William 24 08-03-2011 12:37 AM
Did the press "marry off" all Princes to their current girlfriends? EmmieLou General Royal Discussion Archive 6 07-04-2006 05:16 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail farah diba fashion and style fashion poll grand duke jean greece infanta elena jewels kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week power prince bernhard prince charles princess charlotte of cambridge princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises