And so naked pictures of the royals are making the rounds again. This time Duchess Kate. Apparently she was topless at a private, secluded home located on a huge plot of land.
Was this any more a breech of privacy than Prince Harry's? Should the royal family have responded the same way with Harry's photo?
Lastly, should she have known better and need someone to "save her from herself"?
I find this to be very sad and definitely on par with Prince Harry. Both were in a location where they should be able to expect privacy. In Kate's case, the photographer went to great (illegal?) extremes whereas Harry's was just a misjudgment of trusting someone to respect his privacy.
As for saving her from herself, I have read multiple comments blaming Kate - "She should have known better." "Royalty can't expect privacy anywhere" and should behave accordingly.
I think they crossed so many lines. I feel very bad for Kate. I hope she can learn to cope with this and that the press learned some lessons from they way that they treated Diana
Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson
I was thinking about this earlier today and am glad that you brought the topic up for debate.
My personal feeling is that this is somewhat different than what happened with Prince Harry. He (or someone in his entourage) should have confiscated all cameras / camera phones before "playing". Would that have been considered an 'inconvenience' by some? Probably... but I would think that those hanging out with royals would be willing to expect some compromising to be necessary. While certainly, it was in a private setting those steps to insure privacy were lacking.
Duchess Kate, however, was supposedly on a private, secluded estate with her husband. If rumors are to be believed, they are also ttc. I believe in her case that she was in a position of presuming a right to privacy. I have not read how the photographer gained access but most reports are that he did so illegally (whereas Harry's "guests" were each invited.)
This whole topic reminded me of the previous debate on whether you (general you) have the right to privacy in your own backyard -- both for yourself and your children. Obviously, those stepping out naked on the terrace of their apartment do not have an expectation of privacy as much as someone living on a 1000 acres of land -- stepping out on the back deck of their home. Within that debate, it was argued that you do *not* have the right to privacy and your pictures *can* be taken (and published) without your permission anywhere outside of your own home.
I still disagree that should be allowed..... and do hope that the royals are able to win their lawsuit(s). Unfortunately, the $$ for these images continues to pile in and is unlikely to deter the paparazzi. For the rest of us, I wish WE could find a way to have reasonable expectations of privacy for our own families within our own property domain.
Last edited by MissyJ; 09-16-2012 at 09:28 PM.
I think that if you are in a place where you would have a reasonable expectation that no one should be able to see you (in your house, or on your land if your land is not within view of other neighbors, businesses, et cetera) and people basically have to tresspass to get a naked picture of you, then you absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I mean, people saying that "she should have known better" may as well say that about her within her own home, after all, it is possible that a maid or someone could sneak in her bathroom and snap a picture of her in the shower as well. I really see this as no different. I think it's different if you are staying somewhere where it is obvious that your neighbors or people nearby have an easy view into your yard. In my neighborhood, it would be crazy to walk outside topless and then act shocked if someone saw me and took my picture; my neighbors have an easy view of my yard and I know that. But on secluded grounds where no one should be? To me, that's no different from being inside. You have a reasonable expectation that no one will see you.
-Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)
Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.
This is definitely more of a breach of privacy than the Prince Harry pics. Prince Harry invited those people into his hotel room, didn't confiscate their cameras & cell phones (or his security people didn't) and then decided to remove his clothing right in front of them. Duchess Kate was somewhere she had an absolute expectation of privacy, a secluded estate surrounded on all sides by a minimum of half a mile of wooded areas. The Daily Mail says the photos were probably taken from the top of a car parked along a roadway from about half a mile away, the building itself is clearly visible, but it's so far you couldn't make anyone out with the naked eye. If you need that much of a long range lens to get the shot, it's illegal IMHO.
ETA: Sadly, I don't think the paparazzi are going to stop unless or until it becomes worthless for them to take these kinds of photos. The photographer should be jailed, the publisher should be jailed, and the fine should be every cent that issue of that magazine earned. Only with punishments like this, will it stop.
Last edited by Spacers; 09-17-2012 at 06:21 PM.
It takes 12 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of water to produce ONE POUND of beef.
Livestock generates 65% of all human-related nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more warming to the environment than carbon dioxide; 37% of all human-related methane, which 23 times as warming as CO2; and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
"If you care about the planet, it's actually better to eat a salad in a Hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius."
-- Bill Maher
Not that it makes the photographers actions any more ok, but that place isn't nearly as private as I envisioned it.
I think I would only stay at places completely out of view of any roads... You know, if I was a princess lol