17
   

Topless and Nude Royal Photos

 
 
firefly
 
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 10:42 pm
I'm a shameless Royal watcher. I enjoy looking at them, reading about them, watching interviews they give. Their lives, and their unique status, couldn't be further from my own, and maybe that's what makes them interesting to me. But lately, the world is getting to see a little too much of some Royals--literally.

When the nude photos of Prince Harry, at a Las Vegas hotel room party, surfaced, I felt badly, for him, that someone had betrayed his privacy to make a fast buck. I certainly felt he should be more cautious of the company he keeps, and how much of himself he reveals when he is not in the exclusive company of trusted associates. He was "exposed", in more ways than one, by someone in the room with him, and maybe it was foolish of him to be nude in such a situation. But, the man was at a party, and he wanted to have some fun.

I feel quite differently about the current situation regarding the topless photos of the Dutchess of Cambridge that are being plastered all over various European publications. These photos were taken with a high-power telephoto lens while the Duchess was in a situation, alone with her husband, and in a location where she had every expectation of privacy--and where she had a right to privacy. I feel quite sorry that this woman is being exploited in this manner by the greed of paparazzi and the tabloid press. I think it's disgusting.

It's not the end of the world to be seen topless, or even nude, but this is an effort to deliberately embarrass this woman, by invading her privacy in a publicly brutal way, and to what end? Is it just about the money to be made from these photos? Is it more than that?

I don't know whether the Royals should or shouldn't get special treatment from the media, beyond what would be accorded to any other celebrity or public figure, but I do think they are entitled to some privacy and some limits of decency when it comes to invading their privacy.

Beside the legal action the Cambridges are taking in France, is there anything else they can, or should, do to protect their privacy? This article seems to suggest there isn't much they can do--other than staying hidden behind closed doors, with the drapes closed, and investing in an indoor tanning machine, if they want to sunbathe and avoid tan lines. .
Quote:
Kate's right to be angry. But only King Canute would think privacy laws can hold back this tide
By Melanie Phillips
16 September 2012

The topless pictures that have been published of the Duchess of Cambridge are not just a repugnant invasion of her privacy.

They also represent a wake-up call — not just to the Royal Family but to everyone — that we inhabit an utterly changed information landscape. It’s now a media Wild West out there.

The pictures were taken of the Duke and Duchess, apparently from a road, by paparazzi with telephoto lenses as the royal couple sunbathed on holiday at Viscount Linley’s chateau in Provence.

Their decision to take legal action against the French magazine Closer which first published the pictures is entirely understandable.

For the photos represent an intolerable intrusion that simply cannot be justified. The attempt by Closer’s editor to justify publishing them, on the basis that they were charming scenes of a couple who were in love and that, anyway, topless sunbathing was no big deal, was specious and self-serving.

More urgently, the dread is that the Duchess will be stalked by the press and paparazzi as was Princess Diana, and will come to feel beleaguered and spied upon.

Voyeurism

Given the royals’ hyper-sensitivity to media intrusion as a result of the experiences of the late Princess of Wales, it is a matter of regret that the Cambridges, of all people, weren’t more cautious about assuming they could ever be safe from a prying camera lens.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Duchess has fallen victim to an intrusion for which there is no possible excuse. She was enjoying a private holiday in a private house.

Unlike the pictures of a naked Prince Harry, whose confidence was betrayed by strangers whom he had chosen to invite into his hotel suite, the pictures of the Duchess were taken by photographers spying on her in a private moment in order to make money out of public voyeurism

If the Duchess is bound to feel violated by such behaviour, the distress of Prince William must surely be far more acute.

For the echoes of the fate that befell his mother, Diana, who was actually fleeing from the paparazzi when she died in a Paris car crash in 1997, are all too painful.

In fact, the intrusion upon the Duchess is especially objectionable. It has to be said that Princess Diana courted and manipulated the media. By contrast, the Duchess has played an absolutely straight bat and, clearly valuing her privacy, has never sought any more publicity than her duties require.

William’s overwhelming concern that his wife should not be hounded as he believes his mother to have been is entirely understandable. And so it is right for the couple to try to prevent history repeating itself by drawing the firmest possible line in the sand.

Having said that, however, one wonders whether this is merely a gesture which will be washed away with the tide.

For the royals are seeking to curb the excesses of an anarchic, global media. And, frankly, they have as much chance of doing that as did Canute in attempting to hold back the waves.

These pictures have already been published not just in France but throughout Europe. At the weekend, the Irish Daily Star published 13 of them along with an image of the topless one published by Closer. Greece’s Eleftheros Typos news-paper published two photographs of the Duchess, one topless, on its front page.Some 200 pictures taken of the couple have been reportedly offered to publications around Europe.

And Chi magazine, an Italian rag which in 2006 sickeningly published a picture of the dying Princess Diana — and whose owner Mondadori also publishes Closer — has said it plans to publish today no fewer than 26 pages of these pictures.

Indeed, the issue here is not with the British press at all. Offered these pictures, every British paper has refused to touch them. This is because self-regulation here has worked.

Outlawed

Publication of such pictures — where those involved had a reasonable expectation of privacy and there was no public interest — is outlawed by the PCC code of practice. And the British press, which has significantly cleaned up its act since the death of Diana, knows the public would revolt against it.

By contrast France, where these pictures have been published, has a constitutional right to privacy.

Yet in practice, this statutory law of privacy protects the powerful — but throws everyone else to the media wolves.

Thus, French privacy law allowed former President Francois Mitterrand to conceal the existence of his secret mistress and their illegitimate daughter up to his death. And the French learned about the sexual proclivities of the disgraced former banker Dominique Strauss-Kahn only when he was accused of rape in New York.

Yet despite the fact that publication of these pictures is undoubtedly illegal in France, the editor of

Closer, like many others, will have have made the cynical calculation that the likely penalties would amount to far less than the financial rewards. Moreover, even if the royals succeed in stopping this or that paper from publishing any more pictures, or in sending any journalists to jail, the fact remains that — as with the pictures of Prince Harry at his strip billiards game — the internet has already sent many of these images of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge around the world.

All this demonstrates the utter futility of attempting to impose further controls on the British press when it is impossible to regulate a media that is now global and instantaneous.

Social media has now bust the very idea of a privacy law wide open. At his inquiry into press ethics, Lord Justice Leveson suggested that the issue of regulating Twitter and Facebook should be separated from regulating the press.

Control

He said he thought there was a difference between the online version of newspapers or magazines, and social media which merely hosted conversations between individuals. But many personalities have found to their dismay that activities they had hoped would remain private have been transmitted to the world through Facebook and Twitter.

Further regulation of the press would do nothing to protect individual privacy in the Twitter and Facebook age — but would merely hand yet another weapon to those who wish to control public debate.

Thus it is not surprising — even if it is deeply alarming — that Labour Party sources have revealed that a Labour government would implement statutory regulation of the press if Lord Justice Leveson recommends it.

Since Leveson himself has repeatedly said he is very alive to the danger of fettering a free press, it is to be hoped that he will not go down this road.

Whatever he concludes about regulating the press, however, the fundamental change produced by the internet is now a fact of life.

This means individuals have to change their behaviour accordingly. The royals need to assume that, whatever they may choose to do in a hotel room or on a private terrace, they cannot assume their behaviour will remain unremarked.

When asked last week by a child in Kuala Lumpur what his secret power would be if he were a superhero, Prince William replied that he would like to be invisible.

Given the scars he so obviously still bears from the traumatic events of his childhood, it was a poignant reply. But he cannot be invisible. He and his Duchess are a future King and Queen.

Rather than blow her top after the event, the best advice to the Duchess is keep it on in the first place. As with the British media, so it is with the royals: the best protection against violation of privacy is self-regulation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2204251/Kates-right-angry-But-King-Canute-think-privacy-laws-hold-tide.html#ixzz26mt3j7fo

Are we all just a camera click away from having our privacy invaded? Do we all have to watch and monitor ourselves all the time? Are we all living in a fishbowl, thanks to ubiquitous cell phone cameras and the internet?



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 10,928 • Replies: 152

 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 10:52 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I feel quite differently about the current situation regarding the topless photos of the Dutchess of Cambridge that are being plastered all over various European publications


with you it always turns out that men get the punishment that they deserve and women are victims. how about shocking me one day by saying some woman or another got what she deserved and the man in question was treated poorly....

Quote:
Do we all have to watch and monitor ourselves all the time?

God damn! these people are part of the royal family of a nation of people who are more extensively video surveilled than any other people on the planet. If they had a problem with always being on camera they would have objected long before now.......right?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
School teachers have gotten into trouble because someone with a cell phone took a photo of them, with a drink in their hand, or looking drunk at a party, and it wound up on Facebook.

We're all living in a fishbowl to some extent. Practically everyone is armed with a camera these days. Security and surveillance cameras are everywhere. I don't know how much real privacy anyone has left.

Granted, more people want to see pictures of the Royals, particularly voyeuristic photos, than want to see pictures of you and me. And they'll go to more lengths to get those photos, and rag sheets will pay more, and make more from them, than they would from photos of you and me. But the only real difference is that the Royals are in a much much bigger fishbowl than you or me.
Quote:
I they had a problem with always being on camera they would have said something long before now.......right?

I think the Duke and Dutchess of Cambridge thought they were alone on that balcony--which is why they behaved as if they were alone. Why on earth should they have thought someone had a camera, with a high-powered lens pointed at them? Shouldn't they have had an expectation of privacy in that situation? They were in a fairly secluded location. That wasn't the case with the nude photos of Prince Harry--he was at a party, he knew there were other people in the room with him.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:23 pm
@firefly,
the guy that shot the photo and sold it should be prosecuted hard.

that's the only way to slow this kind of crap down...

it's a blatant invasion of privacy.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:27 pm
@firefly,
the opposing view

Wake up, Kate; photogs are always watching


By Roland S. Martin,

Quote:
It would be great if celebs could be themselves. And it's terrible that folks can't drop the pretenses and have dinner with friends without thinking someone has a phone video camera on them and is capturing private remarks. But that world left us long ago, and it's not coming back. As long as photographers can reap six-figure pay days, and websites can rack up millions of page views and charge advertisers more money, every boob shot of a celeb will be shown.
Call it despicable and degrading, but it also creates a situation that requires common sense. Kate, unless you know for sure that no one else's prying eyes -- or camera -- will see you, don't sunbathe naked.
All of the screaming and righteous indignation won't do a darn thing to stop the next celeb or royal family member who chooses to show up in his or her birthday suit. Blame the photographer all day (and it's a job I would never want). But if she never takes the top off outside, we're not having this discussion

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/16/opinion/martin-topless-kate/index.html

personally I think that the Royals got the response all wrong...they should have said that there is nothing to be ashamed about and they are smart enough to know that photogs are everywhere so they dont mind the photo's.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:30 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

the guy that shot the photo and sold it should be prosecuted hard.

that's the only way to slow this kind of crap down...

it's a blatant invasion of privacy.


so what is the rule.....we can only take photos on property that we own? are you ready to lay charges on Google Earth for instance?
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
how about get a model release signed before you sell anything...

and if you wish to debate this, you need to find someone else.

you've **** on me one too many times Uncle Pervy...
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:41 pm
The british government should play hard ball, don't let the french media into the country or let them sell their rag there either. Isn't it bad enough french paparazzi killed Diana? Now they have to prove, beyond a doubt, they are the worst of the bottom feeders.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:43 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
how about get a model release signed before you sell anything...
A model by definition knows that the pic is being taken, in fact usually is posing for the pic. just today I was warning Builder to beware of A2K'ers who purposefully mis-use the English language in the attempt to push their view. Thanks for another illustration.
fresco
 
  6  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:43 pm
@firefly,
As Max Clifford pointed out, the photos of Kate are not the significant issue...security is. The guy with the camera could equally have had a gun.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:48 pm
@fresco,
exactly.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
you have no clue how releases work.

go jerk off somewhere else please...
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:51 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

Isn't it bad enough french paparazzi killed Diana?


DAMN WOMAN! You had better get Wiki fixed

Quote:
Although at first the media pinned the blame on the paparazzi, the crash was ultimately found to be caused by the reckless actions of the chauffeur, who was the head of security at the Ritz and had earlier goaded the paparazzi waiting outside the hotel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

oh wait, you are another one around here who swears by their fantasy life. I wouldn't want to try to wake you up with reality, just as with a sleep walker the results are unpredictable when successful.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 11:51 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

As Max Clifford pointed out, the photos of Kate are not the significant issue...security is.



that certainly turned out to be the case with Diana. Her lack of good sense was the critical flaw, a point which Kate might want to give some thought too.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 12:11 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
From one duchess to another.

Currently embroiled in a photo scandal (but maintaining a brave face), Kate Middleton is on the receiving end of some sympathy from an unexpected supporter: Duchess Sarah Ferguson, who once expressed hurt over her exclusion from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding guest list.

Ferguson, after all, can relate to Kate's situation. It was 20 years ago that she found herself in a similarly unwelcome spotlight, when racy pictures surfaced documenting her topless rendezvous with American businessman John Bryan.

"I have been there and know what it's like," the Duchess of York, 52, told the U.K.'s Daily Mail. "Everyone is entitled to privacy. It is a devastating invasion of one's personal inner space. It is deplorable, abhorrent and despicable."



Ferguson went on to compliment Middleton, 30, who arrived in the Solomon Islands Sunday as part of the royal couple's tour of South Asia. "She is a beautiful young woman doing a great job for the country," she said. "Why should she be stripped of that moment with her husband?"

Ferguson's own 1992 photo scandal came on the heels of her split from Prince Andrew – and preceded her more recent public shaming, in which she was caught in the middle of a cash-for-access scandal in 2010.

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20630631,00.html

Ferguson of course has never once been accused of having good sense.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 12:22 am
@Rockhead,
Quote:
you have no clue how releases work.

more often dont work....for a couple of years the schools we were in insisted that no pics could be taken of kids unless it was able to be demonstrated that a parent of each kid had signed a release, which effectively prevented any adult photography. then Myspace came along and the kids posted the pics themselves, taken by themselves, which made all of those zero tolerance "SAFETY!" adults into clowns
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 12:35 am
@hawkeye10,
Of course the paparazzi contributed to Princess Diana's death, even if they weren't immediately responsible for the crash in the way the driver was. There had been hoards of them outside the Ritz Hotel waiting for her. They even used a decoy car to lure some of them away.

You don't read WIKI very carefully either.
Quote:
On the night of 31 August 1997, Paul was under the influence of alcohol and trying to elude paparazzi photographers at high speed (estimated at over double the 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph) speed limit) when the Mercedes S280 he was driving crashed into a column supporting the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris, France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Paul


Princess Diana was literally hounded to death by the paparazzi. They even took photos of her dying in the car after the crash and those photos appeared in the same Italian rag Chi that just published 26 topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.

I don't blame Prince William for not wanting his wife subjected to the same sort of relentless and invasive paparazzi pursuit that his mother had to live, and die, with.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 12:48 am
@firefly,
Quote:
I don't blame Prince William for not wanting his wife subjected to the same sort of relentless and invasive paparazzi pursuit that his mother had to live, and die, with.


Diana would have amounted to nothing with out the paparazzi. Like Hollywood stars and wantabies the Royals have no choice but to make their peace with being constant targets of the photogs. The Royals no longer serve any purpose other than to feed celebrity culture.

Diana's great mistake was putting herself under the care of the Fayeds who had neither the competency nor the will to deal with the paparazzi...THAT is what got her into the pursuit, and her reckless driver (chosen by and I believe employed by the Fayeds) got her to dead.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 01:00 am
@fresco,
Quote:
As Max Clifford pointed out, the photos of Kate are not the significant issue...security is. The guy with the camera could equally have had a gun.

I think both the photos and security are an issue.

It's impossible to maintain complete security at all times. A lone gunman lurking at a considerable distance, in a location like the one William and Kate were in, can't always be detected. But the photos should be a wake-up call about security.

In their own way, the rag magazines and tabloids put a bounty on someone's head with the prices they pay for these photos, and the money they make from these photos, that's what fuels the paparazzi to hound and hunt these people like prey.
And that hunting, and stalking, can wind up jeopardizing the security and welfare of someone like Kate, just as it contributed to the death of Princess Diana.




0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 01:00 am
@hawkeye10,
The Royals no longer serve any purpose other than to feed celebrity culture.
Perhaps not quite . In Britain at least they are also functional in generating tourist and business revenue, and supporting some of the traditions surrounding the stability of that democracy.
 

Related Topics

nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Is taking his picture legal? - Question by aquestion
JPMorgan Chase Civil Settlement - Discussion by jcboy
Can babies be a crime scene? - Question by boomerang
Hush Money - Question by gollum
Zimmerman/Martin Case Updates - Discussion by gungasnake
Admissibility - Question by gollum
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Topless and Nude Royal Photos
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/21/2014 at 01:05:04