Will She Be Staying In A Hotel With...
News5 mins ago
Topless Kate Pics: Are We Being 'Denied'?
I will declare immediately that I do not buy so called raunchy magazines etc of naked young ladies, even if I do find the sight very attractive.
Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.
Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.
So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?
Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?
***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***
Let's face it, there is an absolute frenzy throughout the world, including many in the UK, for tittilating (no pun) snaps of beautiful female celebrities.
Sexist? Maybe. True? Yes. There's normally very few rules - if any - and magazines are virtually given carte blanche to flout any laws of decency in order to satisfy the demand. I include the UK in this from what I've seen.
So why don't our editors just employ the old press mantra, i.e. "Publish and be damned!" just because Kate has married an heir to the throne? Does she not merely come into "celebrity" catalogue, and is therefore 'fair game'?
Or is she suddenly transformed into an 'untouchable' for having married into royalty? Let's face it, had it been Anne or Camilla, apart from any photographer being unhinged in the first place, no one would have batted an eyelid (or opened it) would they?
***PS: Yes, I'm well aware of the 'privacy' / 'intrusion' / 'royal' arguments***
Answers
William and Kate should be thankful that he's not the heir to the throne of Swaziland. The king there, and one of his many wives, have to perform a very private act in the full glare of the public gaze in order to ensure the harvest.
07:56 Mon 17th Sep 2012
Celebrities are not 'fair game'. But they have been known to tip off photographers, so that 'private' photographs get them in the papers. Why do you think that a celebrity photographed as the Duchess was should, or would, have no redress or right to complain? Or that the world should see the photographs ?
jane,
I haven't seen the pics, although I haven't gone out of my way to search for them.
Fred,
I have mixed feelings about it in all honesty. On the one hand I do recognise the need for privacy, but on the other I also believe that she's incredibly naive for flaunting herself in the first place - and, yes, I also realise that it happened on private property.
I haven't seen the pics, although I haven't gone out of my way to search for them.
Fred,
I have mixed feelings about it in all honesty. On the one hand I do recognise the need for privacy, but on the other I also believe that she's incredibly naive for flaunting herself in the first place - and, yes, I also realise that it happened on private property.
naomi,
I'd agree with your 'So what!' comment were it not for the royals themselves immediately pursuing it through the courts. I think that sums it up, really, ever since Diana's death in particular, they try to jealously guard their privacy.
Many people, though, choose to apparently believe that they are indeed 'fair game', the youngsters particularly, because they do court publicity when it suits - remember the Olympics? There was hardly an event where we didn't see Wills, Kate and Harry.
It could be claimed that this then is nothing more than a foot stamp at having been 'caught out'? Can they have it all ways - publicity only on their terms? Or are they indeed 'fair game'?
I'd agree with your 'So what!' comment were it not for the royals themselves immediately pursuing it through the courts. I think that sums it up, really, ever since Diana's death in particular, they try to jealously guard their privacy.
Many people, though, choose to apparently believe that they are indeed 'fair game', the youngsters particularly, because they do court publicity when it suits - remember the Olympics? There was hardly an event where we didn't see Wills, Kate and Harry.
It could be claimed that this then is nothing more than a foot stamp at having been 'caught out'? Can they have it all ways - publicity only on their terms? Or are they indeed 'fair game'?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.