What are your thoughts about papprazzi 's photos of Kate?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (40 posts)
  1. moneyfairy profile image60
    moneyfairyposted 11 years ago

    I think it is so sad that she is trying to do everything right and some idiot photographer can't even give her privacy in a stone walled gated  house??? That photographer must have had to climb up a tree to get those photos just sick. Anyway will she ever have any privacy again???What a life for her. I wonder if she'll start regretting marrying into the Royal family?

  2. Reality Bytes profile image76
    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    She is not doing everything right,  She had her tatas out, and now pics of the tatas are out.  Whose fault is it?  The little princess with the exposed tatas.


    I do not see the big deal, really their no big deal!  lol

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But she was in a gated supposed private house, she wasn't hanging out at a local beach or right there on the street??Well I guess she'll never do that again...She thought being out of the public and in a private residence that she'd be safe...how sick must a photgrapher be to invade that privacy??Wonder how much they got from that French magazine and italian etc... and if that photographer will go to jail for invation of privacy?Will Kate go country by country suing the magazines posting those pic's???Oh well I guess she didn't realize what a big price she would have to pay to be part of the Royal family... Not quite the princess life she expected..... And you are very right that they are no big deal ,it's just the matter of invation of privacy...that's all !!

      1. Reality Bytes profile image76
        Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        She could obviously be seen from the road, as part of the parasitic Royal family, she should be more than aware of the sycophantic following she would endure.  The Royals do not seem to mind  the countless publicity pics that the world is exposed too.  They enjoy that form of attention yet they wish to determine where the public's curiosity ends.  Every celebrity should be aware that their image is similar to gold, the more embarrassing the higher the value.  Every public move they make is sure to be documented, this is nothing new to the Royal family though!  Being seen from a public place is just the same as being in public.  Even if she was behind fifty foot fences, aerial shots are just as profitable.  The reason that their are topless pics of Kate being distributed is because She removed her top!

        1. moneyfairy profile image60
          moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well I never have seen The Queen Mum or Queen Elizabeth with nude pic's  just Diana and Kate and Fergie w/ that Texan smile. But you are right she should never have taken her top off and she probably never will again.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The photographer was half a mile away...

          Tacky what some will do for money...

          1. moneyfairy profile image60
            moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you for saying that , everyone makes it sound as if she was lying on the sidewalk for everyone to see, when in fact she was in a private residence....sick and tacky as you say what some people will do for money sad

          2. Reality Bytes profile image76
            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, and I would not be interested in pursuing a career as a paparazzi, but nobody should be surprised that a photographer was being an opportunist and waiting for just such a chance.  If it was not a half a mile away, the pics could have been taken by a helicopter or for that matter, Google Earth has documented many people in embarrassing situations.  If Google was filming the area at the time, their would be no recourse at all as far a I have seen.

            Filming an individual on private property without their consent should be illegal, the only problem with that is the thousands of security cameras would all be in violation of the law.

            Another point, England has more cameras set up in public places than anywhere else in the world.  So the way I see it, the Royals are fuming at this incident while their subjects are being filmed constantly, no matter what predicament they find themselves in, I do not hear any Royals crying over the privacy of England's citizens.

            1. moneyfairy profile image60
              moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Well that is my point that it should be illegal to invade and photograph a person on private property without thier concent.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image76
                Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                True, the Royals should be creating an uproar in defense of their subjects being filmed constantly by security cameras, knowing humanity has its share of perverted individuals, some of those responsible for monitoring these cameras are engaging in nefarious behavior with these systems.  But are they?  No, they are only disturbed when THEY are being filmed!

                U.K. Govt. Employee Arrested for Downloading Surveillance Footage of Couple Having Sex

                Catherine Hughes and Kevin Naylor were evidently so charged up over England’s June match against France in the Euro 2012 game (which ended in a tie), that they decided to have sex in the street in downtown Shrewsbury, according to the Mirror.

                The couple must not have heard that U.K. streets are blanketed with thousands of closed-circuit surveillance cameras (CCTVs). Or maybe they were just too drunk to care – authorities say the couple spent nearly $200 on alcohol the night of their 1 a.m. street performance. The two were caught on camera having sex just yards from their home.

                CCTV operators in the town center alerted the police, who arrested the embarrassed couple. But the incident didn’t end there. One of the operators in the CCTV monitoring center, an unnamed man in his 40s, allegedly downloaded the footage to his mobile phone and shared it “inappropriately.” The man has been suspended from his duties for possible violation of the Data Protection Act and is currently on bail.

                http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 … rrest-sex/

          3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, it's funny how the editor of the magazine tried to make out she was swanning around topless near a pool on a major road where anyone could have taken a pic of her. In reality, unless you had a major piece of photographic long lens kit, knew she was there and knew exactly where she's be, you wouldn't have had a cat in hell's chance of getting that pic.

            Don't get me wrong, I'm no royalist, but when you start justifying the actions of the piranha press you're laying the foundations for the rest of us to be hunted. Ask Milly Dowler's family what that's like.

            1. IzzyM profile image85
              IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Guess I am on my own here. I get where you are coming from with the Milly Dowler thing, (to casual readers -Google it, if you don't know what we are talking about) but I really think any member of the Royal family is fair game when they do things outside any building.

              What goes on behind closed doors is pure Downton Manor (Help, is the UK up for sale?) but what happens outdoors is public property, whether it happens in private grounds or not.

              We have scientists right at this very moment developing tiny cameras to fit on insects, FFS!

              Probably for espionage purposes, but the next Queen getting her tetas out is probably fair game.

              If it happened behind closed doors we'd never hear about it, but it happened outdoors, and what with spy cameras, satellites etc, that was asking for trouble.

              Anyway, it is hardly important news.

              What is important, is what is the big news story that was suppressed this week by it?

              Between Katie and the 15 year old who ran off to France with her school-teacher taking up the news, we are not hearing something we should have heard about.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Izzy, I'm no royalist, I don't believe in the hereditary principle, I don't believe that one human being should have a greater value than another. But, I think the questions asked by Leveson are really important- namely, is the story in the public interest? How will the public benefit from such an expose, and the truth is they don't. I'd rather read Writeangles's hub about how there is a possibility that drinking coffee may lead to a decline in uterine cancer, or your hubs about sharks and the dangers for holiday makers, or how to treat shark victims. Articles like that have value, articles which illustrate Kate's boobs have none.

                When we say that any human being is fair game for the press because of their status, irrespective of the information which has absolutely no value for the reader other than titillation, we  are inviting parasites like Murdoch and the Barclay brothers to do as they please, to all of us.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                  Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You said it so well that now I even feel like I said Kate was fair game. She isn't, she deserved to have time with her husband, and it is awful someone did this to her. I just think she should have known there are people who are going out of their way to try to compromise her integrity. It has to be terrible to have the whole world see what you thought was a private moment with someone you love. I hope she's strong, because it will probably continue, and it would be tragic for William to see his wife have to go through what likely killed his mother. There should be stronger laws about photographers, and more privacy laws. We lost many of ours in the U.S. after 9/11, and I suppose every country has different excuses for prying into our private lives.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Jean,

                    I don't think anyone on this thread really thinks that Kate is fair game, I think that the parasitic press have just done a really good job in getting us to look at the situation the way they do.

                    In countries where we're supposed to have a free press who are supposed to bring us information which is in our interest to know, we deserve better. I think what we all tend to do is look at situations like this and say that's just the way it is with the press, because as news consumers we have become so used to it. When the banks screw up they  laugh and put a couple million dollars by for the fine, because the profits out way the costs of their crimes, and now the media think it's worth getting a fine if they can sell the pictures before being taken to court, again, the profits make it worth it. We seem to live in societies where big corps of one form or another just flout laws for their own ends. Can you imagine if we tried to get away with that.

            2. moneyfairy profile image60
              moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Holly Thomas,
              You are so correct!!! It wasn't in plain site they had to go out of thier way for those photos ...they must have been very desperate for $$$ smile psychos..

  3. kathleenkat profile image85
    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    In Europe, it's normal for women to swim topless. At least that was the case when I visited Switzerland and Italy. I have no idea if it's okay in the UK, but I'd imagine its more okay than it is here in the States.

    Kate is also very, very skinny. If she were to put on weight, she would probably go up a cup size. But then the media would have something else to talk about.

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's right most European woman go topless and think nothing of it but i guess it was just crass in the fact that Kate will possibly be Queen one day and also the fact that she was in a private residence...is there no human decency anymore when it comes to invading someones privacy? sad thing that's all. But you are right that if it wasn't her boobs it'll be something else they'll get her for and if she gains a little weight then OMG she's pregnant ...LOL LOL......what a life smile

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I heard it wasn't paparazzi took the photo at all, but someone in the Royal party.

        Then again, if the young Royals would keep their clothes on, there's be no embarrassing photos to whine about.

        They have a world of wealth, privilege, fame and devotion from the masses (not everyone among the plebs of course!) and all they have to do in return is act with decorum at all times.

        If they can't do that, bring on the republic.

        1. moneyfairy profile image60
          moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well I guess they'll keep thier clothes on from now on.......

  4. Ddraigcoch profile image74
    Ddraigcochposted 11 years ago

    Being part of the Royal family she should know that the paparazzi will follow her to the corners of the Earth. She didn't need to get her breasts out, she did, she got papped. She isn't the first woman to get her chest out and I don't really have any judgement on her as a person for doing so, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. When that impedes on her duty as Royalty ( What DO they do again?), then I would see fit to comment on her behaviour.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I feel sorry for her, but she had to realize that she's not going to have privacy anywhere except at home in one of the castles with the shades down. That's part of the deal, marrying into a family like that. She's been with William long enough, and knows what the press did to Diana, so she should have known better. Diana was only 19 or 20 when she married Charles, young and naive. Kate is about 10 yrs. older and has a college education, and has dated William for years. I assume he and family tried to prepare her for what to expect from being "a royal." It's sad for her, but she better learn to keep her clothes on unless she's absolutely sure no scum is hanging around to invade her privacy. And I doubt if the people want to pay even more to the Monarchy so William and Kate can have bouncers!

      1. moneyfairy profile image60
        moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You are right that she is old enough to know better and has been with William long enough to know that she should be more careful ,I guess she just thought being in a private gated place that she was safe and could finally let her hair down so to speak....So it's almost the life of a prisoner that her only privacy can be behind closed doors with the curtains closed....what a crazy life... I think maybe she thought that thier was such a thing as human decency and because she will eventually be the Queen that the press would have a little more discretion when taking photos. Yes walking on the streets etc...she expects that but not in remote secluded privacy.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Hello moneyfairy,
          I guess there is no training that can break you to the point where you get so paranoid you have to fear you are being watched no matter what you do. I would hate to see Kate stuck in the castle in the dark, now I have a mental picture of Rapunzel! Being a Princess should be a nice thing, not a nasty one. And I'm sure William is going to be very upset, so Kate will have to mollify him. I don't think he will be upset with her, they were having a private moment any married couple should be able to have. But I hope he can get the press to back off her.

          1. moneyfairy profile image60
            moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well hopefully the lawsuits will keep them away to a certain extent...but slimey papprazzi will always be that slimey...I definitely wouldn't want her life....too depressing being told what to do and what you can and cannot do etc...to many restrictions rules and regualtions smile

            1. Jean Bakula profile image93
              Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, not worth the trouble, so I suppose she really loves him.

              1. moneyfairy profile image60
                moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes ,she must!!! smile

  5. ritsukakunx profile image62
    ritsukakunxposted 11 years ago

    It is awful, but she *is* in the spotlight, so it is bound to happen. Probably shouldn't go topless anywhere outdoors where there is a chance to be seen! :p

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes she made a big mistake...and will probably pay for it the rest of her life.. sad

  6. austinhealy profile image73
    austinhealyposted 11 years ago

    The thing is, Moneyfairy. there is no longer such a thing called privacy. Only memories of it and wishes it would come back. Nowadays, whatever you do, wherever you go, you are bound to be recorded by a number of cameras, while every action you take, even buying a cup of coffee with your debit card, will leave a trail. When it comes to taking pictures of celebrities while they think they are safely private, everything seems to be fair game. The reason why it is is because such pictures will sell, and they do. I'm sure these pictures of the princess have been seen by millions by now, The photographer who took them was looking for an opportunity and he or she took it. In journalistic jargon, it's a scoop, for some others , it's a regrettable incident. The bottom line, I think, is,she should have known better, knowing well that these people will stop at nothing. Does that mean that the end of privacy also means the end of freedom ?

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      sounds like it. the end of privacy and freedom... sad

  7. Greek One profile image64
    Greek Oneposted 11 years ago

    I think her husband, who was there with her, should have said..

    "Hey, Princess.. wanna put your top back on?  I didn't put a ring on your finger so you can show the Crown jewels to all the commoners"

    But then again, since his brother likes running around with his billiard balls waving to and fro in Vegas, I don't think discretion has been passed down to this generation of royals.

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      sad but true sad

  8. vparker profile image60
    vparkerposted 11 years ago

    She hasn't done anything wrong for the human body is nothing to be ashamed. Plus she was at her house its the pap's who should get in trouble for invasion of privacy.  People dogging her are the same reason why so many females are ashamed of their bodies and sexuality.

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      very sad sad No more freedom for her now that she's a Royal.

  9. austinhealy profile image73
    austinhealyposted 11 years ago

    Of course, she hasn't done anything wrong, far from it. But the perception in the public at large will be that she has. It will be viewed as unworthy of a princess to behave like that. Wonder what the Queen is thinking ?

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      re: Queens respnse:Probably brown nosing her like she did with Diana. sad

  10. profile image57
    dulcevidasposted 11 years ago

    Have you guys seen a pic of the villa in France where these shots were snapped? Its a villa wide open to the open road. Not hidden behind shrubs, trees or high fences or anything like that. From what I could see of the building you dont even need a long lens camera or any professional to equipment to take a pic of anyone lounging up there on the front balcony. Now why you would want to do that is another question. I personally wouldnt. My guess is that the approach to the villa must have been secured or restricted by at least a mile off for her to feel so secure exposing herself like that given the wide open design of that villa. Obviously this wasnt the case.

    1. moneyfairy profile image60
      moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      yes the villa was at least a mile away from the road and there was a vinyard before the villa....just money hungry sleezy opportunistic papprazzi, plain and simple...but no she should not have taken her top off...I think she learned a very hard lesson early on in her new role as a Royal...not as simple as she supposed it would be....


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)