ForumGarden

Why do reporters assume we want to see the Royal Family naked?

The king has no clothes?

I'm torn on this one. They are public figures on the one hand but on the other there should be some reasonable expectation of privacy once in awhile. I think the paparazzi stepped over the line in this case. I hope the papers lost their butts in the courts.

koan;1404524 wrote: Why do reporters assume we want to see the Royal Family naked?


I don't but I assume there are a lot of people who do...otherwise why would they bother to take them?

Let's hope this isn't another case of they are not going to leave someone alone like Diana. They overstepped the mark, the couple were on a private holiday it's not like she was on a public beach.

They overstepped the mark for sure. This was a secluded villa, not a public place. The photographer would have had to go to extraordinary lengths to take those photos. It's intrusive and not at all in the public interest.

Odd thing is, France has very strict privacy laws. One would think the French magazine would have realised that but obviously felt - wrongly - that the royal household wouldn't take legal action

The pictures are rubbish anyway......whoops.....well you have to peep don't you?

And *that* sums up most peoples attitude I suspect, I wouldn't cross the road to see any Royal, but if there are mucky pictures on the web, it is a challenge just to find them.



If the Royals hadn't complained, who would have known about the pictures ? A few French people, that's all.

Best advice might have been to ignore totally.

Just don't buy the papers/magazines that have the pics, maybe they will get the hint if money isn't coming in.

I wonder if the rule "bad press is better than none" also applies to the press. Perhaps their readership will go up now they've been in the news.

Bruv;1404537 wrote: The pictures are rubbish anyway......whoops.....well you have to peep don't you?

And *that* sums up most peoples attitude I suspect, I wouldn't cross the road to see any Royal, but if there are mucky pictures on the web, it is a challenge just to find them.



If the Royals hadn't complained, who would have known about the pictures ? A few French people, that's all.

Best advice might have been to ignore totally.


Yes we do. I was surprised to see she had nipples, royals don't breast feed do they?

I can say, without hesitation, that if there are naked pictures of the queen out there I don't want to see them.

Wandrin;1404617 wrote: I can say, without hesitation, that if there are naked pictures of the queen out there I don't want to see them.


Even if they were from just after her marriage? :wah:

Well the thing is that a lot of people appear to have two unhealthy obsessions.

One - with nudity. Boobies, bums and penises. I don't get it. Everyone has a least 2 of the listed (some even all 3), and yet, when they see someone else's they are either shocked, or overly fascinated, or... something.

The other fascination is with celebrities. People want to know what they eat, when they sleep, what's their favorite animal and their opinion on space travel.

Now, put boobies and celebrities together, and it's a sure hit. I don't approve of stalking people to get their naked photos published, but I don't blame the papers much. As long as there's people who'll buy it, there will be people who will get it for them.

The burning question should be, not, why does anyone think we're Interested but , If the photographer had Kate within sight, why didn't the Royal protection squad have the photographer within sight?

Bryn Mawr;1404659 wrote: Even if they were from just after her marriage? :wah:


have to admit she was gifted in that area of things .

oscar;1404790 wrote: The burning question should be, not, why does anyone think we're Interested but , If the photographer had Kate within sight, why didn't the Royal protection squad have the photographer within sight?


Try looking out of a gap in your curtains with the lights out in the room behind you.

Now try looking into that room through the same gap in the curtains whilst standing in the street.

The first gives you a fantastic view, the second no view at all.

Bryn Mawr;1404832 wrote: Try looking out of a gap in your curtains with the lights out in the room behind you.

Now try looking into that room through the same gap in the curtains whilst standing in the street.

The first gives you a fantastic view, the second no view at all. I was thinking more sniper rather than camera.

oscar;1404843 wrote: I was thinking more sniper rather than camera.


It works either way, the photographer can see everything (using his telephoto lens) whilst the guards can see nothing