Kate middleton - closer magazine

[special_kala]

I dont think its right that the pictures have been published...

HOWEVER,

On the news they have been showing the villa that they were staying at and it is visible from the road. Im sorry but did someone not think there would be the slight possibility that there may be a pap trying to get a sneaky picture????? I mean, come on, it was a bit of a silly mistake.

Its a shame that she is not free to do what she wants but unfortunately she knew what she was marrying in to and I think they should have been more careful.

I don't think she should have to be careful in private, I haven't seen this on the news though, was she topless in clear view of the road? If not then they were snooping and that is out of order, same as if they zoomed in on you or me through our bedroom window as I said before, where is the line? Should she walk around inside covered up as well just in case because she should expect paps to do anything for the shot?

Shame on the paps, especially seeing what happened to her late mother in law (depending on which version of events you subscribe to).

As far as I am aware, she wasn't in her bedroom getting undressed or anything like that. She was sunbathing topless I think

Whilst I agree that the photos were a bit of bad taste being published, I do feel she must have been very naive to think that there were no paps around to take photos.

I wonder if there would be as much 'outrage' if it were say Katie Price photographed sunbathing topless in a private villa?

Katie price sells her body and tried very hard to be a celebrity. Kate married the man she loved who happened to be a prince

 

[fairyflowers]

I looked them up! I also read that they had more "intimate" photos, which i dont know if is true or not. I do feel yes there boobs! But being married to the prince you'd think she'd be less naive than to spring her boobs out unless she was on a private island or somwhere extremelly private/hidden.

 

[ahcigar1]

Here is the way I look at it. I think that honestly the paparazzi go WAY too far on many things, this being one of them. If these photos were of ANYONE else that was not a celebrity they would be arrested for it, but since they were taken of a celebrity and sold for high dollar then that makes it ok? How in anyones mind is that right? I am happy to hear that the royal family is taking a stand on this and going after this magazine as well as the photographers who took these images. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Just because one is a celebrity does not make it right for others to scandalize their lives.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

I dont think its right that the pictures have been published...

HOWEVER,

On the news they have been showing the villa that they were staying at and it is visible from the road. Im sorry but did someone not think there would be the slight possibility that there may be a pap trying to get a sneaky picture????? I mean, come on, it was a bit of a silly mistake.

Its a shame that she is not free to do what she wants but unfortunately she knew what she was marrying in to and I think they should have been more careful.

I don't think she should have to be careful in private, I haven't seen this on the news though, was she topless in clear view of the road? If not then they were snooping and that is out of order, same as if they zoomed in on you or me through our bedroom window as I said before, where is the line? Should she walk around inside covered up as well just in case because she should expect paps to do anything for the shot?

Shame on the paps, especially seeing what happened to her late mother in law (depending on which version of events you subscribe to).

As far as I am aware, she wasn't in her bedroom getting undressed or anything like that. She was sunbathing topless I think

Whilst I agree that the photos were a bit of bad taste being published, I do feel she must have been very naive to think that there were no paps around to take photos.

I wonder if there would be as much 'outrage' if it were say Katie Price photographed sunbathing topless in a private villa?

Oh yes I know she was sunbathing, I just feel if she was in a private garden or whatever, hidden from normal public view (not paps with zooms hiding in bushes, up trees etc..) then it's pretty much the same as someone zooming in through the window.

If I want to sunbathe in my back garden I should not have to worry about people taking photos of me and same should go for anyone!

I am certain there would not be an outrage but really the same principals should apply.

 

[Andypanda6570]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

 

[xemmax]

When you are in the public eye you will be hounded by the paparazzi to the end of the earth for details and evidence of every little detail of what should be your private life. So yes, they should expect that, but just because it happens it doesn't mean we should attribute blame to them and reside ourselves to the fact that this is 'just the way it is'. We should question it. The fact is it is disgusting that with fame brings no limit to what they public can access about you.

It may not be illegal (though debatable) but it is certainly immoral - not just in this particular case, but every time a paper hounds a grieving celebrity for a headline, or after a marriage breakdown, or publishes details about a person's sex life or details an ongoing legal case... I could go on.

Thee is something very disturbing about the way that the paparrazi stalk people in the public eye, and moreso the fact that they public feel that it is their right to access such information.

Maybe the young royals thought the paparazzi might back off a little bit after literally driving their mother to her death.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

I do see where you are coming from and agree to some extent (mainly that they should expect this in a public place) but not in this case. Where is the line? She was away from public view, should she be careful indoors too in case they snap her through the blinds? Why should she pay a price for marrying the man she loves? As far as I know this was not a career choice for her.

 

[robinator]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

I do see where you are coming from and agree to some extent (mainly that they should expect this in a public place) but not in this case. Where is the line? She was away from public view, should she be careful indoors too in case they snap her through the blinds? Why should she pay a price for marrying the man she loves? As far as I know this was not a career choice for her.

We all make sacrifices for those we love; she knew her life would be like this when she married him, because the same things happened while they were still dating. You get the whole package when you marry someone; good and bad.

Is it unfortunate her privacy was violated? Yes. Did she deserve it? Of course not. But should she expect it? Yes.

You are all acting like the paparazzi are the ones to blame. Paparazzi wouldn't have a job if the public didn't pay to see those pictures. So while you are all sniffing your noses at the audacity of the photographer, you don't exactly see the public running away from the newsstand.

 

[Sarahcake]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

I do see where you are coming from and agree to some extent (mainly that they should expect this in a public place) but not in this case. Where is the line? She was away from public view, should she be careful indoors too in case they snap her through the blinds? Why should she pay a price for marrying the man she loves? As far as I know this was not a career choice for her.

We all make sacrifices for those we love; she knew her life would be like this when she married him, because the same things happened while they were still dating. You get the whole package when you marry someone; good and bad.

Is it unfortunate her privacy was violated? Yes. Did she deserve it? Of course not. But should she expect it? Yes.

You are all acting like the paparazzi are the ones to blame. Paparazzi wouldn't have a job if the public didn't pay to see those pictures. So while you are all sniffing your noses at the audacity of the photographer, you don't exactly see the public running away from the newsstand.

You know what, I actually agree with this. If people didnt want to see images like this, then the paps would have no job to begin with. Whilst people are buying the mags with these images in, they will continue to do their job and get the desireable images.

 

[Jaylynne]

Ha agree. I looked the pictures up so who am I to sniff at the pics.

And everyone who marries someone knows that you gain what the other has whether it is debt, health issues, ex issues or maybe a more convenient lifestyle. Kate gained a lack of privacy and a title.

 

[xemmax]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

I do see where you are coming from and agree to some extent (mainly that they should expect this in a public place) but not in this case. Where is the line? She was away from public view, should she be careful indoors too in case they snap her through the blinds? Why should she pay a price for marrying the man she loves? As far as I know this was not a career choice for her.

We all make sacrifices for those we love; she knew her life would be like this when she married him, because the same things happened while they were still dating. You get the whole package when you marry someone; good and bad.

Is it unfortunate her privacy was violated? Yes. Did she deserve it? Of course not. But should she expect it? Yes.

You are all acting like the paparazzi are the ones to blame. Paparazzi wouldn't have a job if the public didn't pay to see those pictures. So while you are all sniffing your noses at the audacity of the photographer, you don't exactly see the public running away from the newsstand.

I agree that it is wrong that the public feel they have the right to a no holds barred view of a celebrity, but the paparazzi are also to blame for their immoral, reckless and sometimes illegal stalking of these people.

 

[pinkpolkadot]

I think when you are in the public eye whether a celebrity or a celebrity by marriage and so on, you know exactly what you are getting into. Not saying it is right , but your privacy basically goes out the door, this is the life and how it is. Paparazzi are little maggots who will do anything for a shot, but again this is their job. They are always watching and to think they are not is dumb. So if you are in the public eye and don't want photos like this out there , then don't take a chance , walking around topless and being who she is , it is common sense she will be photographed. Paparazzi are everywhere, they hid in trees and snap photos, they rent cars and boats to get closer and snap photos. I do feel bad for the celebrities and famous people and it must be hard to not be able to go anywhere and have some privacy, but like I said this is the price they pay for who they are and what they marry into. JMO

I do see where you are coming from and agree to some extent (mainly that they should expect this in a public place) but not in this case. Where is the line? She was away from public view, should she be careful indoors too in case they snap her through the blinds? Why should she pay a price for marrying the man she loves? As far as I know this was not a career choice for her.

We all make sacrifices for those we love; she knew her life would be like this when she married him, because the same things happened while they were still dating. You get the whole package when you marry someone; good and bad.

Is it unfortunate her privacy was violated? Yes. Did she deserve it? Of course not. But should she expect it? Yes.

You are all acting like the paparazzi are the ones to blame. Paparazzi wouldn't have a job if the public didn't pay to see those pictures. So while you are all sniffing your noses at the audacity of the photographer, you don't exactly see the public running away from the newsstand.

I don't agree that she should 'expect' to be papped in a private place but I am going in circles now!

I don't personally buy tabloid papers/mags and I didn't look up the pics but I totally agree the paps are only supplying a demand, therefore they are not the only culprits, but they are still well out of order, after all drug dealers would also be out of work without their punters.

 

[Brookey]

I dont think its right that the pictures have been published...

HOWEVER,

On the news they have been showing the villa that they were staying at and it is visible from the road. Im sorry but did someone not think there would be the slight possibility that there may be a pap trying to get a sneaky picture????? I mean, come on, it was a bit of a silly mistake.

Its a shame that she is not free to do what she wants but unfortunately she knew what she was marrying in to and I think they should have been more careful.

I don't think she should have to be careful in private, I haven't seen this on the news though, was she topless in clear view of the road? If not then they were snooping and that is out of order, same as if they zoomed in on you or me through our bedroom window as I said before, where is the line? Should she walk around inside covered up as well just in case because she should expect paps to do anything for the shot?

Shame on the paps, especially seeing what happened to her late mother in law (depending on which version of events you subscribe to).

As far as I am aware, she wasn't in her bedroom getting undressed or anything like that. She was sunbathing topless I think

Whilst I agree that the photos were a bit of bad taste being published, I do feel she must have been very naive to think that there were no paps around to take photos.

I wonder if there would be as much 'outrage' if it were say Katie Price photographed sunbathing topless in a private villa?

Katie price sells her body and tried very hard to be a celebrity. Kate married the man she loved who happened to be a prince

Exactly, he is a prince. So dont you think that one of them should have thought that there could have been a pap around?

From the news footage, their balcony was visible from the road, for all we know there could have been 10 people looking at her with binoculars.

I dont think its right and I feel for her, I just think they were very niave to think there wouldnt be paps around.

Like someone else said, they are very lucky that it wasnt some pyscho with a gun.

 

[Andypanda6570]

I never have or never will buy those ridiculous magazines, but a lot of people do, it sells and as long as there is a demand for it there will be paparazzi. Nothing is private when you are a celebrity so if you don't take precautions then things like this happen, YES they do deserve their privacy but like I said it can't be expected when you are so much in the public eye. Do I feel bad for her? Of course, i like her and i think she is a good person and beautiful but she still should not do that when she has to know ( Cause we all know as the public) that these people are always watching. Does she have a right to take her top off , of course, but if you do it then you pay the consequences, cause to think for one minute you wont get caught doing it and a picture taken is just naive. Sometimes I wonder oif many of these celebrities do it on purpose for some publicity ( Not saying she did) but I wonder about that..

 

[Mummy2B21]

I think yes she was niave but i dont think paps should be aloud to photograph people with intimate parts showing or doing intimate things i find it very disrespectful for someone to do that and think its awful the mag published them.

 

[vaniilla]

I agree that it's down to supply and demand, I think it's worse that it's allowed to happen by normal people, who go out and buy these stories. Maybe if people weren't so desperate to know every little detail of these people's lives then the press wouldn't have to go to such measures to get a "story", I bet their sales have been boosted since! then again I have never really understood the 'celebrity' appeal, they don't have magic powers, they're just humans like the rest of us, I have no interest in seeing them be humiliated because some think they need to pay for their privileges through loss of privacy, yes it wrong, to expose anyone regardless of status without permission.

 

[hopeandpray]

I don't think that 'they were just doing their job' is ever a good excuse. Peoples' actions are still right or wrong, whether they are being paid or not. People are paid to do awful stuff and it being their job doesn't make it alright.
I don't understand why she's bring blamed, people are beginning to see the paparazzi as normal and okay and it's just not!

 

[Redhead84]

Am I the only one here who thinks that she wasn't "naive" but knew exactly what she was doing.

She's the worst kind of media whore, like Diana before here.. "Oooh don't take photos of me, it's so unfair...(giggle giggle giggle)"

I do agree with a pp though that in terms of security it was naive - sniper rifle from 400m, easy.

 

[Fizzoid]

I have to say, I did think that. I mean, would she be so naive?

 

[Brookey]

Am I the only one here who thinks that she wasn't "naive" but knew exactly what she was doing.

She's the worst kind of media whore, like Diana before here.. "Oooh don't take photos of me, it's so unfair...(giggle giggle giggle)"

I do agree with a pp though that in terms of security it was naive - sniper rifle from 400m, easy.

Hmmm im not convinced she was trying to get papped...what would she gain from it? Its not like she needs the publicity, shes one of the most recognised women in the world now.