As for Kate, its early days but yes. At this stage of charlies and di everyone was loving her to bits too.
While i dont think the palace are pushing her to be "the next diana", i think they are pushing her as having a lot of diana type qualities - the fairytale princess, beautiful, regal,at williams side etc etc. Getting involved with causes herself etc. Woman of the people etc
DIsagree. What they're doing is standard PR for the wife of someone 2nd in line to the throne, wanting - quite sensibly - to ensure that both William and his wife, are seen in a good, hands-on, appealing light and not as a pair of entitled, work-shy freeloaders. Nothing remotely wrong with that. Regardless of who he had married, the PR would be exactly the same. Charity patronage is a perfeclty valid part of that. In the case of Will & Kate, they, unlike Diana & Charles, seem like a good working match who to date seem to be doing the job that's expected of them, and doing it well. And far better than Diana ever did it imo since W&K have a stable and equal partnership and are supportive of each other and not pretending to present a united front.
PS. I still think the fuss over titgate is quite ridiculous.
She should've worn a bikini top, I'm not excusing the behaviour of the photographer, but photos of her in a bikini would not be embarrassing. Why would you want tanned breasts anyway?
OK, don't get your dander up.
As long as they aren't breaking the laws of the land why should the public have the right to know every little thing about people, whether they're in the public eye as a politician, celeb or royal? I've no interest in what anyone in the public eye does as long as they - to quote Mrs Patrick Campbell - 'they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses'. Do you believe the Max Mosely story by the NoTW was in the 'public interest' for instance?
I think its subjective. Yes there are lots of stories definitely not in the public interest that get published purely for sales (like Kate) and the royals/celebs/politicians do deserve a private life. But if its at the point they are abusing their position I do believe the papers should be able to reveal it.
I think the Fergie thing is relevant because she was selling access to a person the public (at that time) was actually paying taxes for. Not illegal, but totally in the public interest.
But why should they? If the person involved isn't a public servant like a politician, it's their problem, not the public's.
As for politicians having affairs, they always get exposed anyway, as the public's representatives they're supposed to be like Caesar's wife - beyond reproach. Remember Tim Yeo, David Mellor etc?
So you have no problem with celebrities deceiving the public to make money? Their image makes them a lot of money in sales and endorsements and you honestly think that it is okay to fabricate that image? Each to their own, but I have a problem with people lying to me.
So you have no problem with celebrities deceiving the public to make money? Their image makes them a lot of money in sales and endorsements and you honestly think that it is okay to fabricate that image? Each to their own, but I have a problem with people lying to me.
Perhaps you could name one?
If it's companies they endorse, or who endorse them, it's only the company that are going to get upset, nothing to do with the public. David Beckham has given the impression he's a family man, but he's allegedly had flings, probably more than we know of.
Personally, I couldn't care less what he does, it doesn't hurt me personally or you either for that matter..
The public pay for the magazines, tickets, merchandise, dvd's.
If this hypothetical celeb isn't doing any wrong, then the public aren't being harmed. If they are and no one knows about it, ditto. If they are and they're found out, then any endorsements deals etc will go to the wall and the public will possibly desert them.
If this hypothetical celeb isn't doing any wrong, then the public aren't being harmed. If they are and no one knows about it, ditto.
So basically if they are frauding the people (albeit not illegally) and the people dont know about it - its ok?
You realise if they were a shop selling their wares and making false claims about a product they would be shut down by trading standards and possibly imprisoned.
Its morally wrong and if there was no investigative journalism it would literally be even more rife and people do care if they are lied to. This whole forum is an example of that.
This is why I totally get the point why people are upset about what happened to Kate but it should not be used as an excuse to say that all "non straight up" journalistic activities should be banned. Thats the on-topic point to this.
So basically if they are frauding the people (albeit not illegally) and the people dont know about it - its ok?
You realise if they were a shop selling their wares and making false claims about a product they would be shut down by trading standards and possibly imprisoned.
Its morally wrong and if there was no investigative journalism it would literally be even more rife and people do care if they are lied to. This whole forum is an example of that.
This is why I totally get the point why people are upset about what happened to Kate but it should not be used as an excuse to say that all "non straight up" journalistic activities should be banned. Thats the on-topic point to this.
Oh bloody hell. :rolleyes:
'Morally wrong'? What's morally wrong here is the fact a young woman has been photographed clandestinely on a private holiday on a private estate. How it's turned into a debate on a hypothetical celebrity who's hypothetically been a bit of a hypocrite I've no idea.
'Morally wrong'? What's morally wrong here is the fact a young woman has been photographed clandestinely on a private holiday on a private estate. How it's turned into a debate on a hypothetical celebrity who's hypothetically been a bit of a hypocrite I've no idea.
Because it was suggested that there is never any reason for the public to know details of the private lives of celebrities. In this case there is no justifiable reason for the intrusion but in the case of say Tiger Woods I would argue that the public have a right to know what he is really like (although I would suspect you would disagree).
I think the real reason that the palace are so angry is because it shows her as a sexual being. The royals are supposed to be frigid unless they are procreating.
If Kate and the palace are so worried about these pictures going to print, maybe she should have kept them puppies covered up. Big brother is always watching you. Especially if you are high profile. If it was a desert island, fine. But it was viewable from a road. Just because the pictures shouldn't have been taken doesn't mean they won't be shown. Maybe she'll learn her lesson the hard way. Anyway I'm pretty sure she is normal. She has got two. Tough titty Kate.
'Morally wrong'? What's morally wrong here is the fact a young woman has been photographed clandestinely on a private holiday on a private estate. How it's turned into a debate on a hypothetical celebrity who's hypothetically been a bit of a hypocrite I've no idea.
LOL, cos you jumped in on a post that had nothing to do with Kate and was some poster (who i cant even remember) going off on one saying the press are a load of despicable rotters who should all be caged other than when taking nice set up pictures the celebs allow them to. And in a roundabout way, you agreed.
Because it was suggested that there is never any reason for the public to know details of the private lives of celebrities. In this case there is no justifiable reason for the intrusion but in the case of say Tiger Woods I would argue that the public have a right to know what he is really like (although I would suspect you would disagree).
But why should they?
Because he's portrayed as a 'family' man with 'family' values? Or because he's 'deceiving' the public who pay his wages when they buy the products he endorses? If his wife hadn't crashed the car into a tree, I'd argue the public might well have remained in blissful ignorance of his affairs for a long time, and perhaps they'd never have come to light.
Because he's portrayed as a 'family' man with 'family' values? Or because he's 'deceiving' the public who pay his wages when they buy the products he endorses? If his wife hadn't crashed the car into a tree, I'd argue the public might well have remained in blissful ignorance of his affairs for a long time, and perhaps they'd never have come to light.
Either doesnt make it right.
The public may be lied to by public figures, but it shouldnt give them free reign to lie to the public with no risk of ever getting caught out. Definitely not to the point even when they are legally protected.
This whole thing with Kate will just be used as yet another excuse to slam the press, and it wasn't even OUR press, and far from being a pervy old man up a tree its looking more like it was a woman who took them!
LOL, cos you jumped in on a post that had nothing to do with Kate and was some poster (who i cant even remember) going off on one saying the press are a load of despicable rotters who should all be caged other than when taking nice set up pictures the celebs allow them to. And in a roundabout way, you agreed.
Bad move all things considered
Perhaps you could find my post and quote it, because I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Because it was suggested that there is never any reason for the public to know details of the private lives of celebrities. In this case there is no justifiable reason for the intrusion but in the case of say Tiger Woods I would argue that the public have a right to know what he is really like (although I would suspect you would disagree).
Well I would say the public that mattered didn't give a damn. I was at the Open Golf the following year & I have never heard such cheers & folks on their feet at 18th as he finished his round. He had a poor round of golf & was in early on last day but it was a matter of showing support for the great golfer he is. As someone else said everyone knows that the stuff about David Beckham & Rebecca Loos is true but it didn't make an iota of difference for the folks who support him as a footballer. The press may con you that they are exposing this stuff for moral reasons but it is nothing more than cynical money making. Producing titilation for folks like you. I see your other major topic of discussion is Peter Andre & no doubt it would be a major issue for UK if press couldn't expose him for something or other. For god sake only the brain dead give a flying f.ck about him in the first place & if they are daft enough to buy into the tripe then more fool them.
And the WIndsors attaching themselves to a charity does that charity no harm at all. It's just mutual backscratching.
I don't think anyone expects them to get down and dirty with them every day, they're patrons of too many charities to do that. As for connecting themselves to the NHS, good idea, but as the Royals don't get involved with politics, the NHS is far too much of a political hot potato for it to ever happen.
There's no evidence that having a Royal patron benefits the recipients of a charitable one iota. But let's imagine for one moment that it is beneficial. Wouldn't that fact mean that those charities without the "patronage" are at some disadvantage?
Re your comment about the NHS being political, are you telling me that the military is non-political? And in any case, the possibility that politics may be involved should make The Windsors feel right at home.
There's no evidence that having a Royal patron benefits the recipients of a charitable one iota. But let's imagine for one moment that it is beneficial. Wouldn't that fact mean that those charities without the "patronage" are at some disadvantage?
Is there any evidence to say that they don't? They can't patronise every single charity in existence anyway.
Re your comment about the NHS being political, are you telling me that the military is non-political? And in any case, the possibility that politics may be involved should make The Windsors feel right at home.
It's tradition for the men of the Royal family to go into the services, especially the heir to the throne as eventually they'll be Chief of the Armed Services. Can you imagine the furore if a Health Secretary visited a hospital only to be barracked about lack of cash in the NHS by a royal doctor? Now there's political!
Well I would say the public that mattered didn't give a damn. I was at the Open Golf the following year & I have never heard such cheers & folks on their feet at 18th as he finished his round. He had a poor round of golf & was in early on last day but it was a matter of showing support for the great golfer he is. As someone else said everyone knows that the stuff about David Beckham & Rebecca Loos is true but it didn't make an iota of difference for the folks who support him as a footballer. The press may con you that they are exposing this stuff for moral reasons but it is nothing more than cynical money making. Producing titilation for folks like you. I see your other major topic of discussion is Peter Andre & no doubt it would be a major issue for UK if press couldn't expose him for something or other. For god sake only the brain dead give a flying f.ck about him in the first place & if they are daft enough to buy into the tripe then more fool them.
Peter Andre - my other major topic of discussion? - I don't ever remember mentioning the man. Do the press make money by exposing the lies that PR departments dream up? I am sure that they do but that in itself does not mean that they are wrong. People do care about the behavior of celebrities - has the image of Mel Gibson recovered from his anti-semetic comments? If someone sees the truth about Tiger Woods and continues to support him then that is great and I have no problem with that but I have a problem with people trying to deceive the public for financial gain.
There's no evidence that having a Royal patron benefits the recipients of a charitable one iota. But let's imagine for one moment that it is beneficial. Wouldn't that fact mean that those charities without the "patronage" are at some disadvantage?
I'm afraid that is a blatant untruth. I have worked for 3 different charities with royals as patrons and in each case, their involvement has resulted in fundraising/grant increases. Two of them also were very hands-on behind the scenes. You could argue that it depends on who the royal is though, that's another story and a more pertinent issue.
What I would say is that a well-regarded and committed celeb - royal or otherwise - is always beneficial to a charity in terms of spreading awareness and increasing fundraising opportunities.
Comments
DIsagree. What they're doing is standard PR for the wife of someone 2nd in line to the throne, wanting - quite sensibly - to ensure that both William and his wife, are seen in a good, hands-on, appealing light and not as a pair of entitled, work-shy freeloaders. Nothing remotely wrong with that. Regardless of who he had married, the PR would be exactly the same. Charity patronage is a perfeclty valid part of that. In the case of Will & Kate, they, unlike Diana & Charles, seem like a good working match who to date seem to be doing the job that's expected of them, and doing it well. And far better than Diana ever did it imo since W&K have a stable and equal partnership and are supportive of each other and not pretending to present a united front.
PS. I still think the fuss over titgate is quite ridiculous.
I think its subjective. Yes there are lots of stories definitely not in the public interest that get published purely for sales (like Kate) and the royals/celebs/politicians do deserve a private life. But if its at the point they are abusing their position I do believe the papers should be able to reveal it.
I think the Fergie thing is relevant because she was selling access to a person the public (at that time) was actually paying taxes for. Not illegal, but totally in the public interest.
She claims (or claimed at one point) she and William were more than friends.
So you have no problem with celebrities deceiving the public to make money? Their image makes them a lot of money in sales and endorsements and you honestly think that it is okay to fabricate that image? Each to their own, but I have a problem with people lying to me.
Perhaps you could name one?
If it's companies they endorse, or who endorse them, it's only the company that are going to get upset, nothing to do with the public. David Beckham has given the impression he's a family man, but he's allegedly had flings, probably more than we know of.
Personally, I couldn't care less what he does, it doesn't hurt me personally or you either for that matter..
The public pay for the magazines, tickets, merchandise, dvd's.
If this hypothetical celeb isn't doing any wrong, then the public aren't being harmed. If they are and no one knows about it, ditto. If they are and they're found out, then any endorsements deals etc will go to the wall and the public will possibly desert them.
This is going seriously off-topic. :cool:
So basically if they are frauding the people (albeit not illegally) and the people dont know about it - its ok?
You realise if they were a shop selling their wares and making false claims about a product they would be shut down by trading standards and possibly imprisoned.
Its morally wrong and if there was no investigative journalism it would literally be even more rife and people do care if they are lied to. This whole forum is an example of that.
This is why I totally get the point why people are upset about what happened to Kate but it should not be used as an excuse to say that all "non straight up" journalistic activities should be banned. Thats the on-topic point to this.
Oh bloody hell. :rolleyes:
'Morally wrong'? What's morally wrong here is the fact a young woman has been photographed clandestinely on a private holiday on a private estate. How it's turned into a debate on a hypothetical celebrity who's hypothetically been a bit of a hypocrite I've no idea.
Because it was suggested that there is never any reason for the public to know details of the private lives of celebrities. In this case there is no justifiable reason for the intrusion but in the case of say Tiger Woods I would argue that the public have a right to know what he is really like (although I would suspect you would disagree).
If Kate and the palace are so worried about these pictures going to print, maybe she should have kept them puppies covered up. Big brother is always watching you. Especially if you are high profile. If it was a desert island, fine. But it was viewable from a road. Just because the pictures shouldn't have been taken doesn't mean they won't be shown. Maybe she'll learn her lesson the hard way. Anyway I'm pretty sure she is normal. She has got two. Tough titty Kate.
LOL, cos you jumped in on a post that had nothing to do with Kate and was some poster (who i cant even remember) going off on one saying the press are a load of despicable rotters who should all be caged other than when taking nice set up pictures the celebs allow them to. And in a roundabout way, you agreed.
Bad move all things considered
But why should they?
Because he's portrayed as a 'family' man with 'family' values? Or because he's 'deceiving' the public who pay his wages when they buy the products he endorses? If his wife hadn't crashed the car into a tree, I'd argue the public might well have remained in blissful ignorance of his affairs for a long time, and perhaps they'd never have come to light.
Whoops!
http://www.orange.co.uk/images/editorial/sophie-wessex-031108-480.jpg
To be fair, this did happen before she married into the royal family.
Indeed they did.
Though it was a past photo taken pre-wedding.
Either doesnt make it right.
The public may be lied to by public figures, but it shouldnt give them free reign to lie to the public with no risk of ever getting caught out. Definitely not to the point even when they are legally protected.
This whole thing with Kate will just be used as yet another excuse to slam the press, and it wasn't even OUR press, and far from being a pervy old man up a tree its looking more like it was a woman who took them!
Perhaps you could find my post and quote it, because I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Well I would say the public that mattered didn't give a damn. I was at the Open Golf the following year & I have never heard such cheers & folks on their feet at 18th as he finished his round. He had a poor round of golf & was in early on last day but it was a matter of showing support for the great golfer he is. As someone else said everyone knows that the stuff about David Beckham & Rebecca Loos is true but it didn't make an iota of difference for the folks who support him as a footballer. The press may con you that they are exposing this stuff for moral reasons but it is nothing more than cynical money making. Producing titilation for folks like you. I see your other major topic of discussion is Peter Andre & no doubt it would be a major issue for UK if press couldn't expose him for something or other. For god sake only the brain dead give a flying f.ck about him in the first place & if they are daft enough to buy into the tripe then more fool them.
Hilarious.
There's no evidence that having a Royal patron benefits the recipients of a charitable one iota. But let's imagine for one moment that it is beneficial. Wouldn't that fact mean that those charities without the "patronage" are at some disadvantage?
Re your comment about the NHS being political, are you telling me that the military is non-political? And in any case, the possibility that politics may be involved should make The Windsors feel right at home.
I thought when the prince of wales dies he becomes prince of wales, then when the king dies he becomes king?
I thought that was the kind of path they take? I'm not expert if wrong, just thought i had heard that.
Is there any evidence to say that they don't? They can't patronise every single charity in existence anyway.
It's tradition for the men of the Royal family to go into the services, especially the heir to the throne as eventually they'll be Chief of the Armed Services. Can you imagine the furore if a Health Secretary visited a hospital only to be barracked about lack of cash in the NHS by a royal doctor? Now there's political!
Peter Andre - my other major topic of discussion? - I don't ever remember mentioning the man. Do the press make money by exposing the lies that PR departments dream up? I am sure that they do but that in itself does not mean that they are wrong. People do care about the behavior of celebrities - has the image of Mel Gibson recovered from his anti-semetic comments? If someone sees the truth about Tiger Woods and continues to support him then that is great and I have no problem with that but I have a problem with people trying to deceive the public for financial gain.
I'm afraid that is a blatant untruth. I have worked for 3 different charities with royals as patrons and in each case, their involvement has resulted in fundraising/grant increases. Two of them also were very hands-on behind the scenes. You could argue that it depends on who the royal is though, that's another story and a more pertinent issue.
What I would say is that a well-regarded and committed celeb - royal or otherwise - is always beneficial to a charity in terms of spreading awareness and increasing fundraising opportunities.