The royals argued that the future queen was treated as an object, while the magazine argued that such naked shots are now a normal thing in today's society, they stressed that this is not the days of queen Victoria where such images would have been completely tarnishing and disrespectful to a royal, and like others who live in the public eye, she should not be treated differently just because she is a royal. They said
"topless photos such as those featuring the duchess were no longer considered shocking and that the Chateau d'Autet (where she was photographed) was in view of a public road"An editor of Chi magazine who also published this said
'If I had not published them I would not be paid for the job I do. Above all, I published them for various reasons, as a journalistic scoop, it satisfies the curiosity of the readers, it is first time that the future Queen of England has been pictured in such a way.'Do you think the court's ruling was fair? Was Kate's team given preferential treatment just because she is a royal? Or are the magazine owners and editors just giving flimsy excuses?
Don't forget to join me
Facebook: Chizy K
Twitter: ChizyK
I am delighted that the magazines are blocked by the courts, i am fuming with the way the media think it is ok to print pictures of a woman when she is unaware of it, I think it should be criminal to use a topless picture of a woman unless she has giver her permission, for gods sake it is her body and she was on holiday with her husband, private moments that were not for public, I am most defo not a prude and have gone topless and nude on many occasion but i would be very upset if i saw pictures of myself on line or in media that showed parts of me that i did not give permission for. i am sure the royals know that it is no big deal to see topless pictures of women every single day however it remains, kate did NOT give permission and it was an invasion of personal body privacy, xx
ReplyDelete