Prev
Next

The palace needs to get a grip

Lucy Kippist

by Lucy Kippist

13 Feb 10:30am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Baby Moon, Duchess Of Cambridge, Mustique, Royal Family, St James Palace, Tabloid

41 comments

Good lord, we’ve upset Buckingham Palace again.


Well not “we” but Italian tabloid magazine, “Chi” - whose photographers have managed to snap some photos of the Duchess of Cambridge - sporting a bright blue bikini and a visible baby bump, on the Caribbean island of Mustique. 

In what can only be described as a massive overreaction, a spokesperson from St James Palace issued this statement:

“We are disappointed that photographs of the Duke and Duchess on a private holiday look likely to be published overseas.”

After all the drama surrounding the Duchess’ early pregnancy, you’d think everyone concerned would be happier just to lay low.

In fact, if the palace really wanted to make a statement about them, they should have just ignored the photos altogether. Talking about how disappointed they are, will only make people want to see them more.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all know the Duchess is pregnant now, so what’s the harm in seeing her healthy, happy and relaxed?

And relaxed they’re bound to be. According to the magazine the royal couple are lapping it up in Mustique on a “babymoon”; staying in a villa, with the Middleton family said to cost around $29, 000 a week.

Sounds tough doesn’t it?

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST

Most commented

41 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • iansand says:

      10:02am | 13/02/13

      Saying that you are disappointed is not an overreaction.  Dispatching a team of assassins would be an overreaction.

      Reply

    • dafall says:

      01:48pm | 13/02/13

      Well said iansand.  Wouldn’t it give you the irrits that the $29k you’d spent on privacy didn’t provide any?  Go for a refund, I say ...

    • steve says:

      10:21am | 13/02/13

      There seems to be an issue with the video included in this article as it doesn’t include any of the photos of Kate in her bikini.

      Reply

    • AJ in Perth says:

      02:11pm | 13/02/13

      and I’m still waiting for the “secrets for a happy marriage” ...

    • Millsy says:

      10:25am | 13/02/13

      Doesn’t really sound like a “massive overreaction” to me. This article is, though smile

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      11:54am | 13/02/13

      +1

      Like most of them, brain-farts dressed up as ‘writing’.

    • Palace Intruder says:

      12:42pm | 13/02/13

      This is why we need to distance ourselves from this royal obsession and become a republic
      much ado about nothing is always the royal perspective.

    • ramases says:

      10:56am | 13/02/13

      As long as the brain deads need the satisfaction of looking into other peoples lives even if they are of little or no consequence, then space will be wasted on blogs, media and the like. Just shows what uninteresting lives that most people live doesn’t it when they need this kind of crap in their lives. Sad, sad people.

      Reply

    • Samantha says:

      11:11am | 13/02/13

      PIty there’s no “Like” button here.  Sums it up perfectly.

    • Ags says:

      05:22pm | 13/02/13

      Well, you’re commenting. Where does that leave you, ramases?

    • StanleyG says:

      05:48pm | 13/02/13

      No you’‘re wrong,ramases,this is a very important story.l just saw a photo of the magazine cover on telly and they had a photo with an arrow pointing to the ““baby bump”“.Apparently when a woman is pregnant the baby grows in the mothers tummy region.Thanks No Idea or whichever rag it was.Seriously,it is so sad that people see their own lives as so mundane that this would be interesting.

    • Samantha says:

      11:15am | 13/02/13

      So basically the author is saying that it’s our right as citizens of the Crown to poke our collective noses into the private lives of our future King and Queen.  This is kind of like saying that it’s everybody’s right to hack into my Facebook page and see / read content that was not intended for their viewing.

      Same thing, more or less.

      Reply

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      12:51pm | 13/02/13

      well considering the royals make their money from publicity, its a bit of a stretch to hear them whining about it…
      its a picture of her in a bikini, O NO, wait the world didnt end,
      Oh wait again im sorry, she is now a royal, so there for better than every other celebrity and everyone else for that matter, please give her what she wants, at all times.
      this is more than a first world problem, its a elitist first world problem,  sorry I have more sympathy for the hungry of the world than I do this royal for having a picture taken of her in a swim suit…

    • Dan says:

      01:26pm | 13/02/13

      No its not Samantha, because they are soooo much better than mere mortals like us - thats the whole point of having a genetically determined position like the monarchy.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:33pm | 13/02/13

      “well considering the royals make their money from publicity, its a bit of a stretch to hear them whining about it…”

      As I said further down: it would be different if it was Princess Diana getting “shocked, shocked” about the publication of Andrew Morton’s biography of her when she’d in fact vetted the final drafts.  Kim Kardashian makes money from exposing as much of her body as possible; the Royals traditionally do not.  Whether you’re a celebrity or not there is a right to privacy.

      As for the class warfare: fail.

    • Baloo says:

      11:17am | 13/02/13

      Why does the media have such an obsession with the royals?
      It must be exhausting being a royal, every time you leave your bedroom people are sneaking a quick photo of you.

      Reply

    • Hartz says:

      11:22am | 13/02/13

      The Queen in a bikini - Now that would be news….

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      02:36pm | 13/02/13

      That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

    • dancan says:

      11:24am | 13/02/13

      Heading to a private island, for you know…privacy, having that invaded by photographers with a telescoptic lens and then saying you’re disappointed by the actions of Chi, is not an overreaction.

      This actually makes me fell sorry for the royal family

      Reply

    • Neil says:

      11:37am | 13/02/13

      Wow. $29k a week. I’ll be a royal for half that. Prince Neil of Australia, bow down to my ponciness. I’ll even do some nudey pics. No, that would be a human rights violation. My family goes all the way back to the mid-late 1800s.

      Reply

    • Stuart Germon says:

      03:38pm | 13/02/13

      I would hope your family goes back all the way to the first human but who knows right !

    • PsychoHyena says:

      11:40am | 13/02/13

      I’m disappointed that being disappointed is now classed as being a ‘massive overreaction’.

      Though given how the media likes taking photos of people out and about minding their own business, perhaps the celebs should hire paps to chase the media around everywhere. I bet there’d be some interesting results of that campaign. Most likely the media would complain about breach of privacy.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      11:43am | 13/02/13

      “We all know the Duchess is pregnant now, so what’s the harm in seeing her healthy, happy and relaxed?”

      Put it this way, Lucy:  a fair proportion, if not most, pregnant women feel like beached whales every time they’re out in public—no matter how “flattering” the clothes.

      Therefore: how would you react to having a goon with a camera taking pictures of you in what amounts to underwear on what you thought would be a private beach?

      This is not Princess Diana suing the owner of the LA Fitness gym, who took photographs of her working out on a machine visible from the street through the front shop window.  In that case you might argue Diana deliberately invaded her own privacy.  This was meant to be a private activity.  I am gratified you didn’t resort to the insulting argument that “Hey, Kate’s security is pretty crap, look how close a photographer got to her, imagine if it was a guy with a sniper rifle.”

      “... staying in a villa, with the Middleton family said to cost around $29, 000 a week.”

      Are you saying it’s more acceptable to breach someone’s privacy when they have more money than you do?

      Or was there some more philosophical message you were trying to impart *cough* class warfare *cough cough* here?

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      02:10pm | 13/02/13

      Well put. Unfortunately such a response is really wasted as she won’t reply to any of your very valid points, you know. None of the Punchers have the chops to respond to the increasing number of valid criticisms of their *cough* writing.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      02:37pm | 13/02/13

      “Are you saying it’s more acceptable to breach someone’s privacy when they have more money than you do?”
      funny if my privacy was breached I do not think any one would care…
      This is about them being better than everyone because they are “royal” 
      get a grip mate, who gives a toss if some pics were taken of this “person”
      Dont believe the hype.
      ” *cough* class warfare *cough cough* here”
      really? you do not think that them being of royal blood plays into this?

    • St. Michael says:

      03:17pm | 13/02/13

      “you do not think that them being of royal blood plays into this?”

      Nope.  If it had been a private citizen so photographed there would generally be a police inquiry, since taking photographs of someone in a private activity is generally thought of as stalking.

      But I do think them being of a particular family does play into this: because you seem to have adopted the view that a celebrity has no right to a private life at all.  It is tantamount to blaming the victim for being raped because they chose revealing clothing on a particular night or chose to go out at all.  By what tortuous intellectual reasoning do you come to that fatuous conclusion?

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      04:22pm | 13/02/13

      ok mate, tell me this, if they indeed wanted to keep this is private as possible, why make public statements and increase the hooplah? Perhaps because publicity is their business?  hate to break it to you, but they are not private citizens,  you cant have it both ways, great privileged of birth sometimes comes with some downsides,  my heart bleeds for them.

    • St. Michael says:

      06:52pm | 13/02/13

      And *that* argument, Mr Hammersmith, is telling someone who’s *being* raped to lie back and take what’s coming to them without complaint, on the rationale that hey went out that night and/or wore revealing clothes.

      Or worse, that a prostitute being raped should just lie back and take it because it’s their “business”.

      I see no problem with complaining about the invasion of her privacy.  Internet peons have cluttered up Facebook with much less heinous offences.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      12:22pm | 13/02/13

      Does anyone, other than the papparats (deliberate spelling error) who stand to make lots of money out of this muck really give a toss what the British Royal Family is up to? Many years ago the Brits had an empire. They lost it. They are now just the inhabitants of a tiny, horribly over-crowded, island off the coast of Europe. Their #1 Tourist Attraction, for that is all they are, are totally & unjustifiably spoilt rotten. They do little or no work, they, like the rest of us sit down to do “it”, Some Punchers have said “It must be exhausting being a royal”. Well, if it is they all know what they can do about that don’t they? Give it all up & get real jobs - mind you they would probably find that hard as none of them are renowned for their sparkling intelligence & with the UK’s current Unemployment nightmare their chances would be nil.
      That, of course, simply won’t happen for they have become so dependent on Social Welfare to the tune of millions of pounds/dollars every year that the very idea of actually doing some work (No, I don’t think shaking hands & smiling like a moron with big teeth is actually doing any work) fills them with horror & casts them into a deep pit of Depression. At least, until they want a holiday here for which pay, it is the Brits who have to foot the bills.
      That Kate Middleton is contributing to the already over-populated world, let alone the UK, is a disgrace. It will just become yet another parasite, just like those children of Andrew & Fergie, living off the the British taxpayers.

      Reply

    • AFR says:

      01:11pm | 13/02/13

      “Does anyone, other than the papparats (deliberate spelling error) who stand to make lots of money out of this muck really give a toss what the British Royal Family is up to?”

      Well, millions do.

      I agree with the rest of your rant, and i personally couldn’t give a toss, but those photographers only do it, as there are magazines, and in turn, readers, willing to pay for it.

    • M. Mouse says:

      01:47pm | 13/02/13

      Have a look and see how much Prince Charles’ Princes Trust raises for charity. He is not on the Civil List, most of which is used to pay staff anyway, not go into the Royals’ pockets. But don’t let all that hate get in the way of a few facts. Prince William is a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot and Harry has been serving in Afghanistan. I suppose you don’t count that as “work”.

    • Ags says:

      05:36pm | 13/02/13

      The foul remark about the duchess’s unborn child should be considered disgusting, even by those who have no time for those in the royal family. Her baby is not ‘a disgrace’, nor is any other baby. Your comments are those of a bitter and nasty peice of work. Hope you never had any offspring.

    • Iggy Crash says:

      12:39pm | 13/02/13

      The bitterness in the article is palpable! The fact that you feel the need to end such with such a snarky like like, “Sounds thought, doesn’t it” in an article trying to justify and husband and wife’s right to privacy. Just because they’re rich (The Middleton’s in their own right!), doesn’t mea that gives us an all access pass into their lives. Besides wealthy, just because they’re royalty doesn’t mean they have no rights to a private holiday either! Their income may be tax-payer funded, if you want to be so narrow, but that still gives them a right to a private holiday.

      Not only that, but that one line sentence expressing disappointment at this invasion is hardly an over-reaction.

      Reply

    • lostinperth says:

      12:42pm | 13/02/13

      The palace is fine, it is the media who need to get a grip.
      Respect their privacy, how hard is that to understand?

      Lucy, instead of bagging the palace, how about bagging the intrusive low lives who think stalking is OK . Or those publishing pictures they know were taken without the subjects consent.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      01:23pm | 13/02/13

      Take voyeurism away and the monarchy is completely useless, in stead of just being nearly completely useless as it is now.

    • True Blue says:

      06:10pm | 13/02/13

      Too right! What is wrong with the Palace standing their ground on the issues of the Royals privacy in their personal life. In their public life it is open slather. Extending a gesture of disappointment is hardly being upset. If only the Punchers were not so anti-royal, then we might see some journalism and some profound articles of worth. instead, the opportunity to ‘vent their spleen’, because the Royals don’t have the ‘right’ to complain like the rest of us.

    • Paparazzi Pete says:

      01:46pm | 13/02/13

      Hey Lucy, can I follow you around and take photos of you in a bikini whilst on holiday with your family?

      Reply

    • Pattem says:

      02:15pm | 13/02/13

      Freedom of the press does not always trump the right to privacy!

      What celebrities do in public is fair game, as freedom of the press, or newsworthiness, overrides the right to privacy - certainly in the US.  However, it must be stipulated that Mustique Island is a PRIVATE ISLAND. 

      What has transpired is a gross invasion of privacy.

      Reply

    • Palzy says:

      03:37pm | 13/02/13

      The fact that ‘women’ magazines are in a bidding war for a photo of a ‘pregnant woman’ in a bikini puts the IQ of the target audience in prospectus for me. You can just hear Lucy and the ‘sisters’ screaming ‘sexism’ if these holiday snaps wound up in a ‘mens’ magazine. Oh ...the hypocrisy!!!

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      04:57pm | 13/02/13

      The Duchess seems like a thoroughly likeable and clever young lady, but for a spokesman to make comments on her behalf as to what she feels, or what constitutes poor ‘advertizing’, reeks of a bad sense of decorum.

      What does she think and say about this ?

      I would have thought that The House of Windsor would have let her said her own peace, and to defend herself if she felt the need.
      The Royals do not need anther Di, who needed protection wherever she went because she was so blasted vulnerable.

      Reply

    • sunny says:

      05:42pm | 13/02/13

      I’ve got a baby bump but my baby is made of beer! If anyone wants to take a picture of it let me know.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

tory_maguire

_Tors 20 May 13 03:48PM

Go @newscomauHQ!! http://t.co/cqclJ0oqrl

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 20 May 13 03:47PM

Then this happened. http://t.co/djfEDdnxdF Then we had some chips. Then we wrote some more yarns

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 03:45PM

.@newscomauHQ is now Australia's number #1 news website. WINNING. http://t.co/1iHnDre2Ki

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 20 May 13 03:04PM

RT @jackaargh: @farrm51 @murpharoo Is the plural of humdrum hadra?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter