With news that West Islander Autumn Kelly is going to marry a member of the British Royal Family, the tabloids are all trying to get information about her roots here. Even local blogger Kristian Gravenor is on the case, offering money for photos (and handing out flyers all over Pointe-Claire — an act I tried to explain to him might get him on some enemies lists).
Casey McKinnon, who went to school with Kelly at St. Thomas High, isn’t game. She’s steadfastly refusing to cooperate with the many requests she’s gotten for information.
If your morals aren’t so fortitudon… fortiti… fortati… strong, and you went to St. John Fisher in the 80s, St. Thomas in the early 90s and McGill before 2002, you might be able to score some nice moolah invading some girl’s privacy.
Asking for first-hand information about a public figure isn’t an invasion of privacy. Use more exact language, please.
I don’t see how it’s in the public interest to see photos of her in high school. I’m not saying publishing this should be illegal, just that it shouldn’t be encouraged because it has no journalistic value.
Is it in the public’s interest to broadcast Paris Hilton footage 24/7? Since when are journalists harbingers of “the public interest”? Shouldn’t “the public” itself define that concept?
Like it or not, by entering into a relationship with a public figure, Ms. Kelly has become someone people would like to learn more about. That’s another function of journalism — giving people information. You haven’t convinced me that reasonable requests for information are not invasions of privacy… and I still think your sensationalistic tone further cripples your argument. There’s nothing unusual about Gravenor’s offer, and I disagree with the notion that we should somehow protect Ms. Kelly by hiding already public details about her life.
As well, Casey’s brief statement is not a “steadfast refusal,” but a mild endorsement of her old friend. “No comment” is the only steadfast refusal, in my opinion.
Hey! You’re invading my privacy! Stop talking about me!
I agree that people who choose to live in the public ye really don’t have a choice aboout what is written about them. Things haven’t changed that way in many years,and they’re not about to now – especially for a family who really haven’t done anything except be born to the right parents, and who are supported by the public (I know the royal family has lots of inherited money, however this was inherited over the years at the expense of the masses). so if Ms. Kelly has chosen this lifestyle, then why should she receive any special treatment? After all, the Queen makes an exhibit of herself by going on all these “Royal” tours (big deal – ahe gets to freeload off of other countries that probably really should be spending their money on education, eliminating poverty, homeless ness, and other social ills) , and Prince charles – well, he’s just a big momma’s boy, and then there are his boys – especially Harry – who like to party hardy, and who is really paying for all of this, and what great services do they provide to humanity overall?? So I can’t say that I havve any urge to respect any of these people. maybe if they actually made an honest contribution to today’s world, yes, but to me – they just provide gossip, and a glimpse at how frivolous and irrelevant they are in the real world.
i think Pamela Anderson contributes more to the world than any of the Royals – actually all of them put together (and I think she is kind of slutty, but she does provide entertainment, and also works for a cause she believes in- so she has a voice)
As far as Ms. Kelly being intelligent, maybe, but she has set the women’s movent back to the 50’s – giving up HER career, Her country, Her family, and Her life – to go for the rich guy. And she seems to be enjoying being absorbed into his life.
One has to wonder if looking at them – what has she really gotten herself into?
With all due respect Ms. Laflamme, do you know any of the royals? Do you actually think the royals CHOOSE to be the center of attention. It may just be a life they were forced to live. For example, it is not the first time that a teen has been busted for drugs. Unfortunately for Harry, he is always in the spotlight. People watch him all the time. The Queen’s “Royal Tours” may be upon the request of the countries. They may urge the Queen to come in order to promote certain aspects of their country. I agree that people who choose to live in the public eye have no choice about what is written of them. However, as you said, the royals are “born to the right parents” so really, they are forced to live in the public eye. And let me tell you, it is not a glamorous one. They are constantly stalked by paparazzi. Unofficial couples cannot walk down the street together. If you’re having a bad hair day, the entire world will see it. I bet a good sum of their money goes toward their privacy. These people contribute to their world in the best ways they can. Though it may seem irrelevant to you, many people loved, and will continue to love Lady Diana. She visited poor countries and attended public functions (as all royals are required to do). I think it unfair to judge the royals against another popstar figure and make one out to seem better.
On a final note, you need not respect the royals anymore than you would respect an average stranger. They are only ordinary people living in extraordinary circumstances.
Oh! And also, Autumn Kelly didn’t GIVE UP her life. She made a new one for herself with the man she loved. Don’t judge her choice based on his backround. You don’t know how it all started. She left Montreal to find a new job and to start her own family.
While i hold enormous contempt for tabloid journalism, i recognize that the drive of the media is to make a profit. As previously mentioned, what is published/broadcasted is inevitably what “the public” wants. However, it is ignorant to make unfounded remarks based on no real fact. Perhaps I may suggest that Ms. Laflamme, who seems to be rather passionate about the matter, should be fully aware of the situation before posting her opinion. Research is a requisite in print journalism, and while blogs and forums are much more liberal media, untrue statements that place an individual in a negative light are none the less slanderous.
To paraphrase George Eliot:
Blessed is the person who, having nothing of value to say, abstains from proving it.
It’s me again, and no I do not know any of the royals, do either Dally or Richard? All we have is what is written , and what we see on TV, which is often edited.
Sorry, but I don’t buy what either of you are saying – you must have some connection to the royals as after re-reading what I had written, I didn’t see anything untrue. I find that people who are strong monarchasts, especially if they are from a country that was “annexed” in the past – are very foolish people who see to need some type of idol to worship, and who for the most part are like sheep – playing follow the leader. I am sorry, but I really don’t see the point of Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip coming to this country to walk about, and I do not like my tax dollars being spent on security & loding for them and their staff when there are so many other places the money could be spent. And I am sure there are a lot of Canadians who would feel the same way if the bill was made public. And as for the Govenor-Generals position in Canada, it is a bit redundant – how much is spent on this obsolete show??
On another note- how can there be such a big doeal over the religious issue – I didn’t realize the Catholic church supported fornication & birth ocntrol these days!