nothercupoftea: Crapuccino you are being incredibly naive if you believe all the pictures are ^invasion of privacy". At the very least, the ones taken during public and well advertised events are hardly invasive, are they.
You think paparazzi literally crouching on the ground to get a shot up a woman's skirt as she gets out of a car aren't invasive? I beg to differ.
It's funny how some famous people manage to be incredibly private, whilst others are forever "chased" by paparazzi, whilst their photos would sell for the same if not more.
Some people manage to not be Catherine Middleton, the woman who married the future king of England, whose every move is of intense interest to both supporters and detractors, and who is a politically, diplomatically, and socially sensitive figure whether she likes it or not. There aren't many positions for "future queen of England who will be the first woman not to come from nobility/royal blood".
Their PR are doing a very good job if you believe all the photos are innocent and clandestine.
I find it infinitely more believable that seedy little paparazzi are scrabbling about trying to earn seedy little cheques by repeatedly invading privacy than that some of the wealthiest and most famous people in the country are organising these photos, which are often not all that flattering or positive, in return for... what... more fame? More money?
But I get it. You like complicated conspiracy theories. Have at them. We neither of us have proof either way. You think I'm naive. I think you are too. C'est la vie.