|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 9, 2017 14:19:41 GMT
He is in Menorca. It says (I can't see my tweets): Benedict Cumberbatch, welcome to #Menorca It is from Living Menorca 02-06
There was another tweet about a sister seeing him on a little city in Spain.
The septics who are far more obsessed than any fan searched for the sister and found her on fb where she posted a picture.
The girl says:
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 9, 2017 14:40:32 GMT
I found another tweet from Menorca al día. It says that BC is having holydays in Sant Lluís, that he went cruising (? I imagine them on a yacht, not a little boat lol) the southern coast (Menorca) with his family. He had lunch at a club (Náutico) in Binisafua. He was with his wife Sophie and his children. No pictures! From this page
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jun 9, 2017 17:15:07 GMT
Good he's got time for a family holiday between all the work stuff he has going on.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Jun 9, 2017 21:18:32 GMT
I'm thrilled to see him in his swim trunks! That means he's getting some time to swim in the sea, which he needs for his mental and physical health. My little dolphin. 😍
Ps. What a bummer he had to rent those two children for his vacation in the middle of Spain where most folks won't be looking for him, eh? And then to have Sophie lurking in some random restaurant, waiting to LEAP out at him and ensnare him with her rogue-ness! Ah, the trials of being Benedict. All he wants is a good woman to love and have children with. *When* will he be happy?
😜
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 9, 2017 21:45:44 GMT
I think you are right about the septics: at this point they had to be very stupid or crazy to believe their kids are fake. We know they saw the birth certificate, they knew about the second pregnancy before than the fans, they had received clips of BC and SH ate theatre and she was already pregnant.
They just want to get to the fans.
On the other hand we have the "superfans" who monitor every tweet about BC and family and ask people to do what they think better, for instance after watching the sneaky picture they asked others not to post it. They go around Hampstead trying to see BC and family and they don't see that as stalking. If the person is good it is ok to stalk, if it is bad it is awful. Double standards much. Isn't it invading someones privacy "casually" go to a park near BC's house, met Sophie with Kit and go to talk to her? Isn't that private time? How they introduce themselves, as BC's fans?
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jun 10, 2017 3:12:06 GMT
Well I get what you are saying especially about invading his family time, but I think he might mind it a whole lot less if he found out that the people seeking him out are motivated by admiration rather than by a hatred of his wife and a outright denial of the humanity of his children. And I think that is exactly the reason he made this distinction in the Vanity Fair interview. He didn't centre out people who seek him out because of adoration. He specifically mentioned those people who are the ones who have refused to admit that he is a married man and has a family. They seem to be the ones he is zeroing in on - those people who are scary, obsessive and delusional. The thought of haters meeting BC actually gives me the shivers and I don't think he would like it either if he knew they were obsessing about contacting him. Their obsession is grounded in hatred of something he holds pretty dear and I think that makes it very creepy.
That being said there are some "superfans" who take it upon themselves to police the behaviour of others to the point that they don't want Sophie even being mentioned because his private life is private. And I think that is taking it too far. There isn't anything wrong with talking about his wife in a civilized manner because it is his reality and to leave her out of the picture entirely is a denial of real life.
It is also a very human response to be curious about his family and parts of his private life (and I mean that in a limited fashion - nothing invasive, but I have to admit I was curious about his offspring when they were born and wanted to know if the new baby was a boy or a girl - that sort of thing). And sure when I was in England I wanted to walk down the street that his new house was being renovated on - not because I wanted to see him (I was pretty sure he wouldn't be there and would have felt horrified if he had been there!) but because I was curious about what the street would look like. But all we did was just walk down a London street - didn't even pause as we walked by the house and we were actually going to Hampstead Heath for the day so it was one of the possible streets we could have walked down to get there from the tube station. But I really don't think that could be considered "stalking" could it? But some might say I shouldn't have gone down that street because of the off chance that he might have been there. It is a public street and a public park after all.
So there might be some grey areas.
Just something to consider.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jun 10, 2017 10:09:36 GMT
For what it's worth I think any extreme behaviour, be it negatively or positively generated, is problematic.
To clarify in terms of BC, I mean obsessive monitoring of BC and family to the extent of tracking their friends social media and literally following BC to places he goes, hanging around places he goes in the hopes he may turn up or interrupting him for autograps and pics when he is obviously on private time as opposed to a public event.
I don't think curiosity about him and his family fits into that category so long as it doesn't intrude into their lives.
For example I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to see pics of his kids or know their names etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at pap pics. I don't think there's anything wrong with being interested in knowing what his house looks like.
But I guess when it comes to that acceptable middle ground, each of us draw our own lines as to what that means and where the boundries lie.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 10, 2017 10:31:23 GMT
I wasn't speaking of you, @roverpup but of certain fans who police twitter and facebook and demand that people don't mention where he is or if he is with his family because he has the right of privacy.
For instance, SaskiaCumberdutch here. They act as if they have been appointed to be the guardians of BC security but I remember one time she went through London and "casually" meet Sophie with Cristopher and, although they were on their private time (apparently you can only share things from promotions, red carpet) she went to talk to her. If it isn't ok to share a picture or go and talk to BC while he is at a restaurant you shouldn't go and talk to Sophie when she is with her son at a park.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jun 10, 2017 11:05:36 GMT
Slightly related to this thread.
Had to look up Drumherum as I don't speak German. It basically means "trappings" so he's pretty much either deliberately or inadvertently sending out the message that Sophie isn't bothered by anything that goes with his work/fame, including the mad "fan" behaviour and online rantings.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jun 10, 2017 11:09:08 GMT
I totally get what you mean by extreme behaviour as opposed to just usual fan curiosity, no matter whether the motivation is negatively or positively generated, being problematic. But I still think it gives me the extra special creeps knowing that there are those who are obsessing about him who deny he has children and/or continue to say the nastiest, hateful lies about his wife. That just seems doubly wrong IMO. These vile people say they are motivated by "concern" and love for BC, but I don't buy for one second. You don't act this way for three + years and wallow in such hate towards someone/or something which most normal people would be view as being a joy for him and say it stems from a positive place. That just doesn't ring true at all.
As for the "uberfans" who follow him around to public events all around the world and try to meet and greet him at every opportunity - I could never behave that way (even if I did have that kind of money)... I am just not wired up that way. And I do think there is a higher chance of "extreme adoration" turning into "extreme hatred" if something disappoints you about the object of all this admiration (like I think it has with the so-called "skeptic's" and BC getting married to someone they didn't "approve" of). So discretion and a bit of distance is the better part of valour, so to speak IMO.
In fact, if I had known that there might be a realistic chance of seeing him in London on that street I am certain that I wouldn't have gone down that street, specifically because I think that would be crossing a line I have set for myself. But I would have been absolutely thrillled if I had gone to a theatre and seen him in the audience! Or gone to the BAFTAS and seen him on the red carpet!
And after reading what he had he had to say in that Vanity Fair interview, I think he sees clearly the distinction between fans who are motivated by the usual amount of adulation and fascination of celebrity (something that can be intrusive on some days and not so much on others) and those who have turned this into a hateful, darkly motivated obsession that denies he is a father and a husband (which is a whole other level of obsession and is something to be avoided ALL of the time).
:-))
|
|