General News & Information: Prince Albert & Princess Charlene 1: July 2011 - Feb.2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will be interested in the outcome of the court case because of the far-reaching effects of the gossip/slander. It not only cast a large cloud over their beautiful wedding, causing untold grief and heartache for them and their families but probably adversely affected the economics of the Principality.

Just think of that. A nasty little anti Grimaldi attack could have cost people their jobs, their security, their peace of mind with the lessening of tourism resulting from the "This is not a Love Match but a Marriage of Convenience" media assault. That certainly took the gilt off the gingerbread!

I am so sick of this PC media world where people think that "freedom of speech" is a God given right. These media conglomerates couldn't give tuppence for our rights, they just pull that rabbit out of the hat when they overstep the law! People need to be held to account for their actions and for the consequences of their actions. And if it bankrupts the media outlet? so much the better.

Rupert Murdoch showed just how much corporate media care for their employees when he closed NOTW with no notice. The fact that the large majority of said employees where not even involved or even employed when the illegal acts under investigation occurred was irrelevant!
 
Eringer isn't what one would call a "proper journalist", so we can safely ignore him.

Christophe Barbier (L'Express) is a different proposition altogether.
 
Renata4711 said:
Eringer isn't what one would call a "proper journalist", so we can safely ignore him.

Christophe Barbier (L'Express) is a different proposition altogether.
Click to expand...
With regard to Eringer and the L'Express article you have to take into account the fact the day before the article was published the information appeared on Eringers blog.
 
A smoking gun LadyM? If that's the case I hope Eringner is sued for this also.
 
Renata4711 said:
Eringer is nothing more than a blogger.

L'Express - Actualités Politique, Monde, Economie et Culture
The magazine was founded in 1953 during the war in Indochina.
It was modelled on TIME Magazine.

Look at Christophe's way of presenting the news:
L'Euro plus fort que le Dollar? - L'EXPRESS
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point, maybe it was how I wrote it. It's clear with dated documentation the information about Charlene trying to run away appeared on Eringers Question and Answer section before LExpress published the article. Therefore, we have two options. One, a source posted it on Eringers and two, someone at LExpress posted it. The poster was somehow connected to the story.

A quote from LExpress on July 22.
As for the persistent rumor of a supposed third illegitimate child that Prince Albert would have been when he was already engaged to Charlene, "there is evidence that this is wrong," said Michel Roger.
Click to expand...
The part in pink I haven't heard the child was conceived when he was already engaged to Charlene. "There is evidence that this is wrong?" If one child was 3 months old and the other is 18 months when the article came out its obvious neither were conceived after the engagement. I didn't see any article saying they were during the engagement period. Have you?
 
i dont believe she has tried to flee monaco: look at the facts and history of this relationship
several yrs in the making
its not like she had a bombing career to handle so he is a meal ticket(sorry for the wording )
plus she has had a lot of time to leave-why wait until a week or so before the wedding?
i think its a rumor and i do believe there are two camps in this family -again this is all my opinion

The part in pink I haven't heard the child was conceived when he was already engaged to Charlene. "There is evidence that this is wrong?" If one child was 3 months old and the other is 18 months when the article came out its obvious neither were conceived after the engagement. I didn't see any article saying they were during the engagement period. Have you?
Click to expand...
What!!!!! two possible children, i know everyone is different but im sorry there is no way on earth, no amount of money that would have made me marry him but again everyone is different
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote
Monaco's Princess Charlene is 'very happy'

"She and her bridesmaid were in SA on a game farm a week before the wedding. She could have stayed behind if she'd wanted to."

Divaasia.com
 
i knw this theory of mine is just strange but i think someone would like to make her a victim in some sick way to make her more popular-imo just a theory
 
I'm sure the Prince would love to sue Eringer (and that woman whose name I forget who recently wrote a book about Prince Albert threatened to sue him too after he slandered her with all sorts of vile name-calling) but as long as he stays in the United States there is not much anyone can do to him. The U.S. (and Eringer should thank George Bush for this) has always refused the right of foreign courts to prosecute American citizens. As far as the U.S. courts go the deck is stacked against the "celebrity" in this regard. You can completely trash someone on the internet and as long as they're not driven to suicide there's not really anything the law can do about it. And if anyone tried the ACLU would be all over them like ants on a snow cone. Eringer is also pretty good about dancing along the line of legality and so, for the most part, sticks to "allegations" and juvenile insults.

It is when mainstream media outlets pick up his insane tirades and run them as "legitimate" news that the trouble really starts.

:monacostandard: :monacoflag:
 
Eringer lives in California. I thought I read somewhere on TRF that PA is suing Eringer in the state of California regarding his supposed slanderous statements the first time; before the wedding stuff. The mode of slander should be irrelevant. If his website is in California, he would be sued in that state. Eringer filed a lawsuit against PA in California but it was dismissed because the alleged misdoing did not take place in the US. I don't think you get a free pass just because it's on the web. The thing with celebrities is there may be a grain of truth or something is phrased as a question, so it gets tricky. Some celebs have won lawsuites against the tablorids but it takes alot of time and money; giving large companies an advantage.I'm not a lawyer though so correct me if I am wrong.
 
FanofMonaco said:
Eringer lives in California. I thought I read somewhere on TRF that PA is suing Eringer in the state of California regarding his supposed slanderous statements the first time; before the wedding stuff. The mode of slander should be irrelevant. If his website is in California, he would be sued in that state. Eringer filed a lawsuit against PA in California but it was dismissed because the alleged misdoing did not take place in the US. I don't think you get a free pass just because it's on the web. The thing with celebrities is there may be a grain of truth or something is phrased as a question, so it gets tricky. Some celebs have won lawsuites against the tablorids but it takes alot of time and money; giving large companies an advantage.I'm not a lawyer though so correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Albert is suing Eringer in France. I haven't seen where Eringers suit against Albert has been dismissed. I know Aberts attorneys tried but were denied.
Today, the U.S. District Court issued its decision on the Principality of Monaco’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint of Robert Eringer. The court ordered the hearing on the motion vacated and further ordered the parties to commence discovery.
Click to expand...
Ricks Law News The United States courts should not be hearing this case for the same reasons as Tamara Rotolos paternity suit.
dismissed by Superior Court Judge Graham Anderson Cribbs, who claimed that there was "insufficient contact between Albert and the state of California to justify hearing a suit there" agreeing with an assertion by the prince's lawyer, Stanley Arkin, that the California court had no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia Eringer was working for a Monaco based employer where Eringer has said his office was. The United States has no right to jurisdiction.
 
Boris said:
I'm most curious to see how this lawsuit turns out; in addition to the summary from Renata4711, I find it noticeable that there are two reasons given for sueing instead of one:
'Invasion of privacy' (meaning part of the stories could be very true but considered by the plaintiff to be of no public interest)
and 'publication of inaccurate facts relating to privacy' (meaning part of the stories could be false).
A fine line between these two only at first sight, but certainly not in terms of law and in terms of the consequences.
I can imagine that regarding 'privacy', the fact that a Head of State is insisting on it instead of a mere Prince or Princess could make a difference, as his right to privacy might be considered rather more restricted than others, for the sake of public and historic interest and for the sake of freedom of the press.
I also wonder if there is any precedent at all of a reigning monarch sueing any media outlet?
Click to expand...

The reasons for sueing seem contradictory to me and you underlined it very well. It looks like"even if it is true, I don't want the public people to know". The "invasion of privacy" sounds as if the lawyer of the princely couple already know his suit for "publication of inaccurate facts relating to privacy" will be dismissed and he is preparing another way to win the case. The other possibility is the two reasons for suing are about different parts of the article and the lawyer recognizes that there is some truth in the article. But one can only guess and the court will be very interesting and we won't know anything new before the hearings.
If the case focuses on "invasion of privacy", the juridical debates will be interesting, because the French jurisprudence is keen to considerate that the matters related to an event the plaintiff has himself mediatized are not all private. But that does not mean everything is allowed. If a secret and illicit tape of their wedding night has been published on Internet (may God forbid it), that would have been a typical case of "invasion of privacy".
Another point will be the supposed role of the airport police: the lawyers of L'Express will underline that it is of public interest that the airport police has stopped Charlene if (and I underline the if) it is true, because it would mean public fundings have been used for a private purpose. So the whole case will be a very interesting one.
 
Last edited:
I find the posts interesting where some of you are trying to read into the reasons given for the law suit. If it happened or not it really is a private matter therefore no one elses business but the couple. I like what her younger brother said
"She and her bridesmaid were in SA on a game farm a week before the wedding. She could have stayed behind if she'd wanted to."
Click to expand...
Right there folks could have been the ticket she had to S.A. which LExpress was talking about. She could have stopped for any number of reasons that had nothing at all to do with her trying to escape. How many of you thought of that?

My post with the source.
LadyMacAlpine said:
Quote
Monaco's Princess Charlene is 'very happy'

"She and her bridesmaid were in SA on a game farm a week before the wedding. She could have stayed behind if she'd wanted to."

Divaasia.com
Click to expand...
 
Yes, this show will run and run....

I think the point regarding mediatisation by the plaintiff is a strong one,
Also it appears there is a "spy in the camp" - Charlene who talks to the media.....
 
I do hope Charlene wears the Ocean tiara (but as a necklace) to the Ball.
 
Prince Albert is currently at Louis II Stadium for a football match (Monaco versus Boulogne-sur-Mer). I couldn't see if Charlene is here too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ooh yes, I do love the Ocean Tiara. A refreshing new design which really does suit Princess Charlene of Monaco.
 
And hopefully something else than strapless.
Even though I think it suits her (I like her shoulders!) I would like to see something different this time.
It gets boring.
 
Smush said:
And hopefully something else than strapless.
Even though I think it suits her (I like her shoulders!) I would like to see something different this time.
Click to expand...

I think "strapless" has become very much Charlene's signature look when it comes to evening gowns. She always does look good as well and I think she reflects a strong confidence. However, this does not stop her from exploring new design avenues.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see the Ocean tiara worn !
 
L'Express has received the summon from prince Albert II and princess Charlene: L'Express a reçu l'assignation en justice d'Albert II et Charlene de Monaco - LExpress.fr

The article (from AFP, Agence France Presse) quotes some explanations from Christophe Barbier:
- three different sources, all are reliable and trustable (note from me: it is not my personal opinion, just Christophe Barbier's declarations)
- why Charlene wanted to flight is none of their business; the journalists didn't expose the details which could explain it
- but they regard a political fact that Charlene has wanted for a time to leave Monaco

We will get no more details until the court, I guess.
 
So, at least a part of the cat has been let out of the bag !

I'd like to see when exactly these news was published.

From Figaro's Le Flash at 07h23 until 14h04, nothing was reported.
 
Renata4711 said:
So, at least a part of the cat has been let out of the bag !

I'd like to see when exactly these news was published.

From Figaro's Le Flash at 07h23 until 14h04, nothing was reported.
Click to expand...

It is at the top of the link: today, AFP, 13h36.
 
Renata, that is one hot ocean liner! LOL

I would like to see Charlene wear it as a necklace with a strapless, medium shade of blue, but it has to be the right blue. A fishtail silhouette would be spectacular; not where there is a fluff of fishtail, but a smooth one.
 
And what will be achieved ? L'Express will sell more papers.

And the two plaintiffs will be made to look as nitpickers.

As it is, the paper is going into Dominique Strauss-Kahn mode, with an extra section titled:
Casanova, l'épopée d'un séducteur (2nd August)

So they've got two hot stories on the go..... in the middle of a hot summer.... I can hear the tills ringing......
 
Last edited:
Kitty, perhaps we should suggest to Daniel Bäumer to make another tiara.... :)
 
Keep us posted, Sancia. This will be interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iceflower
Prince Albert & Princess Charlene Current Events Part 6: January 2024 -
Replies
8
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara
iceflower
General News about King Carl Gustaf & Queen Silvia Part 2: January 2024 -
Replies
11
Views
2K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
iceflower
Princess Leonore, Prince Nicolas, Princess Adrienne News Part 2: January 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
881
Blog Real
Blog Real
iceflower
General News about Joachim, Marie and Family Part 7: January 2024 -
Replies
21
Views
4K
kalnel
K

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom