Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I read the article about the appeal and Closer is not arguing about the the decision about privacy violations, it's about the money paid for damages. Closer argues it was excessive and it was paid out because the plaintiff was a royal. I think the lawyers know this argument is weak and they want to use Meghan to draw attention to the case. The actual argument will be offered when the trial begins.
 
I read the article about the appeal and Closer is not arguing about the the decision about privacy violations, it's about the money paid for damages. Closer argues it was excessive and it was paid out because the plaintiff was a royal. I think the lawyers know this argument is weak and they want to use Meghan to draw attention to the case. The actual argument will be offered when the trial begins.

If they must use that as an excuse, I wish they'd leave Meghan, who has nothing to do with this case, out of it. I mean they could always use Kate who voluntarily stripped down to her suspenders for all to see in that fashion show in her pre-royal days as an example.

It still is a weak case, but at least they'd be talking about the same person.
 
Last edited:
If they must use that as an excuse, I wish they'd leave Meghan, who has nothing to do with this case, out of it. I mean they could always use Kate who voluntarily stripped down to her suspenders for all to see in that fashion show in her pre-royal days as an example.

It still is a weak case, but at least they'd be talking about the same person.

In neither instance (Kate in the fashion show or Meghan in the magazine photos or barbecue video) were the ladies nude or partially nude. So there is no way the photos taken in France are able to be defended that way.
 
Being nude isn't the issue imo, its the fact that in the fashion show and in Meghan's past career they gave their consent to being viewed and photographed and in France Kate did not. I also wish they would leave Meghan out of this but she's the new fish and they are using her for attention.
I still wish the fine would have been more.



I'm not missing the point at all, I agree with you but my saying that M stripped down to her suspenders seems to be unwelcome. I'm just stating the obvious as I'm not sure how anyone strips 'up' to their underwear, that's not having a go at her.

Sophie I understand what you are saying; I believe the issue is that some people have a problem with the phrase "strip down" and it may bring up connections of strippers or the Kardashians .
 
Last edited:
In neither instance (Kate in the fashion show or Meghan in the magazine photos or barbecue video) were the ladies nude or partially nude. So there is no way the photos taken in France are able to be defended that way.

I agree that it's a weak case, and likely wouldn't win.Nudity wasn't even the issue when it comes to those photos not being published. They are likely tying the amount of damage to that it's nudity and royalty. And that's how Meghan, unfortunately, got dragged into this even though she has nothing to do with this, and everything that's been published is nowhere near where those photos were and she wasn't a royal when all this happened.

I'm a proponent of making the fine based on the gain and a percentage above that. Basic human behavior is that if there is everything to gain by taking the risk and nothing to lose if it doesn't pan out, they will continue to act recklessly. They likely knew the photos violated privacy before publishing it, but why would they care if the fee is only a symbolic amount? They still get to profit from it. There has to be a reason for them to not take that chance.
 
Last edited:
Being nude isn't the issue imo, its the fact that in the fashion show and in Meghan's past career they gave their consent to being viewed and photographed and in France Kate did not. I also wish they would leave Meghan out of this but she's the new fish and they are using her for attention.
I still wish the fine would have been more.





Sophie I understand what you are saying; I believe the issue is that some people have a problem with the phrase "strip down" and it may bring up connections of strippers or the Kardashians .

Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
 
Why should Meghan's past need to be re-written? She has nothing to be ashamed of. She worked hard and gained her own wealth. Not everyone can be born wealthy so they don't actually have to work. What if she had photos out there like those of her new husband buck naked playing strip poker in Las Vegas?

Bringing Meghan into this case is a joke!!! Those lawyers are grasping at straws!
 
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.
 
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.

All one has to do today is turn on the TV set and there's oodles of noodles of ads for bras with women modeling them. Or disposable underwear with models wearing them. These people are paid to model them to promote a product. It was done with their consent. So, no big deal.

If I'm not mistaken, the whole deal is about the amount of money paid out as a settlement of the Closure case. They took their sweet time determining that the payout was too much and with that in mind, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. They're giving billable hours to lawyers that are going to go ahead with this probably with the idea that they're being paid anyways regardless of whether they win or lose. Its another media circus IMO.
 
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.

No one has asked for a “past” to be rewritten - we just don’t understand why Meghan has been dragged into a legal case related to Kate only. Particularly since images already exist of a stripped down Duchess of Cambridge down in bra & knickers underwear poses for a show - obviously taken long before she began her life as a royal.

It was/is unnecessary for the Duchess of Sussex to be dragged into this when there are underwear “sexy” shots etc. readily available of the previous life involving the litigant in question (Catherine/Kate), that could be used by the complainant(s).
 
Last edited:
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.

NO one is trying rewrite anything. There are just better ways to say things. However, if we are to go there. A number of royals have stripped off their clothes including the person this case is about. Everyone has a past. I wonder if they plan to use the photos of Kate’s bare bum too? Those were allowed for publication I believe as it didn’t violate privacy.

What I’m afraid is that a case of violating privacy is going to turn to having a case of trying to shame the women. It’s unfortunately usual tactic towards victims, but usually their sister-in-law isn’t dragged into it as she’s irrelevant. Of course, the tabloids will just use this as an excuse to now scandalizes everything that was not a big deal and known before. I wonder if the French court would actually allow this? I know in US courts, all kinds of motions would be filed to disallow at least Meghan’s, and possibly Kate’s, photos as it is irrelevant. Although Kate’s would be more debatable as it is actually the same person and this is an argument about if the damage was excessive.
 
The magazine’s lawyer, as quoted in the Daily Mail:

“‘They are happy with sexy photos of themselves when they are in control, but then claim huge amounts of money when they’re unauthorised,’ said one legal source involved in the case.”

Well, duh! Just because I sometimes buy goods from a store doesn’t mean I’d be ok with that store using my debit card information to take an unauthorized transfer of money from my account. Or actually, to make the analogy a little closer to what’s happened here, just because my sister-in-law once shopped at Macy’s doesn’t give Wal-Mart the right to just grab my money and say, “but this family has given money to stores before!”
 
Exactly, Meghan voluntarily stripped down to suspenders and what not for anyone to look at her. Kate did not.

Be nice if people and the media in particular appreciate the fact that this is 2018 and not the backwards medieval era. Nothing wrong or shameful about women in suspenders acting at work. Or bra/knickers and “what not” performing in public shows. ?
 
Last edited:
Be nice if people and the media in particular appreciate the fact that this is 2018 and not the backwards medieval era. Nothing wrong or shameful about women in suspenders acting at work. Or bra/knickers and “what not” performing in public shows. ?

I agree and don't think it's a big deal either but some people do see it as trashy and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion as well.
 
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.

That’s the thing. Kate didn’t think anyone could see. She was on private property far away from any public views. The photographer used a telephoto lens from miles away to take the photo. The only one to blame here is the photographer who invaded her privacy and took photos of her without her consent.
 
Last edited:
The magazine’s lawyer, as quoted in the Daily Mail:

“‘They are happy with sexy photos of themselves when they are in control, but then claim huge amounts of money when they’re unauthorised,’ said one legal source involved in the case.”

Well, duh! Just because I sometimes buy goods from a store doesn’t mean I’d be ok with that store using my debit card information to take an unauthorized transfer of money from my account. Or actually, to make the analogy a little closer to what’s happened here, just because my sister-in-law once shopped at Macy’s doesn’t give Wal-Mart the right to just grab my money and say, “but this family has given money to stores before!”

The analogy used by that lawyer is why some people still believe that prostitutes can’t be raped. It’s a disgusting way to twist the facts. People who follow this line of thinking tend to change their minds when the tables are turned.
 
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.

That's absurd. Kate took off her top on a private property, miles from the road, to sunbathe or cange her swim suit...
 
I agree and don't think it's a big deal either but some people do see it as trashy and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion as well.


What was to be expected of Harry? Just think of the chosen careers of former girlfriends: modeling like Florence Brudenell-bruce, who modelled lingerie to Cressida Bonas, who is an actress (or wants to become one). His cousin Lady Amelia Windsor works as a mannequin - it is done nowadays even by Royals and Royal men like HH Prince Nicolaj of Denmark.



So what? Times have changed and maybe the Royal family would have been happier with Koo Stark than Sarah Ferguson as Duchess of York. Who knows? As long as Meghan behaves as Harry's wife, she could have done a lot more than she actually did in her past.
 
As far as I remember, Sarah Ferguson worked as a secretary before marrying Andrew.
 
As far as I remember, Sarah Ferguson worked as a secretary before marrying Andrew.


Yes, that's true but most of her time she spent as the "girl who temporarily lives here" in the mansions, beach villas or chalets of her rich friends in fashionable places around the world. And I am sure the habit of letting staff lick her toes while her children look on came from that time. (Sorry, I am still shocked that she let her children watch this - I think it would have been a much smaller scandal without Beatrice and Eugenie as toddlers being present at that pool. IIRC it was the housekeeper back then who was so annoyed about this that she thought it has to become public knowledge about Sarah and informed the media, so they could get pics of it. (Hope this is fact, I am pretty sure that was behind the sudden paparazzi appearance on what was thought to be a private estate).
 
That's absurd. Kate took off her top on a private property, miles from the road, to sunbathe or cange her swim suit...

I don't think that was Madame Maseau's view, but rather what the lawyers are trying to paint in order to say the damages were excessive. Their point is no longer that they violated her privacy. However, now it's if the damage to her justified. If we really get down to it, bringing Meghan's modelling shots into this in the first place is absurd. She has never posed topless in any of those photos. Fashion shoots are often provocative, but not going over that line for the most part. So it still doesn't jive with their argument that the damage should be less.
 
What was to be expected of Harry? Just think of the chosen careers of former girlfriends: modeling like Florence Brudenell-bruce, who modelled lingerie to Cressida Bonas, who is an actress (or wants to become one). His cousin Lady Amelia Windsor works as a mannequin - it is done nowadays even by Royals and Royal men like HH Prince Nicolaj of Denmark.



So what? Times have changed and maybe the Royal family would have been happier with Koo Stark than Sarah Ferguson as Duchess of York. Who knows? As long as Meghan behaves as Harry's wife, she could have done a lot more than she actually did in her past.

To be fair to Cressida and Amelia, being an actress or a model doesn't make someone trashy per se.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago I went topless at a lake , it wasn't private property or anything like that and I wasn't the only one . It was also not a nude beach area , just a local lake that had not been invaded by tourists . I'd be pissed if somebody had taken a picture and put it online somewhere, I didn't consent to that . The implied consent to see my like that was only for the people around me in various stages of undressed and swimwear themselves . Just because somebody is naked doesn't mean it's a free for all picture buffet.
 
Bet that wasnt on the front page as glaringly as the false story was!!!!! And all of those sites who quoted the Mirror's false story aren't going to publish the apology either!
 
Thanks for sharing the update on the appeal. I had a feeling that they were going to lose. :whistling:
 
Back
Top Bottom