The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 09-14-2012, 11:56 AM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,305
It's indeed official : Kate and William are suing Closer :

Le Figaro - Flash Actu : Kate et William poursuivent Closer

Well done ...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-14-2012, 11:56 AM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzling View Post
There is a difference if they are being photographed in a public place, then yes she should be aware but if it is a private residence then she is free to do what she wants. The paparazzi have no right taking pictures and even if they do, such pictures should not be published. Tomorrow it'll be normal for them to take pictures of them while they are indoors.
Exactly if the line are not drawn now, the next pictures will be taking from a shower window of a celebs publish in magazine like the closer or site like TMZ
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:05 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
SJP confirms. Legal proceedings for breach of privacy have commenced today in France against the Publishers of Closer Magazine France
I remember the same paper published their summer photos, if I'm not mistaken.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:07 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
the magazine will be found guilty but the fine will not compare to the profit they make.


The result remains the same, kate keep your bra on in future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:08 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:09 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,478
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:10 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,608
Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family

I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanRoyal View Post
That works for doors. But bathroom windows - which in remote houses are often large and made of clear glass to let in light - have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Which is how Charles was photographed in the nude.
SJP have confirmed legal action will be taken.
The magazine is owned by former Italian PM Silvio Berlesconi, not a man well know for taste, class or integrity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:21 PM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.
Well said BeatrixFan
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.
I completely agree.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:25 PM
Boris's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family

I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
What a refreshing statement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:33 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina
Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family

I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
Neither do I.

She knows the risks of sunbathing and going topless, just don't go topless. I don't think it's right that the pictures were published, but it's not surprising considering the mentality of the press.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:37 PM
carlota's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 5,733
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.
while i don't think it's reasonable to snap and publish naked pictures of people, you can hardly blame them: they knew that the magazine sells would outdo the costs of the legal action. the best is PREVENTION. if you do not engage in certain behaviours, you are safe that no uncomfortable pictures will be published.
it's the price you pay when you marry into one of the most famous families in the world. there are some things that you just can't do anymore. it all comes in a package, you can't choose half the package.
__________________
Sign the United Nations Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare: http://www.animalsmatter.org
YOUR DAILY CLICK HELPS ANIMALS SURVIVE!
Feed an animal in need, click for free.
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Take some time to sign the petitions @: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/animal-welfare/all
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:43 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Serene Highness - Picture of the Month Representative - Britain
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach (CA), United States
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)
I zoomed in on that map and those look like trails to get around the property...not a main road. The main road is quite a bit away from the house, and you have to travel through quite a bit of land to get to the chateau. Viscount Linley did an interview last year and said he bought the property because it's miles from anywhere and the main roads are deserted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family

I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
Aren't they putting on sunscreen? I don't know if I consider that baking themselves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:46 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.
She wasn't in a public place.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:49 PM
Calenei's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.

Great Post!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.
.
It wasn't a public place. The Duke and Duchess were on a private estate owned by her husbands cousin. The photographer would have had to trespass (which is illegal) on private property and then use long lense to take the pictures. Invasions of privacy, even of public persons, is still illegal in France. There is a reasonable expectation of the right to privacy on private property.

I am rather amazed at the "blame the victim" mentality of some posters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:56 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,224
Sucks for Kate. Let the woman sunbath topless if she wants to do so. It's a private estate for God's sake.
Both her and William must feel very paranoid whenever they go away together.

I do feel for Kate and feel there should be a drawn line for paps. And not just for royalty. And also, people should stop being so phazed about nudity. They're just boobs. Flaunt 'em if you have 'em. It's not like we haven't seen a pair before.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-14-2012, 01:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
It wasn't a public place. The Duke and Duchess were on a private estate owned by her husbands cousin. The photographer would have had to trespass (which is illegal) on private property and then use long lense to take the pictures. Invasions of privacy, even of public persons, is still illegal in France. There is a reasonable expectation of the right to privacy on private property.

I am rather amazed at the "blame the victim" mentality of some posters.
I'm amazed by it too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-14-2012, 01:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)
Some info on the Chateau

Quote:
Even with the correct address and a Global Positioning System on the dash, you can’t locate David Linley’s hideaway in Provence. It takes binoculars, secret cell phone numbers, an intuitive geographic sense and good French to find your way to a sketchy drive that winds through 650 acres of woods and fields and finally deposits you next to the jaunty, fire-engine-red Deux Chevaux that marks the spot. The scrub oak, walnut trees and pines are all buzzing with cicadas.
The Country Life : Architectural Digest
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]