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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
St. James's Palace have apparently confirmed that the photos are genuine.
 
This is just a disgrace. If these people can't expect privacy while on a private estate (which is apparently extremely secluded and private) belonging to one of their family members, where can they expect privacy?

I also thought that France was supposedly passionate about the privacy of individuals, even those who are in the public eye? Evidently this is not the case when it comes to British royals.

Nicholas Witchell is on the BBC right now reporting from Kuala Lumpur and says that he's never seen royal officials so angry as they are right now. William, in particular, is apparently outraged, which is probably not surprising given his disdain for the press even before this.

Dear EIIR,please don't include France or French people in this affair.
This is not a French-British affair.The only responsible of this are the magazine staff and the one who has taken the pics
Even before this affair,I always considered this particular magazine stupid and rubbish.For me,the readers of Closer are silly teenagers or brainless people or with low cultural backgrounds.But,here Closer staff also proved to be really vicious since they published those pics while William and Catherine are visiting muslim countries.I noticed that the reactions of french people on the internet are very critical and negative towards closer.
I don't like when the aim of a magazine is to create scandals and bring disgrace on people whoever they are.
Moreover,I don't understand all this fuss around Catherine topless pics.It will be a scandal if she was totally naked.She was on a private property and has the right to sunbath topless.If I want to sunbath topless in my property and my neighbour takes pics of me,imagine who is acting illegaly.
I wonder how this magazine has not yet financial problems given the fact that few people had taken legal actions against them.
I will be really happy if this magazine has to pay big financial compensations to Catherine and others.This kind of magazines are brainwashing certain category of people and are letting them rot in sub culture.
 
If people would stop buying the magazines that publish these sorts of things they'd not have much of a market to sell them.

When Diana was killed I stopped buying any sort of magazine (including the popular People here) that publishes these sorts of things/articles.


LaRae
 
Of course, the journalists should leave them alone, but in any case Kate should go on , as she is a nice young woman and was with her husband, nothing wrong there and much fuss about nothing.
It's disgusting to penetrate in somebody's life and then make one's fortune on selling others' private moments.
 
I can't believe anyone would suggest that HRH is at fault here. She was on a private estate on a private holiday. It's clear that she couldn't even see the photographer. Absolutely disgusting on the part of this magazine and a sad comment on the mentality of those who buy this rubbish.
 
I hope they sue this ratty magazine out of existence. Take them for every single penny they have.
 
In the picture I saw on Closer she seems to be in a yacht, no invation of privacy at all if that´s the case. What I found annoying from the beginning, as I said in another thread, is that they took another vacation. I think that the excuse for not attending the paralympics was that he was supposed to be "working" on the base, wasn´t it? And they were in France.

They went away for 2 days. How is that a vacation? I go away for 2 days, but certainly do not consider that a vacation, it's a weekend off. That's it, nothing more. The 2 days they went away for were probably a "weekend off" for William from his SAR duties.

Plus, knowing how frugal they can be, they probably got their travel tickets, I assume plane tickets, at a really good rate and they stayed at the Queen's nephew's house so didn't pay a hotel bill. If the same opportunity presented itself to me, I'd jump at it too.
 
There might be one more reason why the obscure 'Closer' magazine was the only taker:
I see a blurry line around the most delicate area in most of the pics and actually think that at least some were manipulated digitally by airbrushing the bikini top out.

IMO any lament about 'France doesn't protect British royals' is quite nonsensical - a paparazzi on the job could have taken the pics in any place on this planet, and the only ones who might protect Royals totally from incidents like this happening is their own security staff.
 
Wow, must be so upsetting to oneself's photos on papers like that. I feel sorry for her :(
She was on a private estate and on a private holiday, it's clearly invasion of privacy but Kate is a public figure and I think she should have considered the possible presence of paparazzis. I'm sure she will be more carefull next time.
 
The wealthy taking more than one holiday a year? Shock horror. I often wonder how people would react if our royal family behaved more like those not so long passed. Princess Margaret is a case in point (having also been photographed topless I seem to recall) who was forever jetting off to a private island or the chateau of a friend.
 
They weren't in a hotel, they were in the private house of William's second cousin, Viscount Linley. Apparently numerous members of the royal family have holidayed there without the press even knowing they were there.
OK, noted

If Kate can't take her top off while on private property in a remote estate in a country with notoriously strict privacy laws, she can't take her top off anywhere. .
Kate is the future Queen of England, and she has to be much more carefull than any average person. And of course she CAN'T take her top off nowere, outside of protecting walls! This is obvious, no? There is NO LAW protecting her, because it sells for millions.

Kate will obviously have to start wearing a bikini or swimming costume in the bath or shower, given that a member of staff or the postman or some pap with a long lense might snap a picture of her and it's apparently fair game.
Ha Ha nice joke!!
More seriousely, when takes a shower she has to close the bath'room's door!!:bang:
 
I just think that besides beeing at her home she could't have been in topless in any other place...even if she was 100% that they aren't any paparazzi, she should know tha outside home that is forbiden...so things happen...and I'am not blaming her but...
 
Was Sophie stupid for being photographed years before she met Prince Edward while goofing around on holiday when they published her topless photo?
Was Diana stupid for working out in a gym when they drilled holes in the wall and published crotch shots?
Was prosecutor Marcia Clark stupid for vacationing in Europe and being topless on a beach and seeing her 10 yr. old topless photos published in the middle of the OJ Simpson murder trial?
Sophie was taken in pic BEFORE being Erwards's wife
Diana was not taken topless
Marcia Clark is not the future Queen of England.

What I'm trying to say, is that being topless is not something bad to do. But since for a future Queen is a not acceptable behavior, SHE HAS TO DO HER UTMOST IN ORDER NEVER BE CAUGHT IN TOPLESS. So simple.
 
Sophie was taken in pic BEFORE being Erwards's wife
Diana was not taken topless
Marcia Clark is not the future Queen of England.

What I'm trying to say, is that being topless is not something bad to do. But since for a future Queen is a not acceptable behavior, SHE HAS TO DO HER UTMOST IN ORDER NEVER BE CAUGHT IN TOPLESS. So simple.

We'll stick her in a burkha then and make her wear it 24/7. Should solve the problem.
 
Ha Ha nice joke!!
More seriousely, when takes a shower she has to close the bath'room's door!!:bang:


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.
 
Last edited:
My heart breaks for both of them. These images will never go away. It was a horrible invasion of privacy. I think it is very cruel of the photographer and the publishers. Such heartless people. I know that William and Catherine will weather the storm but I am so so saddened that they have to deal with this.
 
I just think that besides beeing at her home she could't have been in topless in any other place...even if she was 100% that they aren't any paparazzi, she should know tha outside home that is forbiden...so things happen...and I'am not blaming her but...

This is exactly what I'm trying to say, but other people get angry about!
 
It's a shame she cannot do as she pleases while in privacy. I think if they almost live in fear of the paparazzi, William and Catherine will let these creeps win.
 
It's not the first time this mag cross the line with royalty as the Grimaldi are usually their main target. The princely family win regular court battles for privacy invasion , as the french law is particulary serious about it. Usually the incriminated paper has to pay some thousands of euros (usually reversed to charities) and publish an apology (scarce) or a note from the tribunal (always) in front page. Usualy the mag in question is not so worried about this kind of procedure, as they have a special budget destined to the "legal problems", funded by the huge amout of publicty around a juicy story (as today).

The question is : are Will and Kate ready to enter in some serious legal actions against this kind of publication, who let's face it, will flourish during all their lives ? I'll tend to say yes, with the risk to give another level of publicity to this kind of press. Of course they are victims in this story and i just can't believe some comments here or there saying basically "she should know better"...

I noticed some comments about "the french don't protect the privacy of royals". As i can understand the disgust about this story (shared by a good amount of french peole today) i"ll not generalize a la Daily mail with some good old french bashing. This photo could have been taken wherever in world.

On a personnal note i'm of course particularry sad and angry, as many of us today, to see these photos printed at the same time of a very successful Jubilee tour. They certainly don't deserve that...
 
topless or not, future Queen or not, its their privacy, its not like they were doing anything serious! what a lack of respect even considering that France has one of the most privacy rules for individuals in the world. how dare they!!!
 
its so easy - stop talking, writing, chatting about it, don´t look at the pictures, don´t buy the mag - thats the only way you can help them.

The mag reached its goal - everybody is talking about it.

So, just stop - because its their business what they are doing in private. stop.
 
I can't believe this, instead of blaming the person who trespass on private property and invaded someone privacy let blame the victim?

The paparazzi have cameras that can zoom in and take pictures while they are miles away. I think they would be able to take pictures of someone inside someone property. It scary

Fz-28 hd zoom test panasonic lumix new camera - YouTube
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can understand the privacy issues and the photographer and publisher has gone way out of line. But even on a private estate why would you go around topless when you know paps will be anywhere they can be to get pictures. Look at the honeymoon pictures we got?
If it was to get an even tan, she shouldn't. I'm not saying she's in the wrong I just don't understand why anyone would go topless.
 
I can understand the privacy issues and the photographer and publisher has gone way out of line. But even on a private estate why would you go around topless when you know paps will be anywhere they can be to get pictures. Look at the honeymoon pictures we got?
If it was to get an even tan, she shouldn't. I'm not saying she's in the wrong I just don't understand why anyone would go topless.




I agree the paps dont care you are outside in topless thats great money for them. i understand it wrong for that to happen but you are a royal thats standing outside topless in showing your bottom thats money for them thats all that matter to them. the pics are out and wont go away. all they have to do is learn in move on from this
 
My own perspective on this is as follows:

In France, a man (in this case one with a camera) may creep about unseen in the countryside stalking women with the hope of finding them scantily clad in order to take photgraphs of them...(one could conceivably imagine than the same man might very well be the type (or similar to the type) who hide in sand dunes at the beach talking photos of children or young girls).
Said man then wishes to sell the photos with the purpose of gaining money and the desire to share such photos with other people, whose pleasure in looking at them are likely to be the same as his (similar to the concept of sharing child pornography over the internet). As such, the man in question is a pervert - not a photographer and not a paparazzi - and should be prosecuted and jailed.
 
fandesacs2003 said:
Sophie was taken in pic BEFORE being Erwards's wife
Diana was not taken topless
Marcia Clark is not the future Queen of England.

What I'm trying to say, is that being topless is not something bad to do. But since for a future Queen is a not acceptable behavior, SHE HAS TO DO HER UTMOST IN ORDER NEVER BE CAUGHT IN TOPLESS. So simple.

They were at a family members house! To me, that is very similar to being in her own home.
 
I'am not blaming Kate but she must be more careful because you can never be too careful about these things...it's her privacy of course, but has Duchess of Cambrige such things are forbidden...that is the only way to avoid, the paparazzi will chaise her all the time...with or without clothes, for the rest of her life, so she has to be mucht more careful and I'AM not blamming her but...she could avoid it...she is not a normal person...
 
These aren't as bad as the Harry photos for a whole host of obvious reasons, but certainly I can see why they are pissed because William and Kate hate to be seen looking frivolous in any way. But even if they sue, apparently this publication would only have to pay a few thousand dollars, which is nothing compared to what they will make off these pictures.

I think it's just bad timing coming off the Harry photos, and that whole hullaballoo over publishing them or not publishing them sort of opened a door to treat the royals like celebrities.
 
How exactly could she have done more? She was in a relatively remote region of France, at a family member's home, in front of only her husband.

The ones that ought to be held responsible are te publishers of this garbage. I usually come down hard on people for not showing common sense, but it's hard for me to see how Catherine could have done anything else to protect her privacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom