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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Exactly! Everyone interested has seen the pictures, and from what I can gather, most don't think they're such a huge deal.

(Like me- I just don't get the rabid interest in these pictures! I mean, Kate is a pretty girl, but you can see more at just about any beach. She doesn't have anything any other woman doesn't have.
And there's thousands of photos of women who are definitely more well-endowed than Kate! So, just what is the purpose of gawking at these blurry photos?)


I think the purpose is natural curiousity and current belief that we (and I say this generally speaking) have the right to see, know and comment on everything. I mean, I realize how odd that is to say on a forum that gives us the opportunity to do just that but as a society we (again the general we) just don't value privacy anymore. We have people who will sell their souls (as well as the souls of any close family member) to be famous for 15 minutes. We have people in this very thread that think that Kate brought this on herself and by dating and marrying William she should have known that her life wasn't her own. And that she isn't nor she should ever expect to have a private moment.

But let's be honest, if Kate wanted to show her breasts to everyone why woudln't she have done so a nude beach. I assume that one can do that in certain parts of the world. It would be different if she went topless at a resort, or on a balcony in a hotel where anyone could see her. But nope, she was a private home and lets' face...from what I can see (via pics of course) there is no way in the WORLD anyone could have just noticed her takign off her top.

As you point out, there are other women who are more well endowed than Kate but let's be honest, unless something dramatically changes.....how many of them are the future Queen of England? Its all about IMO seeing the future Queen's breasts!

Frankly, I see this as a disasater for a lot of people besides Kate. The photographer must have made alot of money but I wonder if they will question if it was worth it if they are caught, made to go to jail or pay a huge fine. And than, what if the photograher is sued for pain and suffering? The Closer obviously lost some money, the Irish Star lost their financial backing, the editor was sacked (I really don't feel bad for him) and the newspaper might close ( I do feel bad for the employees). I mean, I wonder at the end of the day, was it all worth it for this people? Oh and karma, is going to get Chi magazine IMO its just a matter of time.
 
I thought the editor was suspended; when did he get fired?

Yes suspended. Of course if the paper goes under as a result of his decision to publish he may wish he had been sacked. At least then he would have received some payout. Kharma can really bite.
 
Given that the French court ruled that the photos were taken illegally, I don't see how any reputable publication could possibly justify printing them?

I've also never been able to understand why the press in countries with their own monarchies seem so interested in pictures of British royals. Are the Swedish and Danish royals not out and about giving them things to talk about?
 
At times it feels like the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge along with Prince Harry, are the only three royals on Earth.
My opinion is that unless the tabloid press and the young royals can come to an understanding, I can see the three of them walking away from all this crap.
No human being deserves this level if intrusion and if the British public don't want to end up with a King Andrew, then I suggest the tabloids need to 'chill' lol.
 
My last comment was not meant as an insult to the Duke of York.
 
Given that the French court ruled that the photos were taken illegally, I don't see how any reputable publication could possibly justify printing them?

I've also never been able to understand why the press in countries with their own monarchies seem so interested in pictures of British royals. Are the Swedish and Danish royals not out and about giving them things to talk about?

I think the Swedish and Danish royals are definintely out and about and give these tabloids enough to do. But unfortunately for Kate and William there is a lot of interest in them worldwide, hence the coverage of this scandal in the various countries.

Not only that, is pure and simple greed IMO. The Closer can't publish the magazine, Hello and its various outlets wont, US magazines can't (unless they 1) pay for the privilege and than block out the bits that everyone is interested in) otherwise they would have to be published in Playboy or another magazine in the mature reading section of the newstand, according to soapstar no one is buying Chi in Italy.

So the Danish and Swedish magazines think they may have an a demand, plus they can use that very common and often used comment..its a public interest story and we are obligated to bring it to our readers.
 
So the Danish and Swedish magazines think they may have an a demand, plus they can use that very common and often used comment..its a public interest story and we are obligated to bring it to our readers.

I am guessing those readers must be prepubesent boys who might never have seen naked breasts and the kind of guys who sit alone in their room at night looking at naked pics on their computers because a real woman will never enter their bed.
Must be hard for editors to keep a straight face when they justify their decision to publish when anyone with half a brain knows it is all about the almighty $$, which in the digital age is getting smaller and smaller every day for magazines and newspapers.
 
I am guessing those readers must be prepubesent boys who might never have seen naked breasts and the kind of guys who sit alone in their room at night looking at naked pics on their computers because a real woman will never enter their bed.
Must be hard for editors to keep a straight face when they justify their decision to publish when anyone with half a brain knows it is all about the almighty $$, which in the digital age is getting smaller and smaller every day for magazines and newspapers.

Really $$ is the motivating factor but they will use the public interest mantra until the cows come iMO. As you stated the digital age has had a negative impact on magazine sales, so this is extra plus for those who want to look at the pictures. They WILL have to buy the magazine.
 
There are certain things that are off limits. The pictures that were released went above and beyond was is off limits. A lot of it was motivated by money but I would imagine some people try to push the envelope as far as they can. This time they went too far.
 
I've also never been able to understand why the press in countries with their own monarchies seem so interested in pictures of British royals. Are the Swedish and Danish royals not out and about giving them things to talk about?
Oh, they give them enough to talk about, even though the Scandinavian princesses keep their tops on. And I don't think the press is really interested in the BRF. But this is a scandal now (not just the pics but also the law suit) and it sells.

I am also quite sure if these were pictures of Mary or Mette-Marit they would be printed in the British press and your comments would be quite different.

I am ambivalent about the whole thing. On one hand - as a woman - I pity Katherine, on the other hand I am astonished about so much stupidity. Since the late 50's the media does not respect the privacy of famous people, there have been numerous examples in the BRF itself. And only a few days after the Harry scandal Katherine thinks her privacy will be respected? This is stupidity combined with arrogance - so typical for the BRF. She has accommodated herself well, it seems. :whistling:
 
:previous:

"even though the Scandinavian princesses keep their tops on."

Surely you jest.
 
Have there been pics of Victoria, Mette-Marit, Mary sunbathing topless?

I know there were pics of a nude Frederik in print and no law suit followed.
But as some poster already said: it's always different with men.
 
Have there been pics of Victoria, Mette-Marit, Mary sunbathing topless?

I know there were pics of a nude Frederik in print and no law suit followed.
But as some poster already said: it's always different with men.


Some people commenting on this 'scandal' like to portray Catherine as being 'morally flawed' for the 'perverse' behaviour of removing her top in front of her husband in the expectation of a private setting.

IMO, Scandinavian princesses do go topless when they are in private settings with their husbands ( at least I hope they do) and the only reason It is different for men is because society has bizarre double standards for woman and princesses.
 
The reason, of course, that William and Kate are pursued is that, whether other monarchies or people like it or not, the British Royals are the most famous, admired, loved and sometimes most reviled, in the entire world. They are the ultimate global 'celebrities'. Beyond Europe, and except, probably, for South America, most other global citizens (the vast majority of some billions) would be hard pressed to name any royal at all from a nation other than Great Britain. None, except the British Royal Family, even registers.

The decision of the Swedish and Danish press to publish these photographs (already shown on Spanish television), given that they've now been formally declared illegally taken, is a disgrace. One wishes no harm, intrusion or humiliation of their royals, of course, but these places are really opening the floodgates to the scurrilous press, and the Victorias, Marys and Letizias of this world will now be seen as justifiable 'targets'. Given that some paps are now using drones with cameras attached, the private lives of them all can now be opened to the public gaze and ugly gawking which will always attract the envious, the plain nasty and the sick voyeurs.

It's interesting, too, to read some of sophistry surrounding publication of the photos. No, the Duchess wasn't visible from a public road without a high-powered telephoto lens; the Duchess was doing nothing unusual at all; I can't imagine that the Duchess has a body or figure which is remarkable in any way; the Duchess was well within her rights to assume privacy; the Duchess, the victim, is suffering the feeble attempts of the invaders and publishers to shove the responsibility on to her, which is arrant nonsense! The purpose was purely to mortify the Duchess and the Brtish Royal Family; any other 'explanation' is utter rubbish!

And good for the angry husband who has shown that he means what he says! He will not permit his wife to be persecuted as his mother was; he is of strong enough character to attack the gutter press, which few before him, anywhere, have been and above all, his private, domestic life, and his wife, are of real value to him. I couldn't admire him more.
 
Oh, they give them enough to talk about, even though the Scandinavian princesses keep their tops on. And I don't think the press is really interested in the BRF. But this is a scandal now (not just the pics but also the law suit) and it sells.

I am also quite sure if these were pictures of Mary or Mette-Marit they would be printed in the British press and your comments would be quite different.

I am ambivalent about the whole thing. On one hand - as a woman - I pity Katherine, on the other hand I am astonished about so much stupidity. Since the late 50's the media does not respect the privacy of famous people, there have been numerous examples in the BRF itself. And only a few days after the Harry scandal Katherine thinks her privacy will be respected? This is stupidity combined with arrogance - so typical for the BRF. She has accommodated herself well, it seems. :whistling:

Honestly I would be just offended if it was Victoria, Letizia, Mary or the lady down the street. I believe its a gross invasion of privacy no matter whose picture is being taken w/out their consent in a private setting.
 
Honestly I would be just offended if it was Victoria, Letizia, Mary or the lady down the street. I believe its a gross invasion of privacy no matter whose picture is being taken w/out their consent in a private setting.

Zonk, thanks for this. YOu have been a breath of common sense and dignity in this discussion. :)
 
Remenber Prince Frederik at a private party after his twins' baptism, that was supplied by a "friend" and published by this rag.
 
It's interesting, too, to read some of sophistry surrounding publication of the photos. No, the Duchess wasn't visible from a public road without a high-powered telephoto lens; the Duchess was doing nothing unusual at all; I can't imagine that the Duchess has a body or figure which is remarkable in any way; the Duchess was well within her rights to assume privacy; the Duchess, the victim, is suffering the feeble attempts of the invaders and publishers to shove the responsibility on to her, which is arrant nonsense! The purpose was purely to mortify the Duchess and the Brtish Royal Family; any other 'explanation' is utter rubbish!I agree 100%. They only wanted to mortify the Duchess and make money doing it.

And good for the angry husband who has shown that he means what he says! He will not permit his wife to be persecuted as his mother was; he is of strong enough character to attack the gutter press, which few before him, anywhere, have been and above all, his private, domestic life, and his wife, are of real value to him. I couldn't admire him more.
I certainly admire this young man for protecting his wife immediately. He has more back-bone than I thought. Argues well for his character and love of family. Plus, there is not a doubt in my mind that his father and grandmother were 100% behind him. This invastion of privacy [especially on private property] is getting out of hand. I don't understand how these mutations of the gutter press can even persecute family members of well known people without them being sued. The relatives have not asked to be in the public eye [ example Letizia's sister or celebrities' children while at private parties] SICK! There are enough people out there that want their 1/2 nude pictures published without seeking out ones that don't.
 
Have there been pics of Victoria, Mette-Marit, Mary sunbathing topless?

I guess, the main point is: if you are a princess, you do NOT go topless. Fullstop.

You have many privileges as a princess, but also many threads... and this is one of them. I have never seen the Nordic princesses or Letizia, Maxima topless, because they simply understood the point. Kate did not (yet), surely she will know now.
Sometimes learning can hurt :D ....


BYe Bine
 
I have never seen the Nordic princesses or Letizia, Maxima topless, because they simply understood the point.


Probably you've never seen them topless because no one has published pictures of them topless, not because they've never sunbathed topless in a private place.
 
Probably you've never seen them topless because no one has published pictures of them topless, not because they've never sunbathed topless in a private place.

Hi, Daz Voz,
you can be right. But the issue is: They never catched them unprepared. That is the point. And I know, that there has been paparazzi pics from all princesses sunbathing as well..... i.e see Letizia last year, MM this year. All with their bikini tops on :lol:.
BYe Bine
 
I totally agree what is the future Queen of England thinking that at anytime that this oaky IMO it is not and she has been caught out before so IMO she has done nothing to help herself.
She was realy stupid to take such a risk KNOWING about camera lenses and so on ... no sympathy from me and lets hope she has learnt her lesson.
 
Oh, they give them enough to talk about, even though the Scandinavian princesses keep their tops on. And I don't think the press is really interested in the BRF. But this is a scandal now (not just the pics but also the law suit) and it sells.

I am also quite sure if these were pictures of Mary or Mette-Marit they would be printed in the British press and your comments would be quite different.

It's difficult to figure out the motives, at least of the Danish and Swedish magazines.
The interest in the BRF isn't huge here, because we have our own "young" royals.
It's just naked breasts! Hardly a novelty.
People who dislike the magazines, won't buy them anyway, at best they will flip through the mag at the hairdresser.
99% of all men wouldn't dream of buying the mags, just to look at grainy pics of breasts. (*)

So what can be the motive?

Well, as I see it it's a combination.

A) Hope to arouse curiosity and increase sales through that, particular from people who are standing in line at the supermarkets and who would otherwise not have bought the magzine.

B) Pushing the envelope and see how far they can go.

C) Show people, and not leasts royals and celebs that they, the magazines, cannot be curbed or intimidated by lawsuits. Because freedom of speech, the public has a right to know and.....

D) Confirming their own (twisted and pretty childish) feeling and reputation of being the "bad boys" and those "who dare".

- I've said it before, we have the medias we deserve.
The only thing such magazines respect is money.
The money from the readers who buy the magazines and the advertizers.

So, don't buy the magazine, don't even read it used (and as such expose yourself to the advertisments, because it's just as much the advertisments that sell), that's the best response from us.

And I don't buy the argument that if you boycott such a magazine it will be pointless because others will buy it anyway. - That's just an excuse to do nothing.

(*) Well, at least not in this day and age. Back in the mid 80's there was a Swedish singer called Carola Häggvist, and she was pretty hot and there was no way she would perform, wearing less clothes than her talent. So when a mens magazine (Rapport) announced that they had topless pics of Carola in the next issue,:w00t: I as a young lad, rushed to buy the mag, - only to be so disappointed, because the pics turned out to be sattelite-photos. :sad:
But today, with the Internet, no.
 
Last edited:
I apologize in advance to anyone who's already commented on this post. Under English Common Law, the female spouse takes the surname and/or title of the husband. Therefore, Catherine is legally HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. That's her name.

I do not know how is the law in England. In Greece for ex. women do not change their maidname upon marriage. Catherine would be Catherine Middleton, all her life. You even NOT add your husbands name. So might in England be the name. If according to the English law, she stays Catherine Middleton, it's normal for the French legal documents, to referr to her like this.
 
Honestly I would be just offended if it was Victoria, Letizia, Mary or the lady down the street. I believe its a gross invasion of privacy no matter whose picture is being taken w/out their consent in a private setting.
I don't have double standards either. If it was Victoria, Letizia, Mary ... I would pity them - and be astonished about their stupidity.
 
I guess, the main point is: if you are a princess, you do NOT go topless. Fullstop.

You have many privileges as a princess, but also many threads... and this is one of them. I have never seen the Nordic princesses or Letizia, Maxima topless, because they simply understood the point. Kate did not (yet), surely she will know now.
Sometimes learning can hurt :D ....


BYe Bine

This is a FULL SENSE comment. You said all.
 
Back
Top Bottom