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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mirabel said:
I also agree!
I read that a copy of this mag. is on eBay and the bidding has reached several hundred dollars already!

This lawsuit will turn the mag. into a collector's item, and have more people scrambling to grab a copy before they disappear.

I find that an extremely sad commentary on the world today. What a ridiculous thing to "collect".

The images, sadly, will be on the Internet forever. Why would one pay money for a magazine/paper with them in it?
 
I love the fact that Kate has kept her own name. She might have taken on all sorts of Royal titles as a result of marrying William, but she's hung on to this piece of her own identity. :)

I don't think she has. I personally think the French courts got it wrong, they should have been referred to with their royal titles. And Mrs Middleton is Catherine's mother. Mrs Catherine Middleton isn't The Duchess of Cambridge.
 
I also agree!
I read that a copy of this mag. is on eBay and the bidding has reached several hundred dollars already!

This lawsuit will turn the mag. into a collector's item, and have more people scrambling to grab a copy before they disappear.

That may be but the most important thing is that the royal couple took action and who ever buy the magazines, shame on them.

The royal couple are walking away from this with their heads held high and with dignity.
 
They locked the stable door after the horse bolted, so to say. Its their right to do so, but it wont change a thing. These pictures can be seen forever and nobody will remember if there was a lawsuit surrounding them or not.

William is not making friends within the media by pressing criminal charges whenever he can, he will need the press one day possibly as much as they need him. In my opinion, he should move on from his obsession with the tabloids and concentrate on his duty. Of course he is entitled to holidays but topless pictures at yet another luxus destination is what will stick in people's minds.
 
Now yes, another photographer will come along and try to do the samething but maybe that person and other media outlets will think twice before they decided to do so.

A few weeks back, Henry's very private parts were displayed for all the world to see in magazines and over the internet. It even hit the pages of a British newspaper. Now there's Catherine and her topless photos. Do you see a pattern? Nobody cares about the background to the pictures, nobody cares how the photographer took them. They just care about printing them. If Catherine was photographed naked somewhere, the pictures would hit some magazine. If royals don't want pictures of themselves plastered on the front pages, then don't get into situations where they could appear. Simple.


The royal couple are walking away from this with their heads held high and with dignity.

The pictures haven't disappeared. Any other country can published this pictures to their hearts content and they'll be on the internet forever. France has banned them being reprinted, but it hasn't removed the image all together.

They haven't really won anything.

William is not making friends within the media by pressing criminal charges whenever he can, he will need the press one day possibly as much as they need him. In my opinion, he should move on from his obsession with the tabloids and concentrate on his duty.

I think that's one of the main issues that come from this, yes William is going to protect Catherine's privacy to the hilt and it all has to do with what he witnessed as a child with both his parents. But he will need the press one day, and by the looks of it even with the English press, he's picking them off one by one.

It's one thing the royals need to modernise one, their attitude towards the press.
 
Last edited:
I actually think they have won something. But of course it varies on the country. France has strict privacy laws.

Yes, the horse has already left the stable and the pictures are out there and unless someone goes door to door and picks up every sold copy, or remove them from every computer, these pictures will haunt them until the end of time.

But what they did do was draw a line in the sand. If you are private property thinking you are having a private moment, no one has the right to stand on the road (whether they can see you or not) and take pictures of you and sell them. No one.

Now will some people continue to do so, perhaps, but in the future some French star or person of note, will reference this decision if the same thing happens to them. Likewise some newspapers will hopefully think the same when someone has pictures to sell.
 
The editor of the Irish Star has been suspended.
BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Irish Daily Star editor is suspended

I agree, Zonk. This lawsuit wasn't about preventing the pictures from spreading (there's nothing they can do about that), it was about the sending a message that they won't tolerate their privacy being invaded.

I like actor Stephen Merchant's take on this whole thing:
‏@StephenMerchant
If I take photos of topless women with a long lens I'm a pervert. But if I sell them to major news publications I'm a paparazzo. How so?
 
Now will some people continue to do so, perhaps, but in the future some French star or person of note, will reference this decision if the same thing happens to them. Likewise some newspapers will hopefully think the same when someone has pictures to sell.

I think its still a great deal for the mags. Yes, other people may sue encouraged by the Cambridges but a) the damage is done visible for all times, b) if there is a fine it will be pocket money compared to the income from selling papers, c) if one outlet cant publish, another one will step in.

Its just too lucrative to be ignored, no matter what the law says. Naked Harry or topless Kate will generate worldwide audience, they are no local celebrities but global.
 
A few weeks back, Henry's very private parts were displayed for all the world to see in magazines and over the internet. It even hit the pages of a British newspaper. Now there's Catherine and her topless photos. Do you see a pattern? Nobody cares about the background to the pictures, nobody cares how the photographer took them. They just care about printing them. If Catherine was photographed naked somewhere, the pictures would hit some magazine. If royals don't want pictures of themselves plastered on the front pages, then don't get into situations where they could appear. Simple.

So, anyone who goes on holiday and has their house burgled while they're away were pretty much asking for it by leaving their home for a period of time?

Or a person whose drink is spiked in a bar was pretty much asking for it for choosing to consume alcohol in public?

Or someone who gets mugged walking home from the train station after work has no reason to complain because if you choose to go out at night on your own you should just expect that some creep will assault you?

I despair sometimes, I really do. The only way the royals can ensure that their pictures don't appear in newspapers would be if they stayed in a windowless room for the rest of their lives. That cannot be right and it should not be acceptable to anyone. They have as much right to a private life as anyone.

Those spewing about William 'using' his mother's death when times get difficult for him should truly be ashamed of themselves. William had a front-row seat as his mother's life was ruined by the press, and Diana's dalliance with them. The French courts ruled that the paparazzi's uncontrolled actions were a significant cause of the accident which killed his mother. William's drawing comparisons with what happened to his mother shows how deeply this has upset him and Kate and how serious he thinks this matter is. No one has the right to tell William how and when he should refer to his mother.
 
Last edited:
So, anyone who goes on holiday and has their house burgled while they're away were pretty much asking for it by leaving their home for a period of time?

Or a person whose drink is spiked in a bar was pretty much asking for it for choosing to consume alcohol in public?

Or someone who gets mugged walking home from the train station after work has no reason to complain because if you choose to go out at night on your own you should just expect that some creep will assault you?

I despair sometimes, I really do. The only way the royals can ensure that their pictures don't appear in newspapers would be if they stayed in a windowless room for the rest of their lives. That cannot be right and it should not be acceptable to anyone. They have as much right to a private life as anyone.

Those spewing about William 'using' his mother's death when times get difficult for him should truly be ashamed of themselves. William had a front-row seat as his mother's life was ruined by the press, and Diana's dalliance with them. The French courts ruled that the paparazzi's uncontrolled actions were a significant cause of the accident which killed his mother. William's drawing comparisons with what happened to his mother shows how deeply this has upset him and Kate and how serious he thinks this matter is. No one has to right to tell William how and when he should refer to his mother.

Well said, but of course some people believe that because of who they are they have no right to privacy inside or outside their home (saw this on another board). They are public property and should be treated like zoo animals
 
A crime was committed against the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. TRH have every right and even an obligation to seek charges and damages in both civil and criminal court. THR are right in not letting the press bully them into silence. I understand privacy is a four letter word in the British press but the fact is that the person who took these disgusting photos broke French law and possibly European law ( Not sure on that one). As far as HRH being topless with her husband in a private setting, some people on this thread and in the tabloids make it seem as if HRH was streaking down the Mall stark naked.
Someone mentioned that the context in which the photos were taken doesn't matter and the only thing people will remember is HRH topless. Completely disagree. I can't understand why anyone would think 'less' of HRH for for having a private moment with her husband intruded upon by an illegal act. Again if HRH had paraded down the Mall nude then people could question her dignity but blaming HRH for these photos and chalking it up to 'she should have known better' is disturbing IMO.
 
Lumutqueen: I saw that and was surprised. Catherine Elizabeth Middleton! The court document showing that is at: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/18/article-2203999-151318E8000005DC-2_634x621.jpg

I'd have to go back and read it again but wasn't it announced that should any of the descendants of Philip and Elizabeth need surnames it would be Mountbatten Windsor? I am assuming as Cambridge and Wales are titles, for a court action, they needed surnames. Perhaps as it was never legally official that Kate took the name Mountbatten Windsor, the only remaining option was to use her maiden surname of Middleton. I am assuming here that in France, the British titles are not legally recognized and used as surnames.
 
I think its still a great deal for the mags. Yes, other people may sue encouraged by the Cambridges but a) the damage is done visible for all times, b) if there is a fine it will be pocket money compared to the income from selling papers, c) if one outlet cant publish, another one will step in.

Its just too lucrative to be ignored, no matter what the law says. Naked Harry or topless Kate will generate worldwide audience, they are no local celebrities but global.

However, the case is not yet over. As stated in MailOnline: The Duke and Duchess have also filed a criminal complaint under France’s privacy laws which could see Closer fined up 36,000 pounds and its editor serve up to a year in prison. And they have filed against ‘persons unknown’, referring to the photographer, who has not yet been identified. Kate Middleton Closer topless photos: Victory for Duchess of Cambridge as French judge blocks further publication | Mail Online If the editor as well as the sofar unknown photographer are sent to jail, this might turn out to be a true deterrent. Every other French editor will think twice next time. Therefor, I good luck to the couple for this next step.
 
Osipi - yes, it is confusing. There was the Mrs. Cambridge incident when Catherine went to buy surf gear. The brothers were WALES as a surname on their basic daily uniforms in the military. There seem to be different names for different purposes.

Imagine the press had it been announced before the wedding that Catherine was not going to change her last name upon marriage!
 
Again if HRH had paraded down the Mall nude then people could question her dignity but blaming HRH for these photos and chalking it up to 'she should have known better' is disturbing IMO.

Yes.

It seems to me, based on what little I know (and without being able to establish the veracity of any of it) that any human being, even those in William and Kate's position, could have had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the stated circumstances.

Do they stop having sex, for instance, because they should know that people with very long, infrared and other heat sensing/night vision lenses/devices exist and could, in fact, see into virtually any place they are?

I think sometimes you need to stand for your principals, whether they make practical sense in the immediate sense or not (to all the why bother suing, the horse was already out of the barn folks). For you, to have a sense of control in your own life, and for others, to see that "the system" only beats us when we let it.

I am really happy they sued. I am really happy they won. I think it says something very important - William will not be your mother's Monarch and has no intention of letting himself or the institution gather too much dust.
 
William attended some events in the first week, and then went back on duty with the RAF. Their holiday was only three days towards the end.

Has anyone else pointed out that as all this was happening, William and Catherine had to be briefed on all aspects of the upcoming Jubilee Tour? That meant that when he was not at work, he was busy cramming for the upcoming tour. My head would have been spinning with all that had to be taken in. So he took 3 days off to decompress before having to work in diplomatic situations for over a week straight.
 
unlike the topless pictures, getting on a plane is a very puplic, watched act for them, the media, the dignataries, the world is looking at you climb the stairs.

Kate knew that, I see nothing touching about that gesture unless William was having a public breakdown and needed support.


REALLY?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or in this case, a natural act of love and support from one spouse to another.
 
I don't think she has. I personally think the French courts got it wrong, they should have been referred to with their royal titles. And Mrs Middleton is Catherine's mother. Mrs Catherine Middleton isn't The Duchess of Cambridge.

As I just posted in another thread, perhaps the reason being is that this court action was taken in France and British titles are not legally recognized as being legal surnames.

Under the LP that the Queen issued, it was stated that any descendants of Philip and Elizabeth would be known as Mountbatten-Windsor should they need a surname and perhaps for William that is what the French courts recognize. As it perhaps was not legally recognized that Kate took that surname, the only other option would be her maiden one as both Cambridge and Wales are British titles.

I applaud the both of them for taking legal action as far as they can on this matter. To sit back and cringe and think that as wrong as this is, the damage has been done and its gone viral is admitting defeat and giving one up to the instigators who would do this kind of thing. To fight back, to draw the line in the sand of what will and will not be tolerated is to hold one's head up high with dignity. As in a case of parents fighting for the death penalty for the killing of a child, it doesn't bring back their loved one but it does give closure and a sense of justice served.

Ever since this whole incident started, we've even seen here how some think that this was a gross violation of privacy or that Kate should have known better to what the heck were they doing on a private weekend when they should have been on duty for the Paralympics. Each and every move that they make is dissected and critiqued and for the public record. And folks are still looking for a baby bump?

These two are not even full time working royals yet but they've sure had a taste of the worst that can come at them haven't they?
 
Lumutqueen: I saw that and was surprised. Catherine Elizabeth Middleton! The court document showing that is at: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/18/article-2203999-151318E8000005DC-2_634x621.jpg

There is nothing strange at that: France is a republic, so titles are not legally recognised. When you go to court, you are indentified and addressed to by your family name and for a woman by your birth name, what could just had been added would be :
Catherine Middleton, épouse Mountbatten-Windsor, but this is not mandatory.
This is totally usual.
 
So, anyone who goes on holiday and has their house burgled while they're away were pretty much asking for it by leaving their home for a period of time?

Or a person whose drink is spiked in a bar was pretty much asking for it for choosing to consume alcohol in public?

Or someone who gets mugged walking home from the train station after work has no reason to complain because if you choose to go out at night on your own you should just expect that some creep will assault you?

I despair sometimes, I really do. The only way the royals can ensure that their pictures don't appear in newspapers would be if they stayed in a windowless room for the rest of their lives. That cannot be right and it should not be acceptable to anyone. They have as much right to a private life as anyone.

Those spewing about William 'using' his mother's death when times get difficult for him should truly be ashamed of themselves. William had a front-row seat as his mother's life was ruined by the press, and Diana's dalliance with them. The French courts ruled that the paparazzi's uncontrolled actions were a significant cause of the accident which killed his mother. William's drawing comparisons with what happened to his mother shows how deeply this has upset him and Kate and how serious he thinks this matter is. No one has to right to tell William how and when he should refer to his mother.
We are all responsible for our safety. So your examples could be answered Yes, we are responsible. Would you drink something a total stranger (not a bartender or waitress) gives you at a bar? If you had very valuable items in your house (art, jewelry...) would you not make sure you have adequate security? Besides your insurance would not pay otherwise if burglarized. Would you sunbathe topless when you are the most aftersought target among all young women in the world - especially for photos catching you off guard?

Let's not try to make Catherine to "one of us". She is not and she never will be.
 
I don't think she has. I personally think the French courts got it wrong, they should have been referred to with their royal titles. And Mrs Middleton is Catherine's mother. Mrs Catherine Middleton isn't The Duchess of Cambridge

French official documents don't recognise any title (french or foreign). The spouse is always called by her maiden name.
 
Glad they filed criminal charges too. To simply let these tabloids run free is wrong.
I follow the Murdoch phone hacking scandal cases with glee.
Illegal wire tapping on crime victims' families has got to be the lowest of the low.

Jackie O had famously been photographed nude on their private greek island. She continually sued, and had later had a restraining order against a stalking pap. Her "defense" was that she was not a public person (anymore).
That it was about her and her children's security was obvious. Nobody needed to bring up the assasination.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
To me this is not true at all. Diana's relationship with the media was a very special topic, not as black and white as portrayed by the palace at all.

William should refrain from bringing his mother into his own relationship with the media over and over again. Its like a jack-in-the-box coming out every time William is unhappy with the media. Time to finally get over it and move on.

The only problem with this is that most investigations into his mother's death concluded that the paps played at least a part in the accident that killed her. I'm not a Diana apologist, but I totally understand why William is gun-shy about this issue.
 
There is nothing strange at that: France is a republic, so titles are not legally recognised. When you go to court, you are indentified and addressed to by your family name and for a woman by your birth name, what could just had been added would be :
Catherine Middleton, épouse Mountbatten-Windsor, but this is not mandatory.
This is totally usual.

Thanks. I had a feeling it had something to do with the French legal system. Its still morning here and I've already learned something new today. :D
 
I don't think she has. I personally think the French courts got it wrong, they should have been referred to with their royal titles. And Mrs Middleton is Catherine's mother. Mrs Catherine Middleton isn't The Duchess of Cambridge.

France is a Republic, and noblesse titles have been abolished since the French Revolution. All citizens of France and abroad are towards french law equal civil persons and they use only their legal name. It is the law for W+K to be referred like this. Noblesse title are still used by French aristocrats, only in their social life.
I'm sure that even QEII will be referred as Elisabeth Windsor-Bowes Lyon (or Moundbatten, I do not really know)
 
More than likely Kate didn't go thru the process of officially changing her last name, why would she when isn't really going to use it like a regular person would.

I'm glad they won. It is about getting rid of the picture since they are already out there but stopping the next one. I'm sure Kate probably will keep her top on from now on but think when they have kids, they don't want the paparazzi spying on them everytime they go in their backyard. Even the animals in the zoo are on display 24/7.
 
More than likely Kate didn't go thru the process of officially changing her last name, why would she when isn't really going to use it like a regular person would.

I'm glad they won. It is about getting rid of the picture since they are already out there but stopping the next one. I'm sure Kate probably will keep her top on from now on but think when they have kids, they don't want the paparazzi spying on them everytime they go in their backyard. Even the animals in the zoo are on display 24/7.

The best is yet to come I think.. Criminal charge. We have to remember that the owner of Closure in France is also the owner of Chi in Italy. I can imagine that in her time, HM has met this person as PM of Italy and to be honest, to take him to court over these publication of pics is not sitting well with any of the BRF. If the government of Italy has any interest in preserving any kind of good relations with the UK, they would stand in good stead to prosecute this guy to the full max of the law.

Actually this has the full marks of becoming a full scale global incident. Its not about boobs anymore or paps with long lenses. Its not about a celeb caught "nekkid" on a horse or whatever. Its about fighting for what is right.

A movie on YouTube starts riots. Bare boobs of Kate become global viral must see. The sad thing is that people buy into it.
 
We are all responsible for our safety. So your examples could be answered Yes, we are responsible. Would you drink something a total stranger (not a bartender or waitress) gives you at a bar? If you had very valuable items in your house (art, jewelry...) would you not make sure you have adequate security? Besides your insurance would not pay otherwise if burglarized. Would you sunbathe topless when you are the most aftersought target among all young women in the world - especially for photos catching you off guard?

Let's not try to make Catherine to "one of us". She is not and she never will be.

Ok, so in pretty much every crime, as far as you're concerned, the victim bears some of the responsibility for what happens to them? Victims of burglary should've just had better security in place. Proper burglars can get around sophisticated alarms systems without a huge amount of difficulty.

With the best will in the world, no one can keep their eyes on their drink 100% of the time; if you did you'd be pretty awful company. All it takes is a split second and it's done.

I certainly would bathe topless if I believed that I was in a very remote, private place, at least half a mile or more away from any public land, beyond the capability of the human eye to see me, on an estate where several of my (very famous) family members have previously holidayed without issue, in a country that has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world whereby no one, even public officials, can be photographed without their consent even if they're on public property. With all that in mind, I'd assume that there's a reasonable expectation that I can do what I please.
 
Back
Top Bottom