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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think William already knows the power of the media as he's had to live with it his whole life. It's not his first trip to the rodeo (as it were). But there comes a point when enough is enough. The media seems to be forgetting that they need the royals, too, and if that relationship is destroyed, that benefits no one. If you don't put your foot down at the beginning you'll never be able to get anything done later.
 
I sometimes think the media and certain commentators underestimate just how 'tough' the Duke of Cambridge is. IMO HRH does not take abuse from anyone and the tabloid press cross him at their peril.
I'm sure the last thing Closer thought was they would wind up in court having TRH lawyer staring them down lol.

Yes, I agree. I think William is a product of (a) his experience vis a vis his mother's life and death and (b) the times in which he was born - most people his age are more media savvy than their parents were. He might well be a figurehead and have no "kingly" powers - but that does not mean at all that he is not a powerful individual who wields tremendous influence.

I also think that he is very traditional, by nature and by position, and likely takes this as an insult to his wife. THAT would be the bit that would be the most problematic, IMO. He'll play it around in his mind and, some day, in the fullness of time, we will see his response. Mayhaps it will simply be that they never break ranks, the Cambridges, and they win by always walking the high road.

Ask me, the tabloid press took the beating here. I am not a reader, generally speaking, but now I will *never* feed the machine.
 
I think it's dumb how there suing the magazine company who posted the pictures. So anyone takes a picture of Catherine or William doing something inappropriate will be sued (ohh i'm so scared.) Dumb waste of money and time.
 
The media doesn't need the royals not like the monarchy of Britain going to last long. Scotland has 2 more years to decide to they want to stay within the monarchy or become an independent country. This is the 21 century we don't need the monarchy.
 
The media doesn't need the royals not like the monarchy of Britain going to last long. Scotland has 2 more years to decide to they want to stay within the monarchy or become an independent country. This is the 21 century we don't need the monarchy.

Oh dear me. You should have stayed in school long enough to get the grammar basics down, at least. Your arguments are hard to follow, in the literal sense because they're hard to decode into English and in the figurative sense because they defy logic and sensibility.

I imagine the arguments I might pose would fall on deaf ears but I will say this: we don't *need* lots of things. Some things have value beyond *need* in the sense I expect you mean it. Moreso, in fact, in the 21st century when most of our traditions have been removed by similar minded people.
 
The media doesn't need the royals not like the monarchy of Britain going to last long. Scotland has 2 more years to decide to they want to stay within the monarchy or become an independent country. This is the 21 century we don't need the monarchy.

With repsect, Scotland's independence is far from a done deal (for many reasons) and the SNP is not touching the issue of the monarchy. Polls show that IF Scotland leaves the Union that Scots want to retain their monarchy.

As for not 'needing' a monarchy, you're right but the polls consistently show that the large majority of the public WANT a monarchy and that is what matters.

The discouraging thing for 'republicans; in the United Kingdom and also in Canada is that although they are vocal, they are a small minority. In fact the BRF is at an all time high in popularity and IMO the reality of a republic was much more realistic 100 hundred years ago. I personally foresee a monarchy in Canada and the UK for generations to come. (sorry for being off topic and the mods can delete this post)
 
Last edited:
I think it's dumb how there suing the magazine company who posted the pictures. So anyone takes a picture of Catherine or William doing something inappropriate will be sued (ohh i'm so scared.) Dumb waste of money and time.

1) They were not doing anything inappropriate
2) They were on a private holiday, in a private home on a private estate and their legal right to privacy was violated by the photographer under French law. The magazine that published the pictures also violated their privacy under French law.
3) The couple sent a strong message that they are willing to fight to protect their privacy. Press who will want access to the couple in future, to be accredited on tours or photo ops, will have taken note. Drawing a line in the sand and sending out that message is hardly a waste of time or money.
 
I understand that the palace is demanding the photos handed over and are urging no more publication of the photo and for every day that they dont hand it over they will add millions day by day until they hand it over.
 
Good grief!!! What exactly does it show? That they are a married couple? That in private on private property they might sunbathe topless or even nude? Big whoop!!! Hardly shocking or wrong or unangelic. Many people do exactly the same thing in private and if you happen to visit the beaches of the Mediterranean or the lakes around Berlin you will see exactly the same thing in public. Heck since you are I believe in Toronto I suggest you hop onto a ferry to the Toronto islands on a hot sunny day and take yourself to Hanlans Point and you will find hundreds of ordinary Torontonians letting it all hang out on the beach there. Not shocking. Not scandalous. Not wrong. Not impure.

FYI you even live in a place where it is perfectly legal for a woman to walk topless through the streets of the city, and yes it has been done.
You know everyone in France does it all the time. Run around butt naked whatever people are just to damn sensitive. I mean look Princess Diana did it, Sofia, etc. So what makes her so special.
 
You know everyone in France does it all the time. Run around butt naked whatever people are just to damn sensitive. I mean look Princess Diana did it, Sofia, etc. So what makes her so special.

LOL your arguments are all over the place aren't they and all of them miss the point.
 
Let's get back on topic.....thank you!
 
Well I for one am all for a lawsuit. I saw that the rat who took the pictures ran for safety into his hiding spot. I suppose he thinks someone will come looking for him mafia style, haha. Cant wait to see what happens to him. I think the paps should maybe chill out for a bit and leave William and Catherine alone for a bit. I would not want to push the issue considering how they are feeling right now, especially William. He is probably wound up tighter than a rubberband on a ponytail.
 
I'm not going to touch this subject cause anytime I post something someone seems to get offended.
 
I think its because of the way you word things. Nothing wrong with having an opinion but there is a correct way to get your point across.
 
The media doesn't need the royals not like the monarchy of Britain going to last long. Scotland has 2 more years to decide to they want to stay within the monarchy or become an independent country. This is the 21 century we don't need the monarchy.
Culture and traditions are not a matter of "need". The monarchy is the form of governmant that some countries have chosen to keep. The reigning King/Queen is the head of state. It really is up to each monarchy to decide if they want to keep the parlamentary form or not. All of the european monarchies are democracies so the people have the choice to say what they want.
 
Now that "Closer" was slapped by court, I guess the next editor will think twice if he or she buys such pics and rans them. Which is IMHO what William and Catherine want. With the law suit they showed that they react and as tough as possible
 
^^What if next time she thinks twice if she takes off the top and pulls her bikini down? So, the lady wants to sunbathe naked in front of a road and then whants the paparazzis in jail because of her stupidity? How is it that French laws are not that strict as regards exhibitionism?

I´m so sorry for the Irish people who lost their jobs for nothing. The pictures are our there anyway, no matter how much William whines.
 
By that reasoning, we should expect front-row seats when the Duchess delivers her first child.:ermm:

Richard Littlejohn of the DM went as far as to say that the Duchess is 'public property' and should expect photos any time and anywhere.
 
They are very luck it was a camera & not a gun. They need to be careful at all times. This is a crazy, violent world, which royalty knows only too well!
 
I say, anyone who thinks anyone else should be 'public property' should be subjected to the treatment they'd care to inflict. I suggest Mr. Littlejohn would change his tune when pictures of him picking his nose in the car, or meeting his mistress, or adjusting his package, made the front page. People are not property. Those who represent the people nationally may be photographed in their capacity as public symbols, but when they are off-duty they are not national symbols, they are private citizens who should be allowed the same reasonable privacy rights as anyone else, without having to resort to extraordinary measures like locking themselves away on even vaster private estates - apparently the current ones just aren't large enough.
 
:previous: Agreed. But my major concern is that it appears that there are those who believe that the law of the land, in this case France, does not cover the rights of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Almost if your right to privacy is enshrined in law except if you are royal.

If that was the case, surely they would have a case for the International Court of Human Rights. Most peculiar!
 
Sorry I don't follow the Dutch Royals so I don't know what are you talking about :ermm:

There was a time when the Dutch went to court all the time and they won but it was about pictures on private occasions with their children who - in general - as minors are not have their picture taken without consent of their parents. Problem is, they are public figures.

In the meantime, there seems to be a deal in place, the Dutch do regualar photoshoots / allow pictures on several, even private occasions but are left alone when they feel it is important, what seems to work.

When there is a Cambridge baby, William & Kate will need to make a such a deal as well because I dont think even the british press will back off then and we are not only talking about the child of William & Kate but a future heir/ess of the country.
 
Got more to do with the fact she isn't Middleton than the none use of their titles.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the meantime, there seems to be a deal in place, the Dutch do regualar photoshoots / allow pictures on several, even private occasions but are left alone when they feel it is important, what seems to work.

When there is a Cambridge baby, William & Kate will need to make a such a deal as well because I dont think even the british press will back off then and we are not only talking about the child of William & Kate but a future heir/ess of the country.

The British royals tried this too. All those ski holidays where Charles, William and Harry posed for the cameras in the expectation that the media would get what they wanted and then leave them in peace. Unfortunately for the British royals, it's not just British press who are stalking them. When they're being pursued by media from all over the world, no agreement between the BRF and the British press is respected by those from overseas.

That's why there were very few photos of Prince William at university in the UK (because photo sessions were put on for the press at St. Andrew's), but there were regular paparazzi shots of him published in foreign press.

Mermaid 1962 said:

By that reasoning, we should expect front-row seats when the Duchess delivers her first child.

If they're public property at all time, then surely the least we can expect is that William and Kate arrange for a webcam (at the very least High Definition, and maybe even 3D?) to be installed in their bathroom. 24-hours per day live stream of the Cambridges' loo isn't asking too much surely? We have the right to all the intimate details of their digestive systems, it would seem. We'll all know whether they're getting enough fibre in their diets. Then when smell-o-vision is invented we'll have almost all our senses stimulated by their bathroom exploits!

Personally, I can't wait. :rolleyes:
 
The Daily Mail targets a specific demographic and they are successful in winding up their readership. I visit their website for the photos only, their reportage is cringe worthy.

I am assuming that Chi and Closer are separate entities although they share common ownership. Is this correct and does a judgement against Closer also impact Chi?
 
I agree with Donald trump Kate bought all of this on her self by bathing topless . Regardless where they are they know people are alwys watching them.
 
The Daily Mail targets a specific demographic and they are successful in winding up their readership. I visit their website for the photos only, their reportage is cringe worthy.

I am assuming that Chi and Closer are separate entities although they share common ownership. Is this correct and does a judgement against Closer also impact Chi?

Richard Littlejohn, the author of that piece in the DM, is a real piece of work. He's almost unique in the UK in being very, very conservative and yet being a republican. The term 'controversial' was pretty much coined with him in mind.

Chi and Closer are both owned by Berlusconi. The injunction in France only applies in France itself. Chi is not affected by the law suit.

Could you imagine if Berlusconi was still Italian PM and had to visit the UK? His meeting with the Queen would've been interesting, although she wasn't much of a fan of his to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom