The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1321  
Old 06-12-2018, 09:34 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
I read the article about the appeal and Closer is not arguing about the the decision about privacy violations, it's about the money paid for damages. Closer argues it was excessive and it was paid out because the plaintiff was a royal. I think the lawyers know this argument is weak and they want to use Meghan to draw attention to the case. The actual argument will be offered when the trial begins.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 06-12-2018, 09:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I read the article about the appeal and Closer is not arguing about the the decision about privacy violations, it's about the money paid for damages. Closer argues it was excessive and it was paid out because the plaintiff was a royal. I think the lawyers know this argument is weak and they want to use Meghan to draw attention to the case. The actual argument will be offered when the trial begins.
If they must use that as an excuse, I wish they'd leave Meghan, who has nothing to do with this case, out of it. I mean they could always use Kate who voluntarily stripped down to her suspenders for all to see in that fashion show in her pre-royal days as an example.

It still is a weak case, but at least they'd be talking about the same person.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:57 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
If they must use that as an excuse, I wish they'd leave Meghan, who has nothing to do with this case, out of it. I mean they could always use Kate who voluntarily stripped down to her suspenders for all to see in that fashion show in her pre-royal days as an example.

It still is a weak case, but at least they'd be talking about the same person.
In neither instance (Kate in the fashion show or Meghan in the magazine photos or barbecue video) were the ladies nude or partially nude. So there is no way the photos taken in France are able to be defended that way.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:28 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,690
Being nude isn't the issue imo, its the fact that in the fashion show and in Meghan's past career they gave their consent to being viewed and photographed and in France Kate did not. I also wish they would leave Meghan out of this but she's the new fish and they are using her for attention.
I still wish the fine would have been more.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I'm not missing the point at all, I agree with you but my saying that M stripped down to her suspenders seems to be unwelcome. I'm just stating the obvious as I'm not sure how anyone strips 'up' to their underwear, that's not having a go at her.
Sophie I understand what you are saying; I believe the issue is that some people have a problem with the phrase "strip down" and it may bring up connections of strippers or the Kardashians .
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
In neither instance (Kate in the fashion show or Meghan in the magazine photos or barbecue video) were the ladies nude or partially nude. So there is no way the photos taken in France are able to be defended that way.
I agree that it's a weak case, and likely wouldn't win.Nudity wasn't even the issue when it comes to those photos not being published. They are likely tying the amount of damage to that it's nudity and royalty. And that's how Meghan, unfortunately, got dragged into this even though she has nothing to do with this, and everything that's been published is nowhere near where those photos were and she wasn't a royal when all this happened.

I'm a proponent of making the fine based on the gain and a percentage above that. Basic human behavior is that if there is everything to gain by taking the risk and nothing to lose if it doesn't pan out, they will continue to act recklessly. They likely knew the photos violated privacy before publishing it, but why would they care if the fee is only a symbolic amount? They still get to profit from it. There has to be a reason for them to not take that chance.
Reply With Quote
  #1326  
Old 06-13-2018, 05:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Being nude isn't the issue imo, its the fact that in the fashion show and in Meghan's past career they gave their consent to being viewed and photographed and in France Kate did not. I also wish they would leave Meghan out of this but she's the new fish and they are using her for attention.
I still wish the fine would have been more.





Sophie I understand what you are saying; I believe the issue is that some people have a problem with the phrase "strip down" and it may bring up connections of strippers or the Kardashians .
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #1327  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:13 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
Why should Meghan's past need to be re-written? She has nothing to be ashamed of. She worked hard and gained her own wealth. Not everyone can be born wealthy so they don't actually have to work. What if she had photos out there like those of her new husband buck naked playing strip poker in Las Vegas?

Bringing Meghan into this case is a joke!!! Those lawyers are grasping at straws!
Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:13 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:17 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
All one has to do today is turn on the TV set and there's oodles of noodles of ads for bras with women modeling them. Or disposable underwear with models wearing them. These people are paid to model them to promote a product. It was done with their consent. So, no big deal.

If I'm not mistaken, the whole deal is about the amount of money paid out as a settlement of the Closure case. They took their sweet time determining that the payout was too much and with that in mind, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. They're giving billable hours to lawyers that are going to go ahead with this probably with the idea that they're being paid anyways regardless of whether they win or lose. Its another media circus IMO.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1330  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:35 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SL, United Kingdom
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
No one has asked for a “past” to be rewritten - we just don’t understand why Meghan has been dragged into a legal case related to Kate only. Particularly since images already exist of a stripped down Duchess of Cambridge down in bra & knickers underwear poses for a show - obviously taken long before she began her life as a royal.

It was/is unnecessary for the Duchess of Sussex to be dragged into this when there are underwear “sexy” shots etc. readily available of the previous life involving the litigant in question (Catherine/Kate), that could be used by the complainant(s).
Reply With Quote
  #1331  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
Well it is what it is I'm afraid. I personally don't think being photographed in your underwear is a major deal but these pictures obviously make some people uncomfortable so they don't want to say it is what it is. Whether you want to say she 'stripped' off her clothes or 'took' off her clothes she was still posing in her underwear. No one can re-write her past but, as I say, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
NO one is trying rewrite anything. There are just better ways to say things. However, if we are to go there. A number of royals have stripped off their clothes including the person this case is about. Everyone has a past. I wonder if they plan to use the photos of Kate’s bare bum too? Those were allowed for publication I believe as it didn’t violate privacy.

What I’m afraid is that a case of violating privacy is going to turn to having a case of trying to shame the women. It’s unfortunately usual tactic towards victims, but usually their sister-in-law isn’t dragged into it as she’s irrelevant. Of course, the tabloids will just use this as an excuse to now scandalizes everything that was not a big deal and known before. I wonder if the French court would actually allow this? I know in US courts, all kinds of motions would be filed to disallow at least Meghan’s, and possibly Kate’s, photos as it is irrelevant. Although Kate’s would be more debatable as it is actually the same person and this is an argument about if the damage was excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:12 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
The magazine’s lawyer, as quoted in the Daily Mail:

“‘They are happy with sexy photos of themselves when they are in control, but then claim huge amounts of money when they’re unauthorised,’ said one legal source involved in the case.”

Well, duh! Just because I sometimes buy goods from a store doesn’t mean I’d be ok with that store using my debit card information to take an unauthorized transfer of money from my account. Or actually, to make the analogy a little closer to what’s happened here, just because my sister-in-law once shopped at Macy’s doesn’t give Wal-Mart the right to just grab my money and say, “but this family has given money to stores before!”
Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:30 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SL, United Kingdom
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
Exactly, Meghan voluntarily stripped down to suspenders and what not for anyone to look at her. Kate did not.
Be nice if people and the media in particular appreciate the fact that this is 2018 and not the backwards medieval era. Nothing wrong or shameful about women in suspenders acting at work. Or bra/knickers and “what not” performing in public shows.
Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:37 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Reem View Post
Be nice if people and the media in particular appreciate the fact that this is 2018 and not the backwards medieval era. Nothing wrong or shameful about women in suspenders acting at work. Or bra/knickers and “what not” performing in public shows.
I agree and don't think it's a big deal either but some people do see it as trashy and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion as well.
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:55 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.
That’s the thing. Kate didn’t think anyone could see. She was on private property far away from any public views. The photographer used a telephoto lens from miles away to take the photo. The only one to blame here is the photographer who invaded her privacy and took photos of her without her consent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:46 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
The magazine’s lawyer, as quoted in the Daily Mail:

“‘They are happy with sexy photos of themselves when they are in control, but then claim huge amounts of money when they’re unauthorised,’ said one legal source involved in the case.”

Well, duh! Just because I sometimes buy goods from a store doesn’t mean I’d be ok with that store using my debit card information to take an unauthorized transfer of money from my account. Or actually, to make the analogy a little closer to what’s happened here, just because my sister-in-law once shopped at Macy’s doesn’t give Wal-Mart the right to just grab my money and say, “but this family has given money to stores before!”
The analogy used by that lawyer is why some people still believe that prostitutes can’t be raped. It’s a disgusting way to twist the facts. People who follow this line of thinking tend to change their minds when the tables are turned.
Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:25 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
@jacqui24 - I think Closer plans on using the fashion show pics. The other part of Closer's argument is that royals are acting like celebrities so they should not be surprised about intense scrutiny. Private property or not, Kate took her top off outside for anyone to see; and as a future queen she should have had a care about her image. Closer plans to blame the victim, Kate, to make the Cambridges pay back the money from the judgment.
That's absurd. Kate took off her top on a private property, miles from the road, to sunbathe or cange her swim suit...
Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I agree and don't think it's a big deal either but some people do see it as trashy and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion as well.

What was to be expected of Harry? Just think of the chosen careers of former girlfriends: modeling like Florence Brudenell-bruce, who modelled lingerie to Cressida Bonas, who is an actress (or wants to become one). His cousin Lady Amelia Windsor works as a mannequin - it is done nowadays even by Royals and Royal men like HH Prince Nicolaj of Denmark.



So what? Times have changed and maybe the Royal family would have been happier with Koo Stark than Sarah Ferguson as Duchess of York. Who knows? As long as Meghan behaves as Harry's wife, she could have done a lot more than she actually did in her past.
Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 06-13-2018, 02:14 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,159
As far as I remember, Sarah Ferguson worked as a secretary before marrying Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 06-13-2018, 02:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
As far as I remember, Sarah Ferguson worked as a secretary before marrying Andrew.

Yes, that's true but most of her time she spent as the "girl who temporarily lives here" in the mansions, beach villas or chalets of her rich friends in fashionable places around the world. And I am sure the habit of letting staff lick her toes while her children look on came from that time. (Sorry, I am still shocked that she let her children watch this - I think it would have been a much smaller scandal without Beatrice and Eugenie as toddlers being present at that pool. IIRC it was the housekeeper back then who was so annoyed about this that she thought it has to become public knowledge about Sarah and informed the media, so they could get pics of it. (Hope this is fact, I am pretty sure that was behind the sudden paparazzi appearance on what was thought to be a private estate).
__________________

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





Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×