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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
These days there is little privacy for anyone;

Isn't that the truth...

Even people who aren't famous...it's on Facebook, Twitter, and whatever new social medium there is. We're moving into a very exhibitionist age.
 
There is a difference if they are being photographed in a public place, then yes she should be aware but if it is a private residence then she is free to do what she wants. The paparazzi have no right taking pictures and even if they do, such pictures should not be published. Tomorrow it'll be normal for them to take pictures of them while they are indoors.
 
Editor of French magazine "Closer" explains decision to publish Kate topless pictures:
BBC News - Kate photos reaction 'disproportionate' - Closer editor

What a hypocrite !! I loathe this kind of person.
 
MY GOD NO!!!
It is like the story of the theive! If you let the door of your house wide open, it will always be someone who will entry and steal you. Of course it is disgusting what he is done, of course he went into your private area, of course it is illegal, but world is full of thieves!! To be protected, JUST CLOSE YOUR DOOR!!

It is not at all like the story of the thieve. Kate was in a private place, not somewhere public. The door was closed. You are blaming the woman for taking her top off, not the man who hid, spied and used a long ranged lense to photograph her without her permission.
 
There is another ethical question here. How many of us believe in their right to privacy, believe that paps are creeps, think the mag is a rag - but still went and looked at the photos? Ethically, by looking at the photos, I endorsed the invasion of their privacy. I'm not proud of that, but it is true.

I completely agree, especially about looking at the photos online "endorsing" the invasion of privacy. I too looked at the photos, though my intentions were to see if they were fake or real, I still looked, thus I condoned this behavior.

We should all stay away from looking at the photos, or even looking at photos of the photos. Changing the behavior of the paps will only happen when people stop buying the mags and looking at the pics online.
 
Except this is about more than taking simple precautions. This is about the fact that photographers treat them like prey. They were in a private house, surrounded by 650 acres of private land, on an unannounced holiday and with a security team in place. They did everything right.

In this situation, William and Kate did everything right, and a photographer still bypassed all of their precautions. The blame lie solely with the photographer and magazine editor.

Well said.
 
she definitely should have kept her top on, they both created an opportunity for the paperazzi which does not make them victims but just plain stupid.

Yes it is all Kate's fault. Has no one ever told her that if you take your top off on in a house on 650 acres of private property you are creating an opportunity for the paparazzi and of course we women all know that if you take your clothes off, even in private, anyone that wants can come along and photograph you without your permission. Stupid Kate! :bang:
 
Do you know how many normal women this happens to every year??? Some person takes private pictures of them unknown to them and it ends up on the internet!! This is sick and a huge violation. Its not about being famous. They didnt invite this sicko over for lunch. They were spied upon. From miles away. How any of you could blame her is beyond me. But we're women why should I expect better.

It so sad, and some of these normal women get their pictures taking inside their home with some a**hole taking it from the house across the street through a window but yet somehow society has made it the women fault.


Isn't that the truth...

Even people who aren't famous...it's on Facebook, Twitter, and whatever new social medium there is. We're moving into a very exhibitionist age.


I don't understand how my generation is not fazed by this.
 
According to Richard Palmer tweeter statement:
"Agence France-Presse reports from Paris that the Royal Household has launched a law suit over topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge."
 
There is a difference if they are being photographed in a public place, then yes she should be aware but if it is a private residence then she is free to do what she wants. The paparazzi have no right taking pictures and even if they do, such pictures should not be published. Tomorrow it'll be normal for them to take pictures of them while they are indoors.

Exactly if the line are not drawn now, the next pictures will be taking from a shower window of a celebs publish in magazine like the closer or site like TMZ
 
SJP confirms. Legal proceedings for breach of privacy have commenced today in France against the Publishers of Closer Magazine France
I remember the same paper published their summer photos, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Last edited:
the magazine will be found guilty but the fine will not compare to the profit they make.


The result remains the same, kate keep your bra on in future.
 
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.
 
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)
 
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.

Which is how Charles was photographed in the nude.
SJP have confirmed legal action will be taken.
The magazine is owned by former Italian PM Silvio Berlesconi, not a man well know for taste, class or integrity.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.

Well said BeatrixFan
 
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.

I completely agree.
 
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.
while i don't think it's reasonable to snap and publish naked pictures of people, you can hardly blame them: they knew that the magazine sells would outdo the costs of the legal action. the best is PREVENTION. if you do not engage in certain behaviours, you are safe that no uncomfortable pictures will be published.
it's the price you pay when you marry into one of the most famous families in the world. there are some things that you just can't do anymore. it all comes in a package, you can't choose half the package.
 
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)

I zoomed in on that map and those look like trails to get around the property...not a main road. The main road is quite a bit away from the house, and you have to travel through quite a bit of land to get to the chateau. Viscount Linley did an interview last year and said he bought the property because it's miles from anywhere and the main roads are deserted.


Spletnik.ru --- The scandal in the British royal family

I have never understood a desire to voluntarily bake oneself.
Aren't they putting on sunscreen? I don't know if I consider that baking themselves.
 
Last edited:
carlota said:
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.

She wasn't in a public place.
 
The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.

I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.


Great Post!
 
i think kate should have known better. it's not that she's new to the spotlight. the future queen should not sunbathe topless in a public place. full stop.
.

It wasn't a public place. The Duke and Duchess were on a private estate owned by her husbands cousin. The photographer would have had to trespass (which is illegal) on private property and then use long lense to take the pictures. Invasions of privacy, even of public persons, is still illegal in France. There is a reasonable expectation of the right to privacy on private property.

I am rather amazed at the "blame the victim" mentality of some posters.
 
Sucks for Kate. Let the woman sunbath topless if she wants to do so. It's a private estate for God's sake.
Both her and William must feel very paranoid whenever they go away together.

I do feel for Kate and feel there should be a drawn line for paps. And not just for royalty. And also, people should stop being so phazed about nudity. They're just boobs. Flaunt 'em if you have 'em. It's not like we haven't seen a pair before.
 
It wasn't a public place. The Duke and Duchess were on a private estate owned by her husbands cousin. The photographer would have had to trespass (which is illegal) on private property and then use long lense to take the pictures. Invasions of privacy, even of public persons, is still illegal in France. There is a reasonable expectation of the right to privacy on private property.

I am rather amazed at the "blame the victim" mentality of some posters.

I'm amazed by it too.
 
While not in a very populated part of France, the Chateau D'Autet estate is also not in the middle of 600 acres of forest. The Google map of the estate is: 43.931111,5.550556 - Google Maps and you can see a variety of tracks that come quite close to all the buildings. (green arrow is the Chateau)

Some info on the Chateau

Even with the correct address and a Global Positioning System on the dash, you can’t locate David Linley’s hideaway in Provence. It takes binoculars, secret cell phone numbers, an intuitive geographic sense and good French to find your way to a sketchy drive that winds through 650 acres of woods and fields and finally deposits you next to the jaunty, fire-engine-red Deux Chevaux that marks the spot. The scrub oak, walnut trees and pines are all buzzing with cicadas.
The Country Life : Architectural Digest
 
Back
Top Bottom