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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And the point of this kind of comment is ....

It has been a well known fact that William has a tremendous distrust of the French media (perhaps media in general) and this is just one more example of the lengths to which the French media will go...I don't think it will contribute to improving his view of the French media!
 
I personally don't think anyone has the right to take advantage of someone who is relaxing on vacation, but we live in a world where many have no scruples. You can't count on anyone else to do the right thing, so you have to protect yourself (yup, I am cynical cindy!). That doesn't make it right or excuse what happened to her by any means. Kate should be able to suntan topless if she chooses to, but the reality is, well, exactly what happened - she got photograped by some scumbag who took advantage of the situation. She didn't do anything wrong, but she is paying the price. I feel terribly for her, especially since you can tell by some comments on the likes of these forums, The DM and such, that people were waiting (and almost wanting!!!) her to "slip-up".
 
Wow, this didn't even occur to me...there does seem to be a major issue with the royal's protection lately:

‘If a photographer can poke a lens through some greenery and take these type of pictures then a gunman with a high-powered weapon and telescopic sight could have done far worse. That is really shocking.

Read more: If the paparazzi could see her, why couldn't her bodyguards see them? Questions raised over failure by royal protection police just weeks after Harry scandal | Mail Online
 
Interesting - and good point. I hadn't made the connection between Diana's car crash in France and Kate's issues with the French media. Though they were just in France before their trip to Asia, so I'm not sure they're avoiding France. It seems to me I read about the pictures while they were there, too...

To clarify my point, William was a teen when his mother died. He knows French paps were somehow involved, but still it was an accident. However, years later, after he marries Kate (and we know how protective he is of her) - a French pap succeeds in taking topless photos of his wife.

The difference now is that with this latest incident - he is not a teen - he is a man. And it is human nature to avoid places where grief and extremely bad memories reside.

I'm sure you know the meaning of visceral - but for those members here who do not have English as their first language - visceral means "relating to deep inward feelings, rather than to the intellect".

We won't know for sure for years, and it would never be announced of course, but I don't think that we will see William back in France any time soon.
 
Last edited:
It has been a well known fact that William has a tremendous distrust of the French media (perhaps media in general) and this is just one more example of the lengths to which the French media will go...I don't think it will contribute to improving his view of the French media!

Well the French media (or to be more exact a small part of the French media aka the tabloîds) are not worse than the US, UK or german ones. Pointing France as the country of the evil press is quite a nonsense and hypocrital, as the royals are equally arrased wherever they go (and certainely not by French paps). We can argue that France has strict laws about privacy, wich is certainely not the case everywhere .

The fact that France is a privilegied royal destination for holidaying is certainely a good guess about why these kind of incidents are sadly repeating themselves. Diana was regullary harassed by paps when skiing in Switzerland some years ago . Did William choose to boycott the Klosters station ? Not. Just imagine a future king William boycotting a state visit to France "because it's too painful for him" is just plain stupid.

We can only hope that the outcry about these pics (yes EVEN here in France) and the very wise choice to sue this paper will serve as a precedent and secure a relative calm futur for the Cambridges on the tabloid front.
 
Last edited:
The punishment should be ten times the amount paid for the pictures times the number of copies printed for the magazine. The editor should be jailed for a year, plus a hefty fine. The pap who took the picures should be jailed for a year and fined 10 times what he received for the pictures and all his camera equipment should be destroyed.
 
Nico, you may have misunderstood my post...Since I know little to nothing about the French media (except what I read), I have no opinion of them. Also, may I add that you are absolutely correct about the US media. They are certainly among the least reputable news sources there is.
 
ico, you may have misunderstood my post..

Really sorry about that :flowers: .


Repeating a similar intiative on another board, if you wish , as i did, to express your feelings and a little bit more to the French Closer redaction, here's the link :

Contactez nous | Closermag

:whistling::whistling:
 
Who sunbathes anymore? I hope Kate doesn't sponsor an anti-skin cancer org.
 
Who sunbathes anymore? I hope Kate doesn't sponsor an anti-skin cancer org.

To the couple's credit, they could have been poster children for sunblock. Slathering everywhere in those photos. And it shows in the lack of sunburn post holiday! :)
 
Well, after reading all the pages posted since the publication of photo's of the DoC sunbathing topless in the supposed privacy of a private home, I have to say I was shocked and more than a little sickened by the number of "it's her own fault" and generally "let's blame the victim" posts.

Yes we do live in the age of social networking, Internet and ever present paparazzi on the lookout for some juicy shots . . . but hell, just because it happens doesn't make it right. Burglary, rape and murder are rampant but that doesn't make it right nor does it, by any stretch of shallow, "me" centred reasoning, make it the fault of the victims.

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to honesty, decency, integrity and honour. Reading these posts about the violation of Catherine and William's privacy answered that question . . . as long as it isn't happening to "me" you can joyously and gleefully "participate" vicariously!

To quote Warren when referring to Harry's latest debacle:
Warren said:
From my observation, what makes it even more ugly and unsettling is the apparent glee some members display in their harsh but happy rush to judge and condemn. Added to that is the underlying cold nastiness that others inadvertently reveal about themselves. Ugh. This thread, . . . . . continues to expand. The way I sense it, so is the ickiness factor.
 
Oh Puhleeze!! I occasionally walk around my house without clothes on. The blinds to my front and side windows are closed so that my neighbors can't see anything. However the windows that face my back yard are far enough away from my back yard neighbors that they shouldn't see anything, unless they are using high powered binoculars. I have every expectation of privacy. I should not have to cover up those back windows. And neither should you if it were your house.

TRH had every expectation of privacy. As I could not open the link you posted I can't say with 100% certainty that the chateau is closed to the public. However, knowing W&K from what I've read here and in the news, I seriously doubt K would have taken her top off if there were other people around.

I am so sick of people saying this is K's fault, and that she should have known better. Like others have posted, blaming the victim is just plain WRONG. Shame on YOU for blaming Kate. Wonder if you would feel the same way if these were photos of you or a loved one.

Catherine is not a victim. She sunbathed outside topless and was photographed. It does not make her a victim. I absolutely agree that everyone should have an expectation of privacy. However, that is not life. Catherine married the son of the most photographed women of her generation. Being hounded by cameras simply will be her life. If she does not want to be photographed in compromised situations she simply will have to not put herself there. And if people were not interested in royals lives, clothes and love life there would not be any royal boards.
 
Al_bina said:
I have an aversion to tan and sun bathing. As I have stated previously in other threads, tan equals plebeian.

Sorry...WAT??
 
Uh, Im sure it means something but I apparently dont know. Casualfan can you please explain what plebeian means?
 
Catherine is not a victim. She sunbathed outside topless and was photographed. It does not make her a victim.

I can't even begin to understand this logic. She's absolutely a victim here. She's the victim of a huge breach of her personal privacy. Someone stalked the Duke and Duchess with the intention of breaching their security and selling photos of them in their private life, and they trespassed on private land and used high tech surveillance equipment to pull it off.

Next time you're in your car, measure out a half mile from your home. Really look at the distance. Then think about how you'd feel if you were in your own walled yard, alone with your romantic partner, and someone managed, from that distance, to spy on you in a private, romantic moment... and then sold that image to the world media.

That's unfathomable for most of us, and I think almost all of us would feel absolutely sick if that happened. Yes, there's a lot of interest in Catherine, and she gets followed everywhere, and she's always dealt with it very well when she chooses to go into public places. There's no reason whatsoever though, that she should have to live the rest of her life in fear and in a state of constant vigilance. She didn't do anything wrong here. She didn't do anything even remotely wrong.

All of this "She sunbathed topless outside" talk make it sound like she was doing something shameful or wrong which isn't even close to the truth.
 
I have an aversion to tan and sun bathing. As I have stated previously in other threads, tan equals plebeian.

Comments like these will take the plebeian prize every time.
 
Uh, Im sure it means something but I apparently dont know. Casualfan can you please explain what plebeian means?

It means low class or common.

I don't agree that the term applies here though. As a skin cancer survivor, I'm very opposed to needless tanning, but the occasional hour enjoying the outdoors is still nice. I don't feel like Kate is overly tan either.
 
Thanks HRH Hermione. I knew there had to be a valid definition. Learn something new everyday! And I agree that Catherine is not overly tan.
 
Kate and William were in a private situation in a home owned by Viscount Linley. Perhaps they felt "safe" because they were in a relative's home, safer than they should have felt given how horrible the paparazzi are in France. When I saw the picture of where the photographer was standing in relation to the house, I found it almost unbelievable that he could get a picture from that far away.:ohmy: But he did. He took pictures of a semi-naked woman enjoying private time with her husband. That, in itself, is slimy behaviour. But then for the magazine to buy them and publish them is even worse!!! Those who buy the magazine are just as guilty IMO. I hope that William and Kate get a huge settlement.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
Kate and William were in a private situation in a home owned by Viscount Linley. Perhaps they felt "safe" because they were in a relative's home, safer than they should have felt given how horrible the paparazzi are in France. When I saw the picture of where the photographer was standing in relation to the house, I found it almost unbelievable that he could get a picture from that far away.:ohmy: But he did. He took pictures of a semi-naked woman enjoying private time with her husband. That, in itself, is slimy behaviour. But then for the magazine to buy them and publish them is even worse!!! Those who buy the magazine are just as guilty IMO. I hope that William and Kate get a huge settlement.

I don't think the money is the issue or a deterrent. I hope the editor and the photographer are both sent to jail. I think that will hold more impact.
 
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:

No, it's not Catherine's fault. She thought she was in a private area, so let her hair down. But that's hardly the problem - anybody could have taken a bikini pic of her and photoshop it into a topless pic. Question is: would anyone print that? And why not?

I don't think these pics are anything to be scandalised over - what I think is a shame is the missing respect of the publishers. Catherine is not somebody who earns her keep with putting herself up to public scrutiny like an actress or else, she is a well-bred young lady who married a high-profile man and now does all she can to support her husband in honouring his position and the value the Britons put in his family.

SO IMHO she has a right to be treated with utmost respect.
 
share this viewpoint

Catherine is not a victim. She sunbathed outside topless and was photographed. It does not make her a victim. I absolutely agree that everyone should have an expectation of privacy. However, that is not life. Catherine married the son of the most photographed women of her generation.
Being hounded by cameras simply will be her life. If she does not want to be photographed in compromised situations she simply will have to not put herself there.
And if people were not interested in royals lives, clothes and love life there would not be any royal boards.
 
Last edited:
quote from the article:

.....
we expect her never to put herself in a position where she loses her dignity.
That means there is absolutely no room for risk-taking. And that means not lying semi-naked on a pool terrace a thousand yards from a public road in a country with the most ruthless paparazzi in the world.

Quite simply, this ghastly situation should never have happened. And only two people could have stopped it. The Duke and Duchess themselves.

I know I may sound harsh. It may sound unfair. But Kate isn’t like the rest of us. And, with his long experience of the foreign press – and particularly in light of his mother’s experiences – William should have advised her better. ..........





 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that a jail sentence would be more of a deterrent than simply a huge fine. However, there would be a certain justice in this costing the photographer and editor money, because these pictures are taken and published for financial reasons. "Scandal" sells.

I don't think the money is the issue or a deterrent. I hope the editor and the photographer are both sent to jail. I think that will hold more impact.
 
quote from the article:

.....
we expect her never to put herself in a position where she loses her dignity.
That means there is absolutely no room for risk-taking. And that means not lying semi-naked on a pool terrace a thousand yards from a public road in a country with the most ruthless paparazzi in the world.

Quite simply, this ghastly situation should never have happened. And only two people could have stopped it. The Duke and Duchess themselves.

I know I may sound harsh. It may sound unfair. But Kate isn’t like the rest of us. And, with his long experience of the foreign press – and particularly in light of his mother’s experiences – William should have advised her better. ..........




Hideous dreck from an absolute rubbish article.
 
They weren't on a yacht. They were on a private estate. The magazine states that the photos were taken on the terrace of a guest house in Luberon.

The pictures were a total invasion of their privacy. According to the palace, William and Kate were told about the photos this morning and they're upset. The palace said that they are considering legal action.

As for William's schedule, doesn't he get a few days off in between shifts? They were only on vacation for 3 days, so it's not like he couldn't go between his shifts.


You´re not getting my point. I´m not bringing the vacation schedule here since it seems a lost case. For some people here they may take 10 vacations a year and it will be fine. I was referring to the blatant lie about them not being able to attend the closing ceremony because he was on duty"!!!!! And they were having their bodies tanned in France. That is the scandal.

As for the lawsuit, it will make things worse and longer. Princes Caroline lost a case this year before the European court, this can be taken as an antecedent. And honestly how is it invation of privacy to take pictures from a road. Don´t they know about other cases? Fergie? Diana? Paparazzi lenses can take pictures from miles away? What was she thinking? At least Harry, even if he was a fool, was in a hotel room ( and probably drunk, it is not nudity whay I had a problem with but the situation that led to that).
I can´t believe some are talking about jail, that would be a serious case of censorship and violation of freedom of speech. So they use the press and enjoy their attention when they need it but they want them to refrain from reporting if they make topless in a balcony?
 
Well, after reading all the pages posted since the publication of photo's of the DoC sunbathing topless in the supposed privacy of a private home, I have to say I was shocked and more than a little sickened by the number of "it's her own fault" and generally "let's blame the victim" posts.

Yes we do live in the age of social networking, Internet and ever present paparazzi on the lookout for some juicy shots . . . but hell, just because it happens doesn't make it right. Burglary, rape and murder are rampant but that doesn't make it right nor does it, by any stretch of shallow, "me" centred reasoning, make it the fault of the victims.

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to honesty, decency, integrity and honour. Reading these posts about the violation of Catherine and William's privacy answered that question . . . as long as it isn't happening to "me" you can joyously and gleefully "participate" vicariously!

To quote Warren when referring to Harry's latest debacle:

Well said Marg
 
some people should calm down here. some examples on rape victims, for instance, are completely out of scope.

i have never gone topless in public places. i just don't find it appropriate and i guard my intimacy for myself. yet, not very many people would be interested in taking naked pictures of a stranger like me on a beach, let's say (unless they are a bit perverted, hence why i never had interest in doing it - because, as i said, precaution is the best safeguard).


i like kate, and feel bad for what's happened to her. i am by no means justifying the photographer or saying that it was only kate's fault. we don't tango alone. it takes two for this to happen. so if kate didn't want to see such pictures out there, if harry didn't want his naked pictures to be shared or if fergie didn't want the toekissing pictures to be public, don't do it in the first place. and by all means, don't do it in a semi-public place. to them as public people, the interest in high everywhere and you are just starting to feed the beasts by doing it. that's all. you can hardly expect that those pictures won't be used once they reach an editorial.



I somehow doubt that William and Kate will ever holiday in France again.

my thoughts exactly, they must curse france by now! i wonder if william came back (he probably did) after his mother's death or if this is the first time he's been back.
 
Back
Top Bottom