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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I apologize in advance to anyone who's already commented on this post. Under English Common Law, the female spouse takes the surname and/or title of the husband. Therefore, Catherine is legally HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. That's her name.

In France, on legal and official documents, the maiden name is used. Since the it was a French court, usage of Mme Catherine Elizabeth Middleton is correct.
 
Letizia have had topless pictures publish, Frederik have had picture of him jumping buck naked from a boat publish. All these victim blaming, "my princess is too smart" to be violated and a victim quote from here are disgusting
 
Last edited:
:previous:

I am almost positive that Letizia had topless photos of her taken as well but I could be wrong.
 
What I don't get is this, when anyone travels to a foreign country or jurisdiction, they are always told to obey the laws and customs of that country

If the Duke and Duchess had broken a French law while on vacation (speeding ticket or whatever) I doubt people would say that speeding is a 'stupid' law and the Duke and Duchess should just ignore it.

People would rightly say that they broke the law and should pay the fine or ticket, whatever.

Why is it different with The Closer or this disgusting photographer?

France has laws in place that say it is illegal to invade someone's privacy in this manner, so to say that the Duke and Duchess are in the wrong is classic victim blaming IMO.

Yes the photos are already out there but that doesn't mean that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge shouldn't stick up for themselves.

I am sorry for beating a dead horse but my blood boils over this incident.
 
^^She did, they are on another forum where they embedded the photos in the thread (don't have to click the link to see it.) She was on a rooftop sunbathing. It was wrong then and it wrong now for some pervert to take pictures of a woman like this. I don't care if they are famous, they are still human and should have to take being violated by others. They should have to learn that being violated is okay (learned her lessons?) because of who the marry.
 
Letizia have had topless pictures publish, Frederik have had picture of him jumping buck naked from a boat publish. All these victim blaming, "my princess is too smart" to be violated and a victim quote from year are disgusting

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean when you say: "a victim quote from year are disgusting"? :ermm:
 
What I don't get is this, when anyone travels to a foreign country or jurisdiction, they are always told to obey the laws and customs of that country

If the Duke and Duchess had broken a French law while on vacation (speeding ticket or whatever) I doubt people would say that speeding is a 'stupid' law and the Duke and Duchess should just ignore it.

People would rightly say that they broke the law and should pay the fine or ticket, whatever.

Why is it different with The Closer or this disgusting photographer?

France has laws in place that say it is illegal to invade someone's privacy in this manner, so to say that the Duke and Duchess are in the wrong is classic victim blaming IMO.

Yes the photos are already out there but that doesn't mean that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge shouldn't stick up for themselves.

I am sorry for beating a dead horse but my blood boils over this incident.

Some people think she public property so she has no right to privacy so she should be treated like a zoo animal. Others think the BRF are arrogant (to other royals) and the deserve to be hounded and hunted by the press and the take great pleasure of seeing them in pain (see the person who was joking about it being a long range sniper instead).

All I'm seeing is that the world is full of vile people and the people who encourage their behavior
 
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean when you say: "a victim quote from year are disgusting"? :ermm:

I meant here.

All the victim blaming that I'm seeing are disgusting
 
The finnish gossip magazine "7 päivää" (from Aller) didn't publish the topless photos, although it's sister magazines in Sweden and Denmark did. The editor of 7 päivää says that they didn't publish the photos, because they have been taken to the private yard, which is illegal in Finland.
 
This will be my last opinion on this sitaution.

The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge was sharing a private moment on private property where no one can see them from any road. This is a couple that try their best to keep their private life private as much as possible, so I somehow doubt they would've let their guard down if they felt like the property they were on wasn't safe enough.

The person who I think was in the wrong was the photographer and the magazines that decided to publish the pictures. Oviously the royal couple, royal family and the palace thought the same and they stood their ground on privacy. They deserve some rights to privacy just like everyone else. I don't think anyone should allow any photogaphers to invade their privacy to take private pictures of them and publish them.

I applaud the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge on the way they handled this situation and I think the Duchess showed a great deal of strength while she carried out her duty on the Diamond Jubilee Tour. She could've crumbled over this but she didn't and I think she be applauded for it.

Blogs | Richard Palmer | Royal blog: Duchess Kate is a tough cookie | Exclusive opinion, news and views from Daily and Sunday Express's top writersExpress.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express
 
I apologize in advance to anyone who's already commented on this post. Under English Common Law, the female spouse takes the surname and/or title of the husband. Therefore, Catherine is legally HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. That's her name.

I take issue with that. I understand it's merely tradition, not law. The female spouse is entitled to take the surname and/or title of the husband, but she is not legally compelled to do so; it is not law, common or statute. I have never used my husband's surname, and I am not legally obliged to do so.

ETA See Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75).
 
Last edited:
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.

They're owned by Marina Berlusconi. I haven't heard of 'Chi' getting sued so far, and people here have other fish to fry at present, so most of them seem no to be interested in those photos. Gone are the days when Novella 2000 sold tons of copies back in 1977 when Princess Caroline went topless sunbathing on a boat with her then boy friend Junot. She' d taken off her top with much more class than Kate did.;) Well nowaday's princesses are not the ones they used to be.

BTW pictures of Marina Berlusconi- topless sunbathing in Southern France - were published by Chi...
 
Last edited:
I have never seen the pictures up to now, don't want to either and if I ever accidentally stumble across them I will click my screen away.
Moreso, I find the opinion of the posters who think that this is her own fault disgusting. Royal or not, privacy is a basic human right and her being different because she is the future Queen of England has nothing to do with it.

Respect and dignity in this society have really taken a downfall. And all this is just my opinion.
 
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Thomas Hansen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.
 
Last edited:
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.

This act is to be sincerely applauded. It might be more widespread than just this one business but the fact that some of us "ordinary" people with small businesses can and do take a stand for what they believe is common decency reminds us that there are decent people in this crazy world.
 
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.



Bravo for M. Henningsen! Too bad we can't get an avalanche of that ... then the press would realize the power of the press, so to speak, is nothing, nothing at all, when compared to the power of the people.

In fact, it is the ONLY thing that will stop it. Eventually we will understand our power (the individual, the everyman) when we stand united and firm instead of whinging about how bad it's all becoming.

You know that phrase, "Someone ought to do something"? Well, M. Henningsen decided to be the someone. I am impressed beyond words.
 
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.

Oops. Me again.

Someone (irony alert) who has a facebook account needs to post this. Everyone should , I think. And someone else on twitter. And so on. I've emailed it to all my contacts in the media. Sometimes, even the worst media situations can be turned into positive ones, simply because "someone" started a ball rolling down a hill.
 
Last edited:
Se & Hør has always been and will always be a scum magazine, I would never even consider spending my money on that filthy piece of crap. No one in their right mind would.
 
Købmand sender Se og Hør med topløs Kate retur - TV 2 Nyhederne

We have a story here about the owner of a local grocery store, Kim Henningsen, from the small town of Søndervig in DK.
He has returned the weekly shipment of Se & Hør magazines in protest and written on a sign: "Dear Costumer. Here in this store we have chosen to remove Se & Hør from the shelves, as we don't believe they respect the peace of privacy (*) by showing the much debated photos of the English royal family".

(*) Peace of Privacy is what the legislation guarding privacy is called here in DK.

Good for him! Was it Se & Hor that printed the pictures of Christian nude at the beach over his parents' objections? I can't remember now.
 
For the last time, if you need a telephoto lens from half a mile away to get a picture of someone who is not out in public, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you're photographing is famous or not, if you are that far away because you know full well you wouldn't be able to get a picture close enough so they can see you, you are invading that person's privacy and should be prosecuted. The end. It does not matter what the people involved are doing, if they are alone and under the full belief that they are alone, YOU ARE INVADING THEIR PRIVACY.
 
:previous: Hear, hear! I have been shocked at the propensity of some to 'blame the victim.' At any rate, if anyone 'should have known better', wouldn't that be the security team, who have presumably been trained to anticipate such problems? Or even William himself- although I don't assign blame to him- who has been a royal all his life.
 
Good for him! Was it Se & Hor that printed the pictures of Christian nude at the beach over his parents' objections? I can't remember now.

I believe so. M&F were pretty annoyed!
However that was a fairly innocent photo on public beach, and M&F knew the photographers were there.
It was just that the magazine refused to respect a request from M&F. - Annoying other photographers, because that may have ruined the chances of similar future photo-ops.

For the last time, if you need a telephoto lens from half a mile away to get a picture of someone who is not out in public, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you're photographing is famous or not, if you are that far away because you know full well you wouldn't be able to get a picture close enough so they can see you, you are invading that person's privacy and should be prosecuted. The end. It does not matter what the people involved are doing, if they are alone and under the full belief that they are alone, YOU ARE INVADING THEIR PRIVACY.

It's as simple as that. :flowers:
 
:previous: Hear, hear! I have been shocked at the propensity of some to 'blame the victim.' At any rate, if anyone 'should have known better', wouldn't that be the security team, who have presumably been trained to anticipate such problems? Or even William himself- although I don't assign blame to him- who has been a royal all his life.

I feel that in this discussion there has been a bit of a misunderstanding or confusion or unintended emphasis given to comments made by some of us, myself included, about Kate and/or William knowing better. It's not blaming Kate, i.e. saying it was her fault rather than the perpetrator's. It is merely saying that in much the same way as people who choose to swim in the surf on Western Australian or South African beaches at dusk run a very real risk of being attacked by a great white shark, there was a very real risk. Like the surfer, Kate and William should have been aware of the risk of a hidden predator attacking and they assumed the risks inherent in the activity.

When there is as much interest in you as there is in Kate, unless you are 100% sure that there is no way someone could photograph you with a modern telephoto lens, i.e. unless your security people know the location well and have made lengthy and thorough checks to ensure there is nowhere from which a photographer with the right equipment could snap a pic - and, IMO, in view of the prominent location of that residence in hilly country, there should have been real doubt about that - you don't do something that you wouldn't mind seeing immortalised in a photo on the front page of the paper.

It was most certainly an invasion of their privacy, but they should expect their privacy to be invaded, because, like it or not, that's an incident of their lives, which, again like it or not, are lived in the public these days. The line between public and private is a fine one due to modern technology and instantaneous communications. And William, who has been royal all his life, and the son of Diana, should, of all people, be only too well aware of these facts. He might not like it, and I'm sure he'll huff and puff about it and denounce the paparazzi and issue lots of lawsuits, but, like shark teeth, new paps will keep popping up the moment one is knocked out. It will never end for them. I hope he accepts this and accepts the need to behave very cautiously in future and doesn't make it a mission to tantalise the paps and then chase them in Court. That could get tiresome.
 
If someone is on private property and they are topless, it's a gross invasion of their privacy when someone takes pictures of them and sells them. It would be a different story if they were walking down the street or in a public area or on a public beach and they took their top off.
 
I feel that in this discussion there has been a bit of a misunderstanding or confusion or unintended emphasis given to comments made by some of us, myself included, about Kate and/or William knowing better. It's not blaming Kate, i.e. saying it was her fault rather than the perpetrator's. It is merely saying that in much the same way as people who choose to swim in the surf on Western Australian or South African beaches at dusk run a very real risk of being attacked by a great white shark, there was a very real risk. Like the surfer, Kate and William should have been aware of the risk of a hidden predator attacking and they assumed the risks inherent in the activity.
I think it is a little much to expect Catherine to be on long lens alert this early in her marriage. Now William, he's lived with it all his life and yet even he was obviously comfortable thinking they were secure and private. I am not saying it was their fault, just pointing out to those who do that even a life-time of paparazzi attention hadn't made William that paranoid.

For all the talking about his early life, his mother and her death, etc. I think there was still a little part of William that hoped that things had changed and he was still allowed a small semblance of a private life. I am guessing that has changed. And that, to me, is sad.
 
For all the talking about his early life, his mother and her death, etc. I think there was still a little part of William that hoped that things had changed and he was still allowed a small semblance of a private life. I am guessing that has changed. And that, to me, is sad.

I suspect that if he were not Diana's son, he and his wife would not be subject to quite the same level of public scrutiny. I'm a little worried about the attention they are getting, actually. It seems excessive. Kate seems to be on the cover of every woman's magazine here. I think one of the mags has her pregnant with twins, too. :eyeroll:
 
Oh, come on, they live by publicity. Sure they are entitled to privacy, but these are people who know the invasive nature of the Pararazzi and the public. Harry in Las Vegas, wow, what a revelation, Fergie having her toes sucked or come on. They court what they think is positive publicity, but once you do that, you are open to all scrutiny. Yes, of course, they are victims, but that is their lives. They are "celebrities", as all "royals" are, they court the press for positive press, they will, also, get negative press. The days of the sacrosanct "royal" being is gone.
 
If being in this private situation and believing themselves to absolutely being alone is something that the "royals" can't expect from life and Kate was just "asking for it" when she took her top off, what I want to know is why this photographer didn't feel comfortable enough to walk up to them and thank them for the photo op.

It was a sneak attack and the photographer knew what he was doing was illegal and would incur the wrath of the Cambridges. He decided to go ahead with it. Blinded by dollar signs methinks.
 
Of course, he knew he'd make a fortune. There is no alone, if you are a celebrity. Yes, all people have the right to privacy and I don't buy or read this junk, but, obviosuly many do, otherwise it would not be worth a fortune. Injunction or not, those pics will show up somehwere and I am sure at a great price. Also, if everyone, totally ignored it, it would have died on its own.
 
Back
Top Bottom