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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Actually with this lawsuit being filed in France, if we were to look at the legal papers, we would see that the plaintiffs are William Mountbatten-Windsor and Catherine Middleton. Its the way things are done in France. They do not recognize foreign (British) titles and styles and women use their maiden names.

So, oddly enough, Middleton is correct when referring to this case. :D
 
Great point Osipi, I didn't realize that.

But I was referring more to the tabloid-y Daily Fail and People magazine types. They don't have the excuse of legal custom and form. They are simply too lazy to care, imo.
 
But it's a criminal trial. I don't know about France. In the US, the government be it state or federal is the plaintiff for a criminal trial. In the UK, it's the Crown.

William and Kate would have to press charges but it the government that would decide to try it. So shouldn't the criminal case be France vs people,not William Mountbatten Windsor and Catherine Middleton vs people which would more for a civil case.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
All I remember is when this all was first going on (and its probably way back somewhere in this thread) that it was noted that the lawsuit was filed by William Mountbatten-Windsor and Catherine Middleton. Although fuzzy, I think there may have been a photocopy of the papers provided in a link but don't quote me on that one.

I am not in any shape or form literate in the how things work in court systems but as this case progresses, I'm sure I'm in the right place to learn. :D
 
There was civil suit filed when it happened to stop the photos from being further distributed. I believe that's where the paperwork we saw at the time came from.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I thought that William and Kate signed the official complaint against the photographers in those names (keeping to French law about no titles obviously) and that was the paperwork that was photographed.

IMO it's just laziness on the tabloid journalists' part when they call Kate by her maiden name. They apparently choose to believe that their readers wouldn't know who 'the Duchess of Cambridge' is, if she was referred to in articles in that way. I don't think it will stop until Kate is Princess of Wales.
 
In France there is a law prohibiting people from using any name other than that with which they were born. That law is relaxed for social purposes, and some women do use their husbands' surnames for social purposes, but for legal purposes they have to use their own. Hence Kate had no choice but to commence the legal proceedings in France as Catherine Middleton, and I assume she would be referred to that way whether as plaintiff or complainant or informant or whatever the capacity is in which she is involved in the present proceedings.
 
But the DM used Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton and then Kate. William was referred to as Prince William and William. No where in the article are the names used in France for the legal proceedings which where William Mountbatten-Windsor and Catherine Middleton.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
:previous: In that case I guess the author of the article doesn't particularly care for Kate, or consistency.
 
In the media it's all about the clicks. They'd call Kate Queen of the Universe if it got the most clicks.

I once asked my teenage son, who is John Q Public regarding the royals, "who is Kate Middleton?" Response: "oh, she's George's mother.. and she's married to that prince." "Who is the Duchess of Cambridge". Response, "I don't know."
Knowing him, he might click on an article about Kate Middleton, because he kind of likes George and thinks he's cute. I think he'd pass the Duchess of Cambridge article right up. This is the person the media is trying to reach with the clicks. We'll all click no matter what she's called. He won't

Should be an interesting trial. Will and Kate probably need not testify - the photos might speak for themselves.
 
With the much more stringent privacy laws pertaining to celebrities etc in France the Cambridges may well win this case. The damage has been done however. Those images spread all over the world via the Internet.

Interesting about your son, Gracie, and I think it's quite true that more of the public (especially young people) know Kate more as Kate Middleton than as the Duchess. We are told that print media is dying. It will be interesting after it's gone to see how many Britons will click on articles involving the royals, won't it? IMO Royal news for most will be confined to a few seconds on the daily TV news (and free to air channels are dying as well!)
 
Print media is dying. Only around 12 percent of voters in the UK buy a daily national newspaper. 5000 fewer people will buy a newspaper this week than last week.

It's just down to technology. If people are concerned they should buy as many papers as possible.
 
Curryong said:
With the much more stringent privacy laws pertaining to celebrities etc in France the Cambridges may well win this case. The damage has been done however. Those images spread all over the world via the Internet.
Click to expand...

correct! And if Kate decides to show herself topless again outside her own walls then I am sure she will be photographed again, no court of law will keep the paparazzi from not taking such pictures.

Print media don't matter at all, the pictures were all over the internet and those people who wanted to see took a look, illegal or not.
 
Being topless with your husband wasn't a crime even in Victorian times. Even royals get intimate with each other. :D

Lots of royals have been photographed in various stages of undress, including the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry.

There isn't anything scandalous about it. It's not like Kate was posing for a glamour magazine at 16 or sucking on the toes of a strange man.

It was a private holiday with her husband at a family owned chateau. It was five years ago and amazingly the world has moved on.
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
Being topless with your husband wasn't a crime even in Victorian times. Even royals get intimate with each other. :D

Lots of royals have been photographed in various stages of undress, including the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry.

There isn't anything scandalous about it. It's not like Kate was posing for a glamour magazine at 16 or sucking on the toes of a strange man.

It was a private holiday with her husband at a family owned chateau. It was five years ago and the world amazingly has moved on.
Click to expand...

Very true indeed. It was a legit private vacation between a husband and wife. Catherine did nothing wrong. Her privacy was grossly violated and I'm glad the paps involved is getting punished for it.

Yes, everyone has moved on now. Thank goodness!!!
 
Rudolph said:
Print media is dying. Only around 12 percent of voters in the UK buy a daily national newspaper. 5000 fewer people will buy a newspaper this week than last week.

It's just down to technology. If people are concerned they should buy as many papers as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree and IMO it fuels the need for those concerned about their positions to do more desperate acts in order to stay employed.

My cousin's position at the Los Angeles Times ended three years ago. She spent 20 years in the industry having entered it in an era when its demise would have been considered nearly impossible.
 
Photographs taken long distance from a road, so yes you are exposed! I think this is rediculous! Yes, if someone managed to move into your own personal space, you have a case but if you leave yourself open to the public area just shut up and probably cover up! These two are too precious for words! Not sure by now who is worse!
 
Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012

When is the patio/pool area of privately owned house a public area? In this same country of France, there are public topless beaches.

Camilla and Diana also got photographed topless sunbathing bathing on vacation too. William got photographed peeing on the side of the road, Philip had his kilt blow up and expose the royal jewels, Charles had naked shower through a window pictures. Harry had Vegas.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
Skippyboo said:
Camilla and Diana also got photographed topless sunbathing bathing on vacation too
Click to expand...
: OMG, how old were they ?

[/QUOTE]
Philip had his kilt blow up and expose the royal jewels [/QUOTE] no underwear ???
 
The Camilla pictures were in the last ten years. Sixty year old topless lady aren't a hot seller. Diana's was back in the 80s if I remember correctly some rich paper owner bought the photos to protect her and never published them.

The traditional way of wearing a kilt is with nothing under it .


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Skippyboo said:
The Camilla pictures were in the last ten years. Sixty year old topless lady aren't a hot seller. Diana's was back in the 80s if I remember correctly some rich paper owner bought the photos to protect her and never published them.

The traditional way of wearing a kilt is with nothing under it .


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Camilla's were from September 2013 when she was on a yacht.

I believe Diana's were bought by HOLA! and she made an agreement with them not to publish.
 
Not sure where to post this: Medier bragte topløse billeder af hertuginde Kate: Nu kræver prins William kæmpe erstatning | BT Udland - www.bt.dk
(Here in Danish).

News are coming in about the court case against the French magazines printing topless photos of Kate.
The prosecutor calls for a compensation for 1.5 million €
and the two photographers taking the photos are facing court for violation of W&K's privacy.
Those responsible fro publishing the photos should get very hefty fines, says the prosecutor.

The ball is rolling and I hope the trial results in a defeat for the magazines and the photographers.
Don't t know the laws on privacy in France but I imagine they are stricter than in Britain.
 
This will be interesting...the outcome that is.


LaRae
 
How the Uk media are treating is interesting.

Emphasis on the request for "staggering damages". 6 defendants so just over £200,000 each. Not so "staggering" really.

And no emphasis on privacy rights or criminal (not civil) proceedings.

So element of self interested - Uk tabloids papers just cant be trusted with reporting the facts. So predictable.
 
I am confused. Isn't this criminal trial? Would not the government be the prosecuting party? Not the Cambridges. The Cambridges would be just the victims. So this money request is the government asking for it?
 
Skippyboo said:
I am confused. Isn't this criminal trial? Would not the government be the prosecuting party? Not the Cambridges. The Cambridges would be just the victims. So this money request is the government asking for it?
Click to expand...

None of the press reports I have seen make this clear.

Call Holmes and Watson!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Diana and Dodi (and Tony Blair)
6 7 8
Replies
213
Views
38K
Somebody
Somebody
R
  • Locked
William, Catherine and Family: Annual Holiday to Mustique (2012-2015, 2018-2019)
30 31 32
Replies
944
Views
53K
SLV
SLV
iceflower
  • Locked
The Countess of Wessex's Fashion and Style, Part 5: September 2012 - December 2013
12 13 14
Replies
416
Views
45K
iceflower
iceflower
E
  • Locked
Smear Campaign? And if so, by whom? (Re: William and Kate)
5 6 7
Replies
203
Views
44K
Myself1995
Myself1995
HMTLove23
George I (1660-1727)
2
Replies
54
Views
15K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom