It’s been sort of back-burner royal story, but it’s worth discussing this week, since it’s so slow. Back in 2012, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge skipped out on the London Paralympic games so they could go on vacation in France. Paparazzi got long-range shots of Will and Kate in various stages of undress as they were lounging by the pool of the private estate in which they were staying. Those photos were published by a few European tabloids. William sued as many people as he could, and the lawsuit has been making its way through the French court system for years. Well, the trial started this year, and we were due to get a judgment this week. But it’s been delayed. Hm.
A judgment has been delayed in the trial held over the publication of topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. A court in Nanterre, west Paris, was due to deliver its verdict on Tuesday but has postponed the hearing to September, a judicial source told AFP. The trial of six people, including three photographers, linked to Closer magazine and regional newspaper La Provence was heard at the court in May.
The long-lens images of Kate, taken as she holidayed with the Duke of Cambridge in the south of France, adorned the front and inside pages of France’s Closer magazine in September 2012. They showed Kate sunbathing in Provence on the terrace of a private chateau owned by Viscount Linley, the Queen’s nephew, and ran alongside an article about the loved-up pair entitled “Oh my God!”.
Ernesto Mauri, 70, chief executive of publishing group Mondadori which produces Closer, faces one charge of using a document obtained by a breach of privacy, as does Marc Auburtin, 57, who was La Provence’s publishing director at the time. Laurence Pieau, 51, editor of Closer magazine in France, is charged with complicity. Agency photographers Cyril Moreau and Dominique Jacovides and Valerie Suau, a photographer for La Provence, all face charges of invasion of privacy and complicity. Moreau, 32, and Jacovides, 59, deny taking the topless photographs at the centre of the controversy, which are alleged to have been sold on to Closer.
Suau, 53, who is said to have taken photographs of Kate in her swimwear which were printed in La Provence, told the court she did not intend to breach the royals’ privacy at the time. Paul-Albert Iweins, representing Closer magazine, argued the photos did not constitute a breach of privacy and cast the young couple in a positive light. A new date for the verdict is expected to be announced on Tuesday at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre.
What I find interesting about this is that even with all of the delays and stops and starts, William has never done anything to let the issue drop. Like, this could have been settled with some kind of financial agreement and a formal public apology from the photographers and the publication. But William is bound and determined to see everyone involved punished to the extreme. From what I remember, the photographers were actually on public land when they took the photos (with long lenses) and William successfully bullied the British press into never publishing the photos. While it’s nice that he’s so protective over Kate, this isn’t really about that, is it? It’s about his loathing of the press. So why is the judgment being delayed? I really don’t know.
Also: I found this video fascinating. It’s an official Wimbledon video of Kate’s visit on Day 1, and while there’s not a lot of sound of Kate’s accent, I couldn’t stop watching this because of Kate’s hair. She recently got a haircut, and she keeps touching her hair, petting her hair, fussing over her hair. It also still looks like she’s wearing extensions in the back, which can be seen clearly in motion.
Photos courtesy of WENN and Pacific Coast News.
He is not protective of Kate. He is one of throes people who are vindictive to the core and with incredible his sense of entitlement it’s a triple threat. He is hoping to teach wveey peasant a lesson, like the real Duke and Prince that he is.
i think this is interesting in light of that awful playboy bunny taking the picture of that lady getting changed and publishing that without permission – which we were all enraged about. What’s the difference here? Discuss
I’m unsure of my opinion on this, however, the woman in the gym was indoors, in a place that is presumed to be private – and gyms also have signs banning use of cameras, etc. Kate was outdoors, and while on private property, was in view of public property, so could not reasonably expect to not be seen – the photography issue is something else, but if you’re outside and naked, how can you get mad if people see you?
I agree wth you, Rose. THese photos were taken from a MILE AWAY with a long lens. And while I’m sure there was staff at the home, and security, who is to say they weren’t asked to stay away from the balcony so W&K could have some privacy? We don’t know ALL details.
While it’s true they ducked out of the Paralympics, and should be bashed for that, I think the personal bashing of theses two for *everything* gets over the top. I think at a private home, on a private balcony, over a mike away from the main road, they could have a reasonable expectation of not being snapped.
Hmm. Interesting. What’s the difference between being indoors and being out of doors? Inside, outside?
Like, what is a building? And what does it mean to be inside of one?
Discuss.
I think taking nak*ed pictures of persons without their consent as well as publishing them is plain horrible and I do not condone it by any means. None whatsoever.
What I believe to be the difference is the fact that in the case of the woman in the gym, there was a real expectation of privacy. And that whatever her name is – the model’s – was absolutely vile in shaming her. Plain wrong and vile. And the woman who’s name I do not know as she’s chosen to be anonymous, did not pursue the issue beyond a small amount to purchase a new gym bag.
Regarding the royals, while they should definitely expect to enjoy privacy while on a private property, should have thought better or they should have been advised better as to what was a very bad idea. Or they didn’t listen. They know the deal with the tabloid press. I do not wish to victimize a victim. The difference is that they were in plain view for those cruel paps to take pictures of them even with special equipment. I do not know the narrative accompanying the pictures so I will not comment on that. Taking and publishing the pictures is still wrong.
Another difference stays in what I believe to be Kate’s real or perceived lack of awareness. We’ve seen pictures of her b*tt during an official engagement in Australia. Did they sue then? I really don’t know. Did Kate mind being seen by their security and villa’s minders without clothes? Media says she did not.
In all fairness, taking and publishing that kind of pictures without consent should always be illegal and punished.
@Elaine—you are hilarious! no need to discuss! 🙂
Elaine
I’m dying. 😂
@elaine
actually laughing out loud
Both photos were taken without permission. Whether you have an expectation of privacy or think you are private (when in fact you are not) the end result is the same. I don’t blame them a bit on this one.
Expectation of privacy is the central legal issue here so it matters a lot. Don’t give blow jobs in the outdoors and then you may not get photographed. I can’t feel that bad for them. That’s what this lawsuit is about more than the topless and or bottomless issue, since she has shown as much in royal appearances with the multiple flashing incidents.
He is a nasty piece of work, that’s the short and tall of it. He and the bimbo lied: they blew off the Paralympics to ‘prepare’ for their Malaysian tour. Unless royal preparation includes giving blow jobs on a balcony, naked, in full view of their hapless security and the road.
In his statement fro the trial, William said they were on holiday, but the reason given to blow off the Paralympics engagement was that they were preparing for their Malaysian tour. I wonder if the French lawyers picked up on that inconsistency.
I don’t know if the different explanations – in the UK and France – would be a reason for lawyers to use them against him/them. Unless he committed perjury but the trial takes place in France. So I don’t know if anything he or his aides said in the UK would make a difference. I think they just lied, the lie was eventually discovered with some mind blowing stuff to show and they took action against those who exposed more than the truth. I have a feeling that should compromising pictures had not seen the light, the naked truth of their holiday would have not been known. People would have thought they were at home preparing for that tour.
Addie, spot in lass, spot on
In some ways, it gives the photographers more of a case as photojournalism than anything else. Taxpayer-funded government employees had a job to do. They lied to get out of doing that job, had their staff lie to get out of work, snuck off on vacation, and got caught. If nothing else, I’d like the trial to remind people of W&K lying to the paralympians.
Philippe and Mathilde of Belgium were caught at a spa in France during terror attacks. Instead of heading home immediately, they stayed at the spa. Someone very close to them photographed them in their bathrobes in their room, perhaps even someone from their security team or hotel staff. Photos were published. No huge lawsuits that I recall, because they were embarrassed to be caught so obviously in the wrong and wanted it to go away quickly.
@ Elaine (;0)
The entitled lazy duo, use tax funds to travel/ RPOs, but could not represent GB, UK and CW at a very serious Para Olympics. Most EU Royal houses Kings/Queens were present most days of the event for their country. These two wasters of tax funds to the highest order, could do the same since they refuse to perform regular duties to the people!
What’s so hard about wearing a top? My only topless hating was 1989 spring break Paradise Islabd – and well I was in much better shape. I knew there were pervs around so I covered up.
Plus he is wicked vindictive.
I mean, they are a married couple on vacation. Maybe being naked with each other spices things up for them. Who cares. The point is they are allowed to enjoy themselves and each other. They could be on top of the highest most remote mountain naked with each other and someone would get a picture and people would say “why were they naked??” 🙄
That’s still a thing? People already had forgotten about this 4-5 years ago.
Am not surprised about this – strings have been pulled to protect the Dolittles terrible image. Given all the sh!t over the past few months and that they are due to visit Europe in the next few weeks, this would have been very very bad press for them and would have overshadowed their ‘Brexit Ambassadors Tour’
My feeling is that this will be quietly dropped as he will have been told to do so.
I can’t fault him. They were at a private property and she has every right to sunbathe topless or naked. Perhaps she should have thought against it considering who she is, but this isn’t their fault. I can’t shame her.
If this were to happen to my sister or anyone I care for, I would go as far as possible in the courts of law.
If they lose this trial then she better stop flashing everyone because those photos will make it to the front pages EVERYWHERE.
i wouldn’t call it shaming, but jeez…yes, indeed considering who she is, and how carefully they were followed at that time, i seriously doubt it was never a worry for her. part of me thinks she knew because if she had a grain of intelligence, she would have kept the top on the balcony and saved the topless for a more private sunbathing spot with restricted access, of which i’m sure they had access to, privacy can be bought. i saw it as a blatant “i dare you” middle finger to the press, kinda like all the coy little butt flashing incidents that followed. they didn’t think it would get printed, but it did. not everyone is afraid of their bully tactics.
Agreed. I wouldn’t put myself in that position, especially around hired staff (they don’t need to see my naked body!). European press owes them NOTHING. Scandal sells. They’re both dim. I just think it’s wrong to shame her for being topless/naked with her husband, even if she was very foolish in doing so.
Cee: i sincerely doubt *most people would shame anyone, including Kate, for being naked outside with her hubby, BUT as with regular people, the chances of being photographed when one does that is high because humans have no self control. Exponentially higher if you are the no 1 pap target as she was then.
*exception that california woman.
Personally i was more concerned by the security risk of their position. Entire terrace was open to snipers. Raised above the trees and easily visible. 2 roads running alongside it, one underneath whilst the other was the public one used by the paps.
Snowden once had the villa photographed for a magazine, and there are other screened off terraces with shielding trees and plenty of sunlight for sunbathers. More secure.
All that was needed for their unsecure terrace was a simple screen along the road facing balcony.
ETA: i agree with both your comments, but i think this is where personal responsibility also falls especially when the villa was fully staffed and bodyguarded.
I can see someone throwing caution to the wind if they know they are in an empty building, but a fully staffed villa and bodyguards reduces the chances of being left uninterrupted even if instructions are given to that effect.
LAK; ITA.
Last summer (your winter) we were spending the day outside by the pool, enjoying the sun, when we saw a drone flying over my parents’ house, hovering above us (mostly young women). No idea if we were being filmed, and what was done with the footage. All this to say that in this day and age we are all targets, especially women in Kate’s position. I would be so paranoid in what I did and said which is why I don’t understand why she thought it a good idea to expose herself to her staff and bodyguards, let alone paps.
Hadn’t though of the security risk. You make an excellent point.
Agreeing strongly with @kaiko above comments.Nobody deserves to be photographed in embarrassing/nude/private situations without their consent.Kate,however had at that time already began her flashing and not stopping that behavior before or since the topless photos in question make it much harder for me to be sympathetic to her on this issue.Understandably right is right and wrong is wrong so if it was illegal to take said photos then…?It just seems to me,someone who doesn’t know her and never will(so perhaps I’m wrong?)that in that situation Kate is flashing/exposing herself as I think she enjoys and suing the paps for the heck of it.Whole thing should have just been let to drop.
I know in Illinois you can’t take picture of people on private property but on public property it’s a free for all. What’s confusing here I s one party was on private, one was on public. I don’t know what the IL law regarding that would be BUT Im a private citizen and I don’t even go full frontal in front of my windows in case someone walks by. In today’s day and age people post photos all the time of people so I would NEVER in a million years be outside naked because you never know who’s around with a camera. She’s a public citizen who’s been in the linelight for over a decade; they both should have know better. I mean, the queen has never ran around butt ass naked. Further, somehow the paps found these two. I don’t know how but I think that’s kind of fishy.
This is so simple that it boggles my mind – it’s a reality that a celebrity will constantly be photographed when outside. I don’t care how “safe” you think you are. If you don’t want pictures of your naked self out there, don’t be naked outside. It’s bound to happen whether you think it’s right or not.
I agree, which is why I stated that she should have thought against it. However I stand by my opinion.
Cee, you need to pick up a slingshot. They are cheap to buy, relatively easy to master, and you can get some real distance with the right size pellet.
Spice cake – seriously doubt this is was ever embarrassing for flasher waity – the same who bum flash the world at airports in Canada and AZ where the Firm palace/s had to demand she change to slacks.
I am 55, and have never sunbathed topless. I live on 40 acres in the woods, but still….i am a teacher and what if someone saw and took pics? Should they? No. Might they? Yes. Which is why I dont do it.
She is a Duchess, was in a house with security and staff. Roads were nearby. Maybe dont tske your suit off? Dont have sex on that balcony? I think Kate has a bit of the exhibitionist in her. She is not that bright, but she isnt stupid enough to think no one would ever take pics.
Adults are responsible for their own behavior.
IDK. I see women topless in public beaches every time I go to Spain. Once I went to a sauna and we were all naked. I never expected someone to take a photo of me. If adults are responsible for their behaviour then it goes both ways.
in the US, we don’t do topless sunbathing as the norm. if we don’t want tan lines we use sunless tanner, a tanning salon, or just go with what the good Lord gives us. pretty simple. it’s just our way, call us prudes or whatever. i totally agree @sarah…if you were a teacher caught on film sunbathing nude or topless, depending on where you teach, you could quite possibly lose your job. especially considering the raging helfire speed that teenagers get hold of things on phones, twitter, youtube, etc.
@Sarah – I don’t understand what being a teacher has to do with not sunbathing topless? So what if someone saw and took pics? How exactly would that undermine you a teacher? They’re just breasts.
@ skylark, can’t speak for Sarah and I know you didn’t ask me, but I think it might have something to do with “moral character” etc…how those photos were obtained, where, by who. JMHO. Also school board districts are notoriously conservative and full of ninny minded dingbats…again JMHO.
Kaiko you can’t apply what is done in your contry or city, to the rest of us. No one is calling you, or your fellow americans, a prude. I would never go to a nudist beach because I wouldn’t feel comfortable. Never been topless because I’m not comfortable. But photographing someone without consent, even if done from a public road INTO private property? That’s a big NO for me, no matter who or where you are.
Kate hasn’t been caught again so IMO she’s learned her lesson.
@kaiko – “I think it might have something to do with “moral character” etc…
Only in America could a person’s ‘moral character’ be judged by their sunbathing habits.
PS. Just to say, Kaiko, that’s not at all aimed at you, and thanks for your reply.
Skylark, I agree that having breasts is not shameful, but do you think pics of any teacher topless wouldn’t be spread all over the place? And last year, a teacher in North Carolina, i think, has some topless pics on her phone, in her drawer at school, for her husband, and the kids went into her drawer and phone and spread the pics. They got in some trouble, but she got fired. So I guess we teachers arent supposed to have breasts.
Sarah, Did anyone ever photograph the Queen in even a swimsuit or a one piece in her youth, I don’t recall any, much less a pair of shorts. It would have been beneath her. To be sure she is put out with this pair, this must be embarassing to no end!!
She is touching her hair frequently, but I have definitely done the same thing when I have changed my style. Does she have extensions? I can’t tell. She is looking more confident, which is nice to see.
I don’t think there are extensions, or her hair would be a LOT fuller. She’s always had good hair. I see cut layers (finally, yay! lol), and curled hair, which (when done with a curling iron, as this seems to be) will separate into the curled sections. JMO 😊
They should try to take MORE pictures of him and his wife in the nude while outside. Just to teach these two a lesson that they don’t own the airspace outside.
In France there are very strict privacy laws. Public or private roads are totally immaterial. The photographer(s) clearly violated French law. The photos were taken from over a mile away with a special telephoto lens. While the photographer(s) could see the balcony I remember an article when the photos were published that stated the road couldn’t be seen (or at least clearly seen) from their balcony/villa/pool.
In France, photos can not be taken for publication without a signed contract with renumeration clearly spelled out and the payment must come from the publication, not the photographer(s). The only exceptions are personal shots (not for commercial exploitation) or those where the subject(s) is not the focus of the photograph. The subject also has the right to withdraw publication rights at any time and for any reason even if a valid contract is in place. The only exceptions to these rights are for public officials and figures while in performance of their official duties. (e.i. You can photograph an actor on the red carpet but you can’t photograph them at the supermarket in France without their express permission.) These rights cover everyone, Duchesses and Dogcatchers alike.
Drag the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for their work schedule, spending habits or dress style but they had a right to privacy the day those photos were taken and both the photographers and the publishers knew they were violating the law.
I wish they would have those laws here in the US.
Caroline eventually lost her lawsuit about photography and privacy, so privacy laws in France aren’t cut and dried. When you are famous or a government figure, it can change things just as it does in Germany.
This wasn’t Linley’s private house, which is a mistake many keep making. He owns it but it is run as a money-making enterprise and hotel, complete with hotel staff. That may change things legally.
Come on Evening Standard–he’s the Earl of Snowden now.
He was Linley at the time, so it may be easier to keep referring to him that way. Isn’t there sometimes a waiting period before calling him by the new title?
I actually don’t see the extensions. Truthfully, I thought her looked quite stringy and thin here.
I’m not good with hair, but yes I agree I thought it looked a little thinner and more natural than when it was long and sausage curl-ey. Now that being said, I did notice quite the bump on the top/back part of her head and wondered what that was. Kind of a 60s bump look but then I noticed it had flattened by the time she was talking after the match. Thoughts from hair people?? (I do well to blow dry mine. On special occasions. Ha)
On the topic of the pictures: let the judge rule according to the legislation in France. I think Billnot is pursuing the issue in court to deter other photographers/media from doing the same. No surprise. Don’t know if they’ve sued when the n*k*ed buttock picture from Oz was published.
I incline to think that they didn’t care being caught under those oh so shameless circumstances. I do not remember any remorse from their part but maybe I am wrong. And even if they won in the French court, they’ve lost big time in what concerns the public’s opinion and respect for their Royal Non-Highnesses.
On the Wimbledon note – let me first spark with joy because it’s one of my favourite times of the year!!! Besides sheer happiness at enjoying the sport, players and the great job of other sports professionals and the championship in general, I also have a great laugh at Keen Tennis Player/Lover Kate and other royal related Wimbledon topics. I watched the video with keen interest, no pun!! Some of my observations: Kannot spoke in a very soft voice as the others were somewhat louder. I think she did it on purpose to avoid too many comments on the im-por-tant things she had shared. Or maybe the sound had been processed like this. We don’t deserve to hear her, do we? Only in pre-produced videos, I think. And did I see her touching her nose BEFORE shaking hands with the second military official (I hope I got it right)?
To end on a happy note here, I’ve LOVED Stan Wawrinka’s face while looking at his girlfriend Donna after she managed to come back and win the second set. Love the love!!!!
I think part of the reason they are suing is because the photos were proof that they were lying. They pulled out of planned engagements for the 2012 Paralympics under the guise of prepping for an upcoming tour abroad – these shots showed that their idea of prepping was to sneak off to a holiday in France.
It was seen as a big eff you to the British paralympians at their home games.
Agreed, plus the middle fngr to the rest of the paraolympics teams, staff, volunteers, the public. The donots are supposed to be Ambassadors for the British Sport or something fancy like that? My deepest respect for the British sport and sport in general I must add.
Yes, this! But I haven’t seen anything written in the papers about their lies. As I said, further up this thread, I hope the French lawyers caught the lie after William stated in the trial that they were on holiday.
Yes, she touches/ wipes her nose before shaking hands.
Definitely wiped her hand across her nose.Call her a HRH but true class cannot be manufactured or bought.🤧
+100
Spot on – you’re a hoot!!
‘Billnut – Non-royal highnesses – Keen Tennis Player/Lover Kate’ …
Legit or not, this is a woman who flashes in public. And does nothing to change it.
but aren’t there laws for indecent exposure in Britain? wait, what am I saying, they are “royal”…whatever that means.
I am very curious about the lawyers’ (both sides) arguments re: private and public space. That said – I am pretty sure that at least within the scope of the European Court for Human Rights, public persons such as politicians, performers etc “forfeit” part of their privacy because of the high interest in what they do AND the expectation of high interest in what they do.
As disgusting and recent as Ascot a few weeks ago – AND India Tour- as the representative of the people of GB /HM royal representative -cringeworthy and disrespectful (that would be punishable in that part of the world).
I think she looks lovely, and i watched the video expecting it to be her groping her head, but she seemed quite natural to me.
And I don’t get the issue. People shouldn’t take non-consensual naked pictures of other people. period. Be it a 71 year old woman, or a young princess. William is right to be angered and fight for the cause.
Not addressing you personally, rather your comment in general…..
No one gave Harry the same consideration for his Vegas photos and actually gleefully still bring it up as his character flaw.
Exactly! No one should have shown Harry’s photos either!!
Good point, LAK. Did Harry or the RF sue after Harry’s photos were published? I think Billnot is suing for Kannot or on her behalf, using the Di-card.
SoulSPA: No, Harry did not sue.
Infact he sent out a statement a few days later in which he apologised for being caught out and blamed himself for forgeting his status and acting human to quote’ i was more army and less Prince’. He understood in that episode that he is always a target.
And if we extend the indoor privacy laws to outdoors, then Harry’s privacy was doubly invaded because he was photographed in the common, public areas of the hotel in his swimming trunks and not much else.
LAK, thanks very much for the answer. Harry kind of raised up a little bit in my estimation. Had he come up with the answer or had he agreed to proper advice.
3000 members of the general public filed complaints on his behalf.
Two weeks ago I saw this topless woman smoking a cigarette behind a window which was open enough so she could hold her cigarette outside and dump the ash, but not closed enough to hide her face and upper body. It was a Sat morning and there was reasonable expectation that the street was going to be quite empty, if no-one walking down the street at all. I saw her because I “did” look up, after I saw the hand sticking out the window, but didn’t expect to see a naked person. I am not judgemental, to each their own. She seemed a bit embarrassed and I looked the other way. However, different standards apply to different people, although there are certain rules re: public decency. Yet, she was not in public, she was inside a private residence and did not expect to be seen naked. Katey was also in a private residence, topless, and I refuse – not that it matters – to believe that nobody took into consideration the risk of a paparazzi intrusion of her privacy. They were in France, they cannot command the same respect of privacy as at home. T
here is also the incident with Pippa’s pic in a car with someone holding a plastic gun or something like that, also in France, before the topless incident?
Linley runs the entire place as a money-making enterprise, essentially a hotel with separate hotel space and staff. That may make things different under the law.
LOL @ ‘act of marriage’! What a quaintly provincial term by the lawyers!
It has occurred to me, after watching this video & others recently, that Kate talks AT people, rather than engaging them in conversation. I think that must be why she’s no good with children. They’re just to flabbergasted by this lady coming at them.
Actually, I think she comes across fine in that video. She’s seems engaged, chatty and happy to be there. And she’ll have been briefed in advance about who she’ll be meeting so what might look like a bombardment of words on her part is very probably just her engaging personally with those in the line-up.
Yes. She’s , um, sort of, um, very, um, sort of, happy, and, um, sort of, excited, um to be, sort of, um there. Meeting, um, sort of, um, everyone, um, Wimbledon, sort of, exciting.
Seriously, when transcribed, that’s how she talks. Lots and lots of filler and never quite getting to the point.
@LAK – You seem rather (seriously) over-engaged if you don’t mind my saying so. Why does she bother you so much?
I don’t like that my taxes enable this ridiculous family but equally, I don’t feel the need to rage against it and them on a daily basis and in such personal terms as you do on every BRF royal-related thread.
Not taking sides here, @LAK has super-educated post on the royals – every comment is a treat !
Skylark: why do my comments bother you so much?
@Pumpkin Pie – “Not taking sides here, @LAK has super-educated post on the royals – every comment is a treat!”
Oh I agree. She is the always significant voice on these royal threads (CB should really hire her) and I love and actually really appreciate her knowledge and her ability to impart that knowledge.
But I just don’t get her Kate-hate.
@Skylark, I can’t speak for @LAK but I don’t read her comments as Kate-hate.
LAK is logical and full of royal history facts. If you don’t like reading the comments of someone who has years of knowledge of and interest in the subject? Why bother to read them or label them as overinvested or hateful because you don’t like their opinions? That is a classic (IMO pathetic) tactic of those who are afraid of those opinions, or have no leg to stand on in “their side” of the debate.
Sometimes the courts are backlogged or it could be the lawyers milking the cash cow. Either way if it were me I’d see it through. It was wrong. No ifs and or but. We have a cottage on an island in the middle of a lake. If I want to walk around topless and some creepy photographer did this to me I’d be pissed and sue his ass.
I know you really relate to Kate, but you arent a public figure. Kate is. Public figures have zero expectation of privacy. It’s not fair, but it is what it is.
The matter was before the court and in control of the judge at this point, so any judgment getting delayed has nothing to do with lawyers milking anything. It’s clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
Aren’t you a ray of sunshine?
Totally different – waity is wasting taxpayers Duchy millions without returns – NO value for millions; contrary to her carol entitled middletons lifestyle – waity is a royal PUBLIC figure.
I think Will is afraid and angry because according to the French magazine who published them there were some really raunchy ones which they kindly didn’t print. Anyway we complain about her hair but she loses her beauty the shorter it gets, note hair touch hair touch wipe nose then with same hand shake soldiers hand. Puts a whole new meaning on white gloves.
If she was a good, kind, diligent person, I would feel very sorry for her. But she’s not. By multiple accounts, she is haughty, lazy, rude and demanding. So I hope she reaps all the embarrassment and ridicule from these pictures for years to come.
I totally agree. As you say, if she was warm and hard-working, I’d cut her some slack, but it’s beyond coy that she is ’embarrassed’ about her nudity being made public.
It’s ironic, too, when Kate has a history of ‘accidentally’ publicly exposing herself across the world. She exposed herself to boys at secondary school some 80-odd times, and then famously at university, wearing a see-through skirt lining to attract attention. Her sole attraction for William from student days was to be constantly available for sex, so why be coy about her skills? If anything, she hides behind the HRH.
AMEN!!!
Maybe they should pay all the magazines paps court expense. Oh no – better not that would be another renovation type cost to taxpayers/HM- POW Duchy expense. The Firm, HM POW already know the verdict.
For me, the problem with all this is several principles set against each other: first, I condemn to the utmost taking photos of an unclothed woman without her consent for public sale. There is no justification for this except greed. This isn’t about whether I like Kate or not – most here know that I do not – but there is such a thing as civilized decency. Second, Kate should have known better by that time that civilized decency is not something she can expect from the paps – there is too much money in it for them – that doesn’t let the paps off the hook I hasten to say – and should have shown better judgment; this is one of the prices she pays for what she has gotten through her marriage and frankly, considering what she’s gotten, it’s a relatively small one. Third, there is the issue of the intimidation of the press and where the line is between protection of privacy and a free press.
I don’t envy those with the task of sorting this out, but I don’t think a financial settlement would have done the trick; all that would have done is persuade larger, richer press outlets that they just pay a big fine that would be more than offset by what they’d make out of public interest in the photos. In this one instance, I am forced to agree with William that only really nailing them to the wall will serve as deterrent. But deterrent or no, his wife and the future Princess of Wales and Queen Consort of England also has to understand that sunbathing topless is one privilege she has to give up – there is nowhere out of doors she will ever be entirely safe.
I dont get the hate on for kate…. she seems to optimize white girl basicness… being passed on thru in life without really having ever worked for anything operating on delicate white flower syndrome), gets strings pulled and focuses on catching a husband.
and i didnt see a lot of hair touching from her. though i do think it was windy and that she has pieces in to thicken the curl and cut but i don’t see an issue as the other ladies hairs were flying all over the place and that was kinda distracting.
i do wish she would tell will that either all hair or no hair bec those scrags o his hair are unnerving. he should also think of growing a professional or debonair looking beard.
thats all i got.
Huuuge Kate fan and I’ve followed her for years now. I’m absolutely certain there is something off and that she isn’t a good fit for her role. Everytime I see her in motion, on candid film, she is doing the hair touching/tossing, huge hand gestures, indicating emotions with facial expressions, wearing ill fit clothes and showing an inability to relate to those outside her circle. I blame her mother and husband… two controlling personalities who i bet don’t let her breathe easy, ever
And yes, I see the extension. Her hair is thinning and i bet it’s due to stress and anorexia.
You can’t be serious.
Joannie, what is Bitsy not serious about? Kate being uncomfortable in her role, which I agree with, or Kate’s hair thinning, which I disagree with.
Thinning hair and extensions.
Thinning hair and extensions.
+1000
Spot on
No value for HRH/3+ major renovations in the millions /mansions-palaces/cars-RRs/Luxury vacays/thousands of pounds ill- fitted frocks/in laws royal funded mansion, etc etc…
I’m surprised how many people here are more than happy to blame Kate for the paps completely violating her. I mean, from what I remember, the photos were taken with long-range cameras. My guess is she probably looked outside and the coast seemed clear. If the pap were a decent human being, they would have put their camera away. But sure, let’s blame the victim some more. There’s a lot of “she was asking for it” in this thread, and it’s gross.
I agree. Anything and I mean anything to pick her apart.
If paps were decent human beings – that is the assumption that Kate should never had made.
And some people here would defend Kate if she shot people on 5th Avenue, just like Trump cult members.
Ah, compared to a Trump cult member for having the nerve to think the pap was the one in the wrong here. I guess I win internet bingo today!
And some people attack her if she saved a dying baby falling from the roof of a 10 floor building on 5th Ave.
I think I love you!!
I can’t with Kate’s laziness or butt flashes, but in no scenario is anything about this photograph situation OK. She absolutely had a reasonable expectation of privacy given the fact that this picture was taken, what, a mile away? I don’t care if she was doing a strip tease on that balcony, those photographs should not have been taken or published. I think back to the iCloud hacks–sooo many people were dragging the (mostly female) celebrities for deigning to take nude photographs. It’s just not OK. It is so gross for people to blame the celebrities, or in this case, Kate.
I believe in EU law , that the use of a ‘long lens’ to take compromising or private photos with the specific intent of publishing them , is the illegal part here, if the pictures were taken from the public road with a normal camera/lens there would be no case.
They expected a photo, to show why they skip supporting the Para Olympics – not compromising; but hey, I’ll take that back where waity and billnot is concern.
Kate’s hair is turning into a brown Camillsy. Like Camilla’s hair just brown. Blow-dry curls and waves without much movement. If she chops of a few more inches she will achieve the Camillsy.