Prince William & Kate file criminal complaint, injunction in French court

These are some photos from Will and Kate’s stop in the Solomon Islands over the weekend. The teal and black graphic-print dress is by Scottish designer Jonathan Saunders. The pink batik-print dress was actually an unplanned costume change for Kate – the government had left the dress for her in her hotel room, and apparently she loved it, so she wore it to the planned dinner rather than the English dress she had prepared. You can read more about Kate’s fashions here.

Anyway, I really wasn’t trying to create a commenter war yesterday when discussing the PR and legal moves Prince William was making in Boob-and-Crumpet-gate. For the record, I never said Will and Kate should “get over it” or that they didn’t have a right to seek legal action against the French magazine, Closer, and the paparazzo who took the photos of Kate’s boobs. My point was that I didn’t care for the way William and the palace were handling this situation overall, and that instead of coming across like a protective husband, William seemed more like a petulant, intemperate dauphin, demanding his enemies (real and imagined) face harsh repercussions for displeasing him. Feel free to disagree with me, but I would appreciate it if, in this and future stories, we could all avoid claiming that what happened to William and Kate was “like rape.” It wasn’t “like rape.” You know what’s “like rape”? Rape.

By the way, I think the courtiers around William agree with me regarding William overplaying his hand. Notice the difference in tone with this People Mag story below. The Today Show also noted that there were rumors that not everyone in the royal family agreed with the way William was handling the situation.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s legal team has filed charges against Closer, a French magazine that was the first to publish photographs of the couple outside a secluded villa in Provence, including shots of Kate sunbathing topless.

“We can confirm that a criminal complaint has been made to the French Prosecution Department today,” a spokesperson for Clarence House said on Monday. “The complaint concerns the taking of photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge whilst on holiday and the publication of those photographs in breach of their privacy.”

Attorneys for the royal couple, who are currently on a goodwill tour of Asia tied to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, “will appear in court today in Paris seeking an injunction against Closer magazine using more pictures and to prevent further publication of the photographs in France. It will lead to a longer court case where damages will be sought.”

The lawyers will request the issue be removed from newsstands, the photos be removed from the publication’s online site and further reprint be prohibited. They will also ask the judge to ban further sale. A decision on issuing the injunction is expected on Tuesday, according to someone involved in the case.

The invasion of privacy evidenced in the photos is being compared by the royal household to the incessant paparazzi pursuit that plagued William’s mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a 1997 car crash in Paris.

While no British outlet has published the photos, on Saturday images appeared in the Irish Daily Star. In addition, on Monday, Chi, a glossy Italian gossip magazine owned by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Mondadori group (which also publishes Closer in France), published a 26-page photo spread of the couple, including the topless shots.

After their initial outrage, there is now a sense that the couple’s “anger has subsided,” a royal source told PEOPLE as William and Kate toured a rain forest this weekend.

“They are not actors. They are as upbeat and as pleased to be on this tour as you can see they are,” the royal source said. “They had a wonderful time in Malaysia, particularly Sabah, which was magical in terms of what they could see and learn about a subject they are interested in.

The source added: “The Royal family motto is to stay calm and carry on.”

[From People]

If I’ve been following the story correctly (and I think I have), the “criminal complaint” that William’s lawyers have filed against the paparazzo and Closer will boil down to an argument for or against the “expectation of privacy”. Did Will and Kate have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backyard of a private estate? I can’t answer that. I would imagine that the argument that the paparazzo will make will be a technical one – like, where was she standing when she took the photos, was it a public road, could the royal couple be seen in plain view from publicly accessible areas? Also, the female photographer claims that she shot some of the photos used in Closer and Chi, but that she wasn’t the one who took the topless photos. So I don’t even know.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

128 Responses to “Prince William & Kate file criminal complaint, injunction in French court”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. carrie says:

    i hope they will win !

    • Raven says:

      Team Royals here as well. Private estate, likely surrounded by trees, shrubs, fence,etc. I think they are entitled to privacy. And after the pap chase that led to Diana’s demise, also in France, I think the palace wants to stop this before it gets more disruptive.

      • T.C. says:

        Diana died due to a drunk driver, the paparazzi didn’t kill her. Sure they have a right to privacy like any other reality star but none of us have privacy outside our house. If you are in your backyard topless someone will see you or get a picture. Their security should have known that. Throwing a hissy fit after the fact is making this story spread.

    • Kate says:

      I agree. One thing people are missing here, though, is that the camera could just as easily been a gun. It boggles my mind that royals are left so vulnerable to attack by camera or worse. As well as being outraged that their privacy was violated, we might spare a thought about how Harry could be the next king of England because Wills and Kate were shot to death in France! There are just so many loonies running around these days.

  2. Ali says:

    Godd for William for standing up for his wife and their privacy. Hopefully something good can come from this.

  3. KellyinSeattle says:

    The whole thing is just bringing more attention to the “scandal” than if they just ignored it.
    Wills is such a wimp…oh, no, will he sue me for that, too?

    • V4Real says:

      Nothing against this couple; and no one should have their privacy invaded this way. But a word to the wise, keep your clothes on when you are outside, secluded location or not big brother is always watching.

      • Amelia says:

        I think these two are within their rights to sue for a breach of privacy because, well, it was. You should be able you sunbathe whatever part of your body you like on private property. *Should*.
        However, the sad fact of life is that isn’t always the way things work. I’m not trying to insinuate blame on Kate, but for someone who is so regularly photographed and well known, you’d think she’d be a little more wary. Particularly since (I’m assuming) she has at least a basic understanding of how DSLR cameras work and how powerful lenses can be, considering a few years ago she was due to study under Testino. Remember when she was a ‘gifted photographer’?
        I live in the middle of nowhere and I’m not comfortable taking my top off outside as we have a fair few planes going overhead and a road nearby, albeit obscured by a fence.
        It’s still wrong that these photos were published as other posters have said – there’s very little difference between this and a peeping Tom apart from the fact the evidence was sold for big bucks. Which, I suppose could be argued is actually worse.

      • V4Real says:

        @Amelia

        I agree with you 100%.

      • Sunnyinseattle says:

        @V4real, that is crap. Everyone should be able to do what they want on their own property or rented property. So because they are in public eye, they are free game? What about you? If you were on private property, would it be o.k. for someone to take it and plaster it on the cover of a magazine? Duh. No! She should be able to have the same respect! :-(

  4. Riana says:

    There’s something ironic about having to question whether someone expected privacy in a private estate.

    I believe what this really stems down to is the legal aspect, supposedly the major issue is that this took place in France and their laws were supposed to protect against this kind of thing.

    In any case I really just can’t…feel sorry for a paparazzo. I’m trying…but no. In the end its all about money and these type of people never expect to face consequences. Its good to rattle them up and make them aware famous faces do deserve some basic human privacy and respect.

  5. taxi says:

    The pink dress looks pretty & festive, the teal print is a real granny number & should never be worn again.

    Omg! The boat float is a riot! A flobo? Or boflo? Beats a Pope-mobile.

    • Boo says:

      I agree on the dresses. It was gracious and thoughtful of Kate to wear the dress they had left for her–and she looks better in it than in many of the clothes she picks for herself.

      That blue and green number is sooooo frumpy and unflattering! Egads, what was she thinking?

      • Belle says:

        Agree on all counts…. very gracious of Kate to wear the dress AND I think it looks beautiful on her!

      • km says:

        I really don’t like the batik dress that much, but it’s soooooo much better on Kate than what she usually wears that I’m really loving it. She looks more youthful.

    • Esmom says:

      Ooh, I love the teal print dress, although I agree Kate ruins it with her horrible styling. Hat, shoes, hair, makeup all are responsible for bringing it down. Someone more effortlessly stylish would kill it in that dress.

  6. soapfish says:

    Someone else said it already here – strip away the title and tiara, and a women’s body was photographed without her consent. NOT okay.

    What is the difference between a paparazzi and a peeping tom? The latter is punished by law, the former gets a big paycheck. The double standard is ridiculous. I don’t know if a lawsuit will succeed, but they’re right to fight back.

    • Alexandra Bananarama says:

      It’s morally wrong to take a person’s picture without their consent from a public road, yes. Even though Kate had to know the paps were always watching it’s still morally wrong, but when have the paps and tabloids demonstrated their moral fiber?

      Was it illegal from how the laws are read and understood in France… The courts will decide.

      What’s very interesting is how William has already lost here. He’s coming off as an entitled bully and has brought more attention to the fact that he blew off work commitments for another holiday and lied about it.

    • Sam says:

      Your argument wouldn’t work in the US. If by your standards no person’s body can be photographed without consent, then no public photography is permissable, unless all people in the photo consent. The rule is that if your body is in a public place, its subject to photography. That’s the law.

      The issue here is whether the balcony constituted a public or private place. Generally, a peeping tom is somebody who looks INTO a private place (it’s also worth noting that most peeping cases deal in matters of trespassing as well, which isn’t at issue here). Personally, I think that the use of the high-zoom lens complicates matters, but that is only me.

      But consent is not an issue in most breach of privacy cases. Reasonable expectations of privacy come into it somewhat, but the overreaching issue is whether the photographed location is a public or private place. Consent isn’t the issue here.

      • rumbleseat says:

        Uhhh…they were in France, not the US. France has very strict privacy laws, and you are in fact supposed to gain permission from individuals before photographing them PERIOD, including in public places. Obviously there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on a private secluded estate, and on what planet does a balcony on such a property constitute a public space?

      • the original liv says:

        @rumbleseat, you only need consent if the subject is a private citizen, which will and kate are not.

      • rumbleseat says:

        Actually in France you have a universal right to privacy under the letter of the law, which means that the press has no legal right to invade your privacy either through printing information on your life or through photographing you in your personal life, including in public places. Why do you think celebrities have homes in the country so frequently? It is a national law and the reigning standard in the country and has nothing to do with whether or not you are from there. Just do a google on all the politicians and celebrities who have successfully sued the French press and won for breach of privacy. Why did they win if the law only applies to private citizens?

      • Lilyplashia says:

        Surely it makes a difference whether someone is naked in a private place or clothed in a public place? Like, there’s a difference between accidentally having random background people in a picture and deliberately taking an upskirt shot without someone’s knowledge or consent? Even in the US?

        I think the intent should matter as to how this is regarded – and the intent here is clearly exploitative, while the actio was disgusting and invasive. She wasn’t flashing people at Mardi Gras, for heaven’s sake – of course she deserves privacy.

      • Kate (newer one) says:

        @the original liv, that doesn’t apply in plenty of countries. US law isn’t universal. And given she was semi-naked, laws against voyeurism kick in in a lot of places, too. Nobody can argue they have the right to steal nudie shots of anyone in countries with anti-peeping-Tom laws, public figure or otherwise. Ask Brad Pitt or an English DJ named Sara Cox.

      • Jill says:

        Sam I totally agree with you. How do we police the sky and air? The guy was yards away and not on the property. He could have been bird watching for all we know. It is her fault for coming outside and taking her top off and whatever else they were doing out there. Photographing folks is not illegal even if they are on their property. If this is the case then the case could also be made surveillance cameras are illegal because the person did not give their consent to be video taped whether in a building or on the streets. I seriously don’t think they will win. Privacy laws cannot police the air or the sky.

    • Beta says:

      strip away the title and tiara and no one would be taking her picture anyway.
      this is the price they pay for a life of taxpayer-funded luxury.

  7. kibbles says:

    That pink dress is one of the nicest casual outfits I’ve seen her wear and it is probably less than a quarter the price of her usual dowdy outfits.

  8. marie says:

    so Kate became topless and then the photographer threw her hands in the air and said “I’m out, it is not tit Tuesday, I have standards, it’s Friday for cripes sakes”.. ridiculous

  9. Colu says:

    I agree with yesterday’s commenters who feel this is essentially the same as a peeping Tom (only, IMO, worse since they were published). She has every right to feel violated.

    • Alexandra Bananarama says:

      Has Kate come out and said she felt violated? Did I miss that in the many articles about this?

      Kate has flashed everything except her breasts.. but I think there’s a photo in her younger years of a nip slip. She’s never made a fuss about any of it.. EVER!

      William is the one pitching a fit. In prepared statements they’re referred to as “the couple”. In other statements it’s only about William’s anger over the pictures.

      Where is any scrape of evidence that Kate without influence of William is upset over this?

      You may very well be defending a woman who’s secretly pleased her breasts are the talk of the town.

      • Another K says:

        It’s about 12:00 a.m. right now in California and I was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN awhile ago. There was a reporter on who had spoken with the couple and said that Kate felt humiliated and embarassed and that William was very angry. What is it exactly that you expect her to do or say? I sincerely doubt that she is pleased that “her breasts are the talk of the town.” How, and actually what’s more interesting is, WHY do you feel the need to come up with stuff like that?

  10. Mia says:

    Pink dress Kate reminds me of pre-duchess days. I like it! Looks younger, healthier, relaxed and a bit silly….way better than her stilted, polished with the eyeliner/lace/buttons shield.

  11. Petri says:

    I´ve gotta feeling that it´s no longer just about William defending privacy of Kate´s boobs. Willy has his own agenda and this was the perfect opportunity that pushed the trigger. He wasn´t this hysteric (law suits, jail time…) when photos of his penis were floating around the internet (when he got caught taking a piss – you can still google them) or he didn´t care much that there are many crotch shots of pre-princess Kate. I´m not saying he should back out, but he shouldn´t push it too hard either. The revenge of the press could be ugly.

    • Chatcat says:

      “The revenge of the press could be ugly.” Uh, his Mom is dead because of the press. Perhaps the press should be wary of his revenge! Go Will kick ass any-which-way you can!

      Oh and for those who say she was topless in public clearly just want to trash this woman, because SHE WAS AT A PRIVATE HOUSE! Not flopping the titties around on a public beach or hotel pool. These dirt bag photog’s acted like a special forces team infiltration of their privacy for these pics!

      • Nikki says:

        A drunk driver killed his mom. Paparazzi are reckless sometimes, but killing their subjects kind of cuts into their profit margins.

      • Chatcat says:

        Well Nikki, yes the driver was drunk but why was he speeding away, oh yes, the paps! Don’t try to sugarcoat it for yourself or your friends perhaps.
        But you did hit one thing spot on when you state “profit margins”…regardless of the costs huh? Sleazebags – PERIOD

      • Hmmm says:

        And she wasn’t wearing her seat belt.

      • Chatcat says:

        Hmmm. No she was not. So what we have here is the following:

        Diana was in the backseat, not wearing a seatbelt, in a car driven by a man who was by all accounts drunk. They were just driving down the road and because the man was drunk and he just liked to drive really fast, speeding actually; he slammed into a concrete wall inside a tunnel, killing himself, two others and the Princess. So that, along with the fact that Diana was not wearing a seat belt, killed the Princess. That’s it right?

        Oh wait, I forgot mention that part of this tragedy where the paparazzi where chasing them unmercifully (as usual). So while “legally” the drunk driver was at fault, and regrettably Diana was not wearing her seat belt (only God knows if she would have survived if she did but here chances would have been much much better) the disgusting paparazzi were culpable as well because they used their own free will to chase a car through the streets of Paris for the sake of “pictures”. For what, some stupid smut rag? So let’s not totally blame Diana because she didn’t wear a seat belt OK, because really, if she wasn’t been chased down by some lunatics with a camera, the string of events most likely would have been totally different and there wouldn’t be 3 dead people and one seriously hurt. Not abstaining the drunk driver, won’t blame the “victims” either, oh and I won’t let the pap’s off the hook for their part either.

      • Petri says:

        Taking a picture of a dying woman and taking a picture of topless Kate are two different things. But they do have one thing common, both ladies strongly underestimated the situation – tragically in Diana´s case, amusingly in Kate´s.
        I still don´t think there is difference between this and when some magazine decide to publish celebrity wardrobe malfunction like a nipple slip. You know, shit happens when you´re a public personality – deal with it.
        I´m pretty sure are no pictures of topless Diana, because she knew darn well that something like this can happened. Kate is not new to media game, she should know better.
        Well, live and learn dear Duchess.

      • LAK says:

        @Chatchat – I know this makes me sound cold hearted in the light of that terrible event BUT the person, the ONLY person who survived that terrible accident WAS WEARING A SEATBELT!!!! And he was at the front of the car which impacted the pillar first. With rehabilitation, he is as good as new albight with terrible scars and bad memories, if at all, of the accident.

    • Chatcat says:

      @Petri WTF are you talking about? I am referring to the pictures they were snapping away as they exited the hotel, got in the car while driving away and then photog’s jumped in vehicles to chase them down! That was all done pre-accident, hell it was pre-getting in the car! Let’s not even go to the fact that those disgusting pigs snapped away at dying and dead people for the rags they worked for.

      @LAK. I totally agree, always wear a seat belt! However, she didn’t and that is tragic, but I also believe it was the perfect storm of events…rushing out of the hotel, jumping quickly in the car, driving away quickly from the chasing nut job pap’s and obvious lack of discipline to buckle up. But just because she didn’t buckle up doesn’t make her more culpable then the photog’s chasing them or the drunk driver … all of those things added up to death and are not mutually inclusive.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @ Chatcat: It’s funny when people who visit gossip sites are so incredibly disgusted with paparazzi. You do know that we all give them a job, right? So if you say it wasn’t the drunk driver who killed them but the paparazzi, then you can go a step further and say it was us. Yes, I’m including you because again, you’re on a gossip blog and gossip and paparazzi go hand in hand. None of us have a right to get all holier-than-thou about this because THIS time they went too far. Yeah, they’ve been going too far for years, decades even. We encourage it so I really don’t know why everyone is blaming the “disgusting” paparazzi.
        There. Sugarcoat that for yourself.

  12. tmbg says:

    She looks good in the pink dress – much younger and fresher.

    I do wish she’d ditch those L.K. Bennetts and try something else. A nice Jimmy Choo without a platform, maybe?

    I need to be Kate’s stylist, or at least we could all share the job. She’s an easy person to find clothing for, and maybe she’d let us change her makeup. Plus I’d bet it’s a lucrative job. :D

  13. Christine says:

    In Europe, women are at the beach constantly topless. What’s the difference? She was at a private estate. But isn’t it incredibly naive to think that they wouldn’t be photographed? There are no walls around the pool. They knew that. And where was security? What if, instead of a photographer, it was a sniper? Surely someone who is at the center of the world’s attention must be aware enough of the capability of paparazzi long lenses to know they’d be photographed.

    • Merritt says:

      The difference is that she was not in public. She was at a private home, where she would nave not been seen without high tech equipment.

    • Stig says:

      They messed this up badly. Will is the future head of the Church Of England. Privacy or not his wife should not strip like that. Don’t tell me there were no other people, their staff around.

      • Eleonor says:

        I agree with you: he will be a spiritual chief one day, sunbathe, privacy or not, she can’t afford the topless.

      • Hmmm says:

        Oooooooh, @Stig, you make a really significant point. Willy will be head of the Church of England. At the moment, he is heir to that. Such an example, the Dolittles. And in front of the underlings, too!

    • Kate (newer one) says:

      There weren’t any walls? Seriously? The picture I saw looked like there were walls on 3 sides, and only the high vantage point of the road made seeing in possible?

      • M says:

        It only looked like walls because they were on a terrace. I’ve seen full pictures of this estate myself, and trust me, not a wall in site. The photog was standing on the road, not hiding in a tall tree.

  14. cadair says:

    I an torn on this one. On the one hand, no one has the right to trespass a private estate, whether it be physically or with a telephoto lens. On the other hand..if you don’t want your boobs photographed then keep them hidden away. walk around the house nude if you want..but if you’re famous, know people like to take your picture, then don’t walk around topless outside.
    I do feel bad..she married the man she loved and sadly agreed to this.

  15. The Original Mia says:

    Comment overload for me so I will concentrate in her clothes since that’s the only thing remotely interesting about her.

    I don’t like the first dress. It’s do ill-fitting & the color does nothing for her. The hat is all wrong too. Should have been black or the color of the dress. I like the pink dress but hoove, flesh-colored wedges have got yo go.

    What is going on with her face? Puffy, one minute. Normal, the next.

  16. JustJen says:

    I think she should just feel like an idiot. If you take your top off in public, you should expect that people are going to look. How public the place is doesn’t matter, there is still a chance that someone is going to see you.

    Perhaps someone should remind them that being on perpetual vacation is not free. Interest in their lives helps their agenda at times and clearly displeases them at others.

    They need to get over it, painful lesson but move on. Either get better security or refrain from taking your top off in public.

    • Merritt says:

      She was not in public. You can keep calling it public, but that is factually inaccurate.

      If she had been on a public beach, then you would be correct. However that is not the case. She would not have been visible to any passerby from the road.

      • JustJen says:

        She was outside the walls of the home with no privacy fence, where it was conceivable and predictable that she could be seen.

      • GrandPoobah says:

        JustJen: She was on the balcony of the home-still within the walls of the home.

        She was on private property, period. Private property that was seemingly secluded. She was not in a public space at all.

  17. Mary says:

    Well, if someone took a picture of me naked in a, lets say, private garden and posted those pictures online, I would sue them too, so I can’t really blame Will and Kate for doing the same.
    That’s all I got to say on the matter really.

  18. fairy godmother says:

    The real head lines should have not been about nudity. If one chooses to take their kit off outdoors in the open, walk around nude without attempting to put a screen up to block view from public road/view, & pose then there is reasonable expectation that person has chosen to expose/exhibit their nudity. Of all people Willie should know how paparazzi work!

    What should be the real headlines & main focus is why Waity & Willie were there.

    Remember as Ambassadors they were suppose to be present & supporting all athletes! Palace claimed they had prior commitments. & Will was hard at “work” & Waity was busy prepping for the tour.

    Just another lie to conceal the truth from the public from their life of lux while their people are struggling day to day.

    Royals hard at work my a$$! The idea of them working so hard & needing a break is laughable at best.

    She did strip in full of staff, RPOs. If anyone should complain it should be those who were subjected to her strutting around openly. How can one respect or protect an exhibitionist?

    • Tiffany says:

      I am with you Fairy. When I read about the photos and when they were taken, I was thinking, ‘You should have stayed home.’ They had a commitment to the Paraolympics and could not even finish that. Sucks that the photos were taken and all, but I am wondering why no one is writing about the fact that they blew off another job commitment for another vacation.

      • Hmmm says:

        So am I! The real scandal is their blatant LIES to organisations they patronise to cover their indifference and laziness, and the money that funds it all.

      • fairy godmother says:

        It is a joke that Willie thinks he can control the media!

        If he thinks he has the “power” to do so looks like he will be spending the rest of his life either by paying people off.

        HM should have Scotland Yard investigate who/how there was a tip off not to mention bring forward evidence how Willie used public funds to pay for Waity & fam prior to marriage.

        I feel for HM because her entire life has been to serve her country while PW & WK have destroyed all her efforts photo after photo, holiday after holiday.

        There needs to be public outrage of these two users! If I came face to face I would turn my back to them except for HM, Prince Phillip, and Anne. The Lamebridges should be booed & laughed at publicly!

        The REAL story remains they shirk public duties over their over-self indulgent lives! By not treating/meeting/showing support for ALL athletes implies their disgust/disdain for people who are challenged. It demonstrates those 4 charities she is patron of are only for Waity’s image & photo ops. And Willie too for that matter! Neither have their heart into supporting others in need. That is what the outrage should be about & their lies!

    • Duckie says:

      I am SO beyond tired of commenting on here to all the people who say they shirked their Paralympic responsibilities because they DIDN’T. Did any of you watch the paralympics or are you going on heresay? I watched them and I saw PLENTY of Kate. Seriously, please don’t go back to the “well it’s sad but hey shouldn’t have been shirking their responsibilities” schtick. The fact remains their privacy was violated.

      • The Original Mia says:

        If you’re sick of commenting, stop. No one asked you to defend them. People believe they shirked their duties as Paralympic ambassadors to go on this vacation. They believe they lied to the organizers and the public that they had prior engagements, instead of saying…we wanted to take a vacation before we went on our Asia tour. Nothing you say is going to change people’s minds, so…

      • christinne says:

        Ok…I am going to skip work this Friday and if my boss says something about it, I will say STFU you saw plenty of me this week….

        Hilarious….

      • fairy godmother says:

        Shirking duties- Will was suppose to be working at RAF & Waity was to be prepping for the tour.

        Instead both had left the country during the same time frame claiming commitments so they would be unable to attend, but it was a lie. IMO that IS shirking duties. If they had not lied and were honest by saying they wanted to get away for a few days that would be different. Did they lie because they did not want the public to know they were off to another holiday when people are struggling to support their family? Who knows?

        All I saw was Waity & Will showed up for one event together and Waity went to two in one day. How many days were the Paralympics?

        Sad considering they were suppose to be Ambassadors and Waity had no work commitments. She was at the Olympics nearly everyday. Why is one less deserving of her saintly presence?

        There was a report she was expected to go to more than 3 events since she had nothing scheduled and she could attend closing ceremony (They were back in London), but she did not. Fine ambassador undeserving of any title.

        Perhaps the photos of her being at many events were really many photos taken at 3 events as opposed to photos taken at multiple events. Some photos at DM mixed in from the Olympics. The focus should have been on the sport not HRH Boringness. Confusing? Yes since wore mostly the same type of clothing.

        Yes I watched as much of sport as possible. When I tried to keep up with what I missed it was mostly about her.

        This is my observation not judgement. I always enjoy reading other comments, but trying to argue with another perspective is just as foolish as being naked when the adjacent property/public road is accessible IMHO.

        I, too get tired of the same old argument. Privacy has many interpretations and given the facts is solely what I base my comments on. Everyone is entitled to one’s opinion. Mine is different than yours. Viva la difference!

  19. MsKat says:

    Given that the same newspaper published pics of a dying Diana that upset Prince William – one can hopefully understand his reaction. I am simply amazed at some of the views on this issue. The French have much more right than the US in terms of being protected by the paps. I can only hope the US will follow their lead at some point.

    • fairy godmother says:

      What is troubling and truly sickening is any comparison to Diana’s death to someone who chose to strip and flaunt about where public has access to an open view!

      Yes, its a shame photos were published. Yet, today’s world everyone especially these 2 clowns know some will cross the line!

      The only thing in common is both events took place in France and both events involved photographers.

      For Diana’s death to be used or compared to boob-gate is a disgrace to Diana’s memory and pure hypocritical for palace to invoke Diana’s memory. Shame on anyone regardless of who they are to compare one’s death to an exhibitionist!

      • Duckie says:

        An exhibitionist? REALLY? she was on a PRIVATE balcony, she could do whatever she wanted without the fear of being watched by the paps.

      • fairy godmother says:

        One should never presume anything.

        If one does something openly when there is a potential of being viewed (albeit cameras) then one takes a risk of being exposed.

        Yes I said exhibitionist- in front of staff, RPOs. If she wants private take it inside. All they needed to do was to put a screen to protect their privacy.
        Not to mention marrying into BRF screams I may be a target- comes with her new found celebrity status.

      • robin says:

        Kate has always been an exhibitionist. William first got attracted to her after seeing her model panties and bra , this girl is going to be his downfall, she’s trashy.

  20. Reece says:

    This just goes to show how MUCH she needs a stylist! Love the second dress. Very pretty and she looks good in it.
    I like the weave print on the top dress. Hate the cut and color combo.

  21. GrandPoobah says:

    Good for them and I hope this does something to curb this kind of behavior.

    I think William’s reaction is appropriate to the situation. His wife’s body has been exposed to the world. Someone should be fined and jailed for this, be it the photographer or the magazines that published the photos or both.

    This is not “the new normal” as some others have said. This needs to stop now-they need to know that people won’t tolerate having their privacy invaded just because they are public figures.

    • T.C. says:

      Prince Harry was too photographed naked without consent and the pictures published. Funny how no one was fighting for his right to privacy instead making fun of him. But when it comes to Waity a future consort vs. in line for the throne like Harry everyone gets all on her side. It’s probably cause she is female and Harry male.

      • GrandPoobah says:

        Once again, nuance is lost on the Blame Kate Brigade.

        Playing strip billiards in a room full of strangers (and friends) and vacationing with your husband in a remote area in a private home are two different things.

        Prince Harry also didn’t seem too bothered by the pictures getting out. William and Kate obviously feel differently about their own. If Prince Harry decided to sue the person who took the photos, I’d fight for his right to privacy as well.

  22. Eleonor says:

    I am so OVER this tit-thing. Suing screaming makes it bigger than it is

  23. Imelda says:

    It really says it all for me that Silvio Berlusconi’s ex-wife is the owner of “closer”. What a scumbag that man is.
    I am delighted that Wills is standing up for what he belives in for his wifes sake.
    His Mothers death has got to be one of his life-defining moments – so no surprise he feels the way he does.
    Kate has learned the hard way, she’ll not make this mistake again in a hurry.

  24. nope says:

    I heard this mansion is now a luxury resort, open to anybody who can spend zillions for holiday accomodations.
    I also understood that the terrace was visible from the road. Having seen the pics, there’s no tree or wall or obstacle to protect the view.
    If this is the case, there’s no privacy breach at all.
    My opinion is that Prince William wasn’t aware that when he’s not in GB the agreement the Royals have with the media i.e. not to publish pics of the Family without their consent, is not automatically enforced by the rest of the world media.
    The decision to sue the magazine is unfortunate, because in case he is losing the cause, he will lose his face as well, and this will create a sort of diplomatic case with France. That’s why I think that French judges will do theit best to have him winning the suit.

    • Doesn't matter says:

      First, he won’t lose the suit because it’s illegal in France to take and publish photos of celebrities at anything other than public events without their consent. Visibly, they did not consent. The French press gets nailed regularly by the courts.

      Secondly, whether the terrace was visible from the road or not (while conveniently overlooking the fact that the photog was no doubt using a telephoto lens 3 feet long) is irrelevent. Kate could have been sitting on a deck chair stark naked by the side of the road and it would still be illegal to take and publish photos of her without her consent unless she was attending a public event. Wills and Kate are drawing a line in the sand early on. Good for them.

      FYI, had Harry’s evening of strip billiards taken place in Paris, those photos would have been illegal to publish too.

      Seems to me that some places in the US have laws against this sort of thing too. Wasn’t there a law enacted in California not too long ago that allows for civil penalties if the paps cross the line?

      • NORA says:

        LOL. A 10k fine and the obligation to give them the pics (that have been already around for days and days from the moment the silly decision to sue the magazine was announced and already published in other countries and a number of sites)means winning the suit for you? For me it means winning a minor battle and losing the war.

  25. Amanda says:

    When you strip it down to the bare basics, the law has been broken and they are perfectly within their rights to seek reparations through the court system.

    You can’t take a photo of someone on the street and publish it without their permission. It’s deemed an invasion of their privacy. Kate was on private property a mile from the nearest road. If that’s not a gross invasion of privacy, I don’t know what is.

    Who they are makes zero difference. They are as entitled to their privacy as any one of us. It wasn’t in the public interest to print the pictures, it was a financial decision driven by greed.

    They’ll win the civil suit at a canter and good for them. It’s about time we started holding paparazzi to account for their actions; they’re nothing more than glorified stalkers.

  26. HoustonGrl says:

    Regardless of the law, I feel terribly sorry for Kate. The degree of humiliation is unfathomable. I have also sunbathed topless in France, but under no circumstances would I want pictures of my breasts splashed across world newspapers. That aside, looking at these photos makes me glad I’m not a royal. Boring, useless pageantry – looks like something straight out of the Imperialist era.

  27. Bones says:

    K -

    I appreciate your balanced approach to this story. Sure, the Prince and his wife do not wish to be seen in a less-than-royal light… But a little nipple exposure is just NOT the end of the world. Having a tantrum does nothing to rectify the situation and makes William seem like a spoiled brat. A late summer vacation on a private estate in the South of France is “like” living the dream (literally for most of us – this is a dream), not “like” rape.

    Besides, most of the world has a lot less buttoned up approach to woman’s breasts. Today, the DailyMail is showing pictures of William and Kate recieving necklaces from topless young girls (13, 15, 16, 17 years of age). Its not a show of solidarity, its the tradition of the Solomon islands, and not a single sh*t was given. In fact, only Kate seemed embarassed. Its silly and prudish and incredibly immature. They should both just take the Harry approach and get over it. ASAP.

    Keep fighting the good fight!

    Bisous,
    - B

  28. Garvels says:

    I agree with Kaiser. Will,Kate and their security team,should have realized that the villa could be seen from the public road and in today’s world of technology,they should have realized that their private moments could be captured on film.

    They live a fantasy life style and with that fantasy comes trade offs. No sympathy here.

  29. Jaycee says:

    Yes, they were on private property, but I don’t even go naked in my own backyard. Someone could be peeping through the fence. I don’t see how it can be so hard for the Royals to keep their clothes on. This same thing happened with Fergie years ago, and recently with Prince Harry being photographed totally naked in Vegas.

  30. yeah says:

    I have no sympathy for them. The younger brother just caught on cameria running butt naked and poking a w@hore now this one. They supposed to be a class and strict style above everyone else and supposed to lead by example. They are just spolied class less bunch that they adore in England for no apparent or meaningful reason. Also they could probably set this up. It was obvious they have been setting up some pictures espeically Kate and her yonger sister. A part of me believe this was NOT some random Photograph.

  31. alexis says:

    I agree with Kaiser. I understand the expectation of privacy argument, but I think the reaction is overkill and the Diana references are being milked (inappropriately I might add) for all they’re worth.

    If Kate had been physically threatened or injured then I think they’d have a better case for a criminal complaint and also more deserving of sympathy.

    • cynical cyn says:

      Shame on you, Alexis!! Don’t you realize how serious this incident is??? Come on and get with the program and shed a tear or two. If it were something minor like a cancer diagnosis, the loss of a loved one or something along those lines, then your callousness would make sense. But we are talking about grainy, poor quality photographs that show Kate’s (or someone who looks like her)torso.

      • christinne says:

        angry management courses STAT.

      • cynical cyn says:

        christine – I’m not angry. I think you’re looking for a different word, like maybe “sarcastic”. Look it up.

      • christinne says:

        nope. full blown angry. they way you wrote….makes me wonder what would have happened if you were face to face with someone who doesn’t agree w you. yell? kick? slow down….they aren’t your boobs after all….

      • GrandPoobah says:

        Reads as sarcasm to me.

      • Mira says:

        @christinne – “Cynical” Cyn is being sarcastic.

      • christinne says:

        @Mira thanks for clarifyin’ that for me darlin’….

        @GrandPoobah or whatev’ your name is….i believe you have issues too….nothing is funny when it comes down to you, you “fight” for their cause, you are on everybody’s post….virtual stalker :)

        calm down folks they aren’t tits exposed….and this is a gossip site… chill out….

    • GoodCapon says:

      Definitely overkill and over the top.

      It’s quite shameful that they’re brandishing the Diana card to gain more sympathy for Waity.

      • NORA says:

        I agree. And they have been spending Diana’s card with the media all these years to enjoy their privacy. And media have been very respectful and still are. But Will and Harry did not deserve this special treatment, many times their behaviour has been a shame. This latest event is a minor one, compared to other scandals they went through. And while I admire the Queen, I am really unimpressed by her family and their childish use and abuse of their privileges. Good that I am not contributing to their lifestyle with my taxes, otherwise I would be very upset.

  32. skuddles says:

    There are rumors galore that paps caught more than just Kate’s boobies on film – supposedly Wills and Kate were snapped doing the dirty too. So perhaps that has much to do with why he’s now taking legal action – to prevent far worse pics from surfacing down the road.

    In any case, I think he’s right to sue. Sleezebag paps might think twice before exploiting their privacy like this again.

    • fairy godmother says:

      ^ On the other hand BRFs should secure their surroundings. No?

      Just putting it out there for debate.

      I am tired of this brew-ha. Suing brings more attention and will drag on for a few years in court for the world to watch. Popcorn anyone? Why not admit both sides could have given half a thought what they were about to do?

      • skuddles says:

        Apparently they thought they were in secure surroundings… obviously. But they were wrong of course. I doubt they care that this will drag on for years, that’s not the point – the point is to dissuade paps from trying to get these sort of shots again in the future. And I don’t see two sides – I see paps invading and exploiting a couple’s privacy (when they were on a private estate) – and the couple taking appropriate action. This isn’t a “two sides to every story” type scenario. Paps broke the law and deserve to be taken to task. The fact they’re royals is irrelevant.

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        Did they really break the law or is that your opinion stated as fact?

        They are public figures. They should be hypersensitive to the paps and so should their security.

        The courts after knowing the facts that are not crystal clear to us will decide if it was illegal.

        And just because you don’t like or disagree with 1 side of a 2 sided argument doesn’t negate it.

      • Bling Bling says:

        Yes, the paps and tha magazine did break the law. The laws in France are quite clear about celebrities having the right to private lives and that pertains to anything that is NOT a public event.

        Sadly however, they’ll make more money from selling these shots than they’ll have to pay in damages.

        Also, it won’t drag on for years. This isn’t the US court system we’re looking at.

    • GoodCapon says:

      Sex pics plus there were rumored to be some pictures of Kate smoking outside an airport…

      • Another K says:

        Oh no! She was smoking! Oh My God, please say it’s not true! I have to go to bed now, I just can’t take any more of Kate’s horrendous behavior.

  33. Elly says:

    just found out:

    The anagram of “Kate Middleton” is “naked tit model”.

    Sorry, but that´s funny.

    The pink dress looks beautiful.

    • Mira says:

      LOL!! You took the pain to find an anagram for her and look what you found ;)

    • charlie says:

      Elly, that anagram is just too hilarious! I love anagrams. Money can’t buy that kind of perfect coincidence. I had to share that on Enclave 24. Thank you!

  34. ruby says:

    So far I was liking the clothes on this trip but the ones in this post are hideous. Ugh. What was she thinking ? Cheap pink dress, ugly green and brown print, and that beige “fascinator” that clashes horribly with the green.

  35. GoodCapon says:

    The wisest course would have been to stop at the ‘Prince William and Catherine are saddened over these photos’ articles.

    Filing a lawsuit would only drag this case on and on and on and that is something they certainly wouldn’t like. Will & Kate weren’t even in the headlines during their tour and now even international news channels like CNN and BBC are reporting the escandalo.

    They should have done what Harry did: say he was saddened over the LV incident, lie low over a week or so and then came back with a bang at some awards thing. He then got himself shipped off to Afghanistan before anything else can be said.

  36. robin says:

    She needs to go back to Berkshire with that tacky socialclimbing conniving mother She’ll bring nothing but trouble to William.

  37. Megan says:

    I think the real question is security. How are people with cameras getting so close to the royals? It’s kind of creepy.

  38. Megan says:

    What’s with those “tan” pantyhose. Ick.

  39. public consensus says:

    TOPLESS DUCHESS DOLITTLE. hahaha

  40. the original bellaluna says:

    I don’t want to hear any more about this. They were on a PRIVATE estate, on PRIVATE property, on holiday (AGAIN); therefore, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It’s not like she showed up at the Jubilee or got off a plane topless. JEEZ, people, a little perspective, please.

    I’ve been catching up on the gossip, since I’ve missed quite a bit due to illness, and I won’t be clicking on another Nipple-Gate story.

  41. Jennifer says:

    OF COURSE SHE WAS GOING TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED.

    She’s part of the royal family, the world is watching, a single picture of her is a pap”s meal ticket, etc. etc.

    I think the amount of shock&outrage over this whole situation is ridiculous. It’s sad that the pics were published in several news sources, but it wasn’t shocking in the LEAST.

  42. SarahNeil says:

    I don’t even walk around nude with the blinds open. If someone walks by, they can easily see you. They do not have a requirement to avert their eyes.

    I agree their privacy was violated, but can they not get two brain cells together and determine that it was unwise to strip down out in the open? It is not so complicated. They are famous and should have known better. The word that keeps ringing in my head is “dumbasses”. How stupid can you be!

    I also suspect Waity Doolittle does not mind the media exposure. She seems to be an exhibitionist.

  43. Johnny Five says:

    Read somewhere that the British Government (and the palace) didn’t want Fergie as ambassador for a children’s charity and they would pull the plug on their donations to the said charity if Fergie stayed on. Fergie had to withdraw. if she didn’t, the children would suffer. the organization also had to say they didn’t ask Fergie to be the ambassador. Can you imagine what they will do the common man if they don’t comply to the palace’s wishes? Clearly these two will do as they please, and you british subjects will be fed pig fodder to keep them gilded.