Topless photos of Kate draw deep royal dismay
(AP) PARIS — Photos apparently of Prince William's wife, Kate, sunbathing topless in the south of France were published in a French magazine Friday, and an aide to the royal couple said they were "hugely saddened" to learn about the images.
The royal family said it was considering legal action for a "grotesque and totally unjustifiable" invasion of privacy in the same country where William's mother died while fleeing paparazzi.
The photos in Closer, a magazine that's among a newly popular French genre of gossip tabloids, were blurry and shot from a distance. The publication claimed they were taken on a guesthouse terrace in France where the couple vacationed this month.
They represent the first significant press challenge for Kate and William, whose mother Princess Diana died in a Paris car crash while being chased by photographers. Royal officials, who demanded anonymity in line with palace policy, condemned the decision to publish the images.
Prince William and Kate in Malaysia
"The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to the Duke and Duchess for being so," said a St. James's Palace official.
"We feel a line has been crossed with their publication," said another British royal official.
William and Kate, who is now known as the Duchess of Cambridge, were touring the Far East and South Pacific to mark Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee, and a royal aide with them in Malaysia said the couple "are saddened to learn about the alleged photos."
Prince William and Kate in Singapore
The palace official in London said representatives of the couple were consulting with lawyers.
"Their Royal Highnesses had every expectation of privacy in the remote house. It is unthinkable that anyone should take such photographs, let alone publish them," the official said.
Duchess Kate dons Alexander McQueen for state dinnerWatch: William and Kate shine in Singapore
No major British publication carried the photos on Friday, including the top-selling U.K. tabloid The Sun, which last month ran photos of a naked Prince Harry cavorting in a Las Vegas hotel room.
A lawyer who is expert in French media law said the couple would have clear grounds for a case of invasion of privacy. Last week, French First Lady Valerie Trierweiler won a judgment of 2,000 euros after the publication of photos of her in a bikini.
"French magistrates take into account the victim's behavior, when the person is flaunting themselves on camera. Kate Middleton will get damages because she's not behaving in this way," said the lawyer, Anne Pigeon-Bormans.
She said Princess Diana's relationship with the press was more complicated.
"Diana and Kate are two very different people. Diana had an unhealthy relationship with the press, there was an ambiguity: she would flee them, then court them," she said. "I don't feel that with Kate Middleton, she is more balanced."
Popular in Entertainment
- Etheridge calls Jolie's mastectomy a "fearful choice" 101 Comments
- Kim Kardashian on baby's arrival: "So crazy!"
- "The Voice": Top three sing for the win
- Johnny Depp on "unpleasant" split with Vanessa Paradis
- Music critics believe in Kanye West's "Yeezus"
- Selma Blair abruptly exits "Anger Management"
- "The Voice" finale recap: Season 4 crowns a winner
- "Bachelorette": Desiree lets two lukewarm lovers go
You can't be prosecuted for taking pictures on public land, twit.
There was no trespass here.
She was showcasing where she could be seen from public property.
Which means she's either a tart or a moron - or both....
---------------------------
French media is governed by the strictest privacy laws in Europe. Kate was on private land which is 1000's of acres of isolated land. How you think this wasn't trespassing I don't know...not trespassing? Really?
God, it ticks me off that a person like you could hold an opinion based on total lack of the facts. French law....private property...pictures taken with a high powered lens.
How much common sense does it take to know that if the young pretty wife of a young man likely to be the King of England in time takes off her clothes in public somebody will take a picture of her.
Solution: She shouldn't take her clothes off in public. Duh.
------------------
by Montana5 September 14, 2012 9:09 AM EDT
KPeters-I think Prince Harry was on private property too, wasn't he? Was his bout of stupidity also part of the conspiracy involving "the Right"? Don't worry, relief is on the way. Winter is coming and as temps drop, they're more likely to keep their clothes on in public.
-----------------------------
Kate was on private property, 1000's of acres squared which is deep in the French countryside. The private property is extremely difficult to find since it is so isolated. She had a right to believe she had privacy. Besides that the French press has the strictest laws protecting privacy. This is a battle the magazine will lose.
As for Harry. Yes, he was in a hotel room which I believe is private BUT he invited unknown people to join him. Bad move. Because he invited these girls to his room and they breeched his confidence..it was his mistake. Kate was on private property with close friends. When those pictures were taken she was with her husband no one less. The pictures were taken by strangers who WERE NOT INVITED. Huge difference. These two situations show why Harry is not going to sue but Kate will.
I'd be more embarrassed at the standard of your comment if I were you..
---
I'd be more embarrased at who my country considered to be "royalty" if I were you...
As if these people, who relish their noteriety, don't think their every move is scrutinized......
They get naked and/or kinky and it slips out and they are all aghast that it's reported.
Like William playing strip poker here in Vegas.....
How absurd.
I'd be more embarrassed at the standard of your comment if I were you..
---
Considering that you're most likely a Brit, it easy to understand how you miss seeing this pathetic inbred group as being as farsical as many of the rest of us on the planet do.
Hell, Charles isn't even normal, much less "royal".
He's a wealthy dufus. Period.
Diana was a $lut. Slept with men from the stables, etc. VERY "royal".
Sarah is a parasite who tries to sell Andrew's influence, weight watchers or anything else that will pay here a buck. VERY "royal", as well.
They are a bunch of inbred clowns you Brits cling to as a remembrence of a time when you actually had some influence in what's going on in the world.
Diana was a $lut. Slept with men from the stables, etc. VERY "royal".
--------------------------------
I don't usually defend Diana but that remark was WAY over the line. I'm actually a person who believes that there should be no Royal family nor aristocrats. But Jeeze.... She was stuck in a loveless marriage controlled by a army of royal courtiers. And the guy she was entangled with was ONE man she knew from her horsey background, polo who happens to have been from the upper class and yes he turned out to be a a$$. But to imply that she was sleeping around with several stable boys...jeeze!
Decades ago, Charles had actually started a new industry in the UK of organic produce and cottage industries. It was his influence that got that industry popular. He also established many programs for unemployed young people.
As for Harry, he has been on two tours of duty to Afghtstan fighting alongside ordinary soldiers. William's day job is working in the UK Coast Guard. There was a recent article of a man who broken a bone when he fell from a cliff and he was surprised to recognize William was one of his rescuers. No the Palace did not sent the story out it was the patient.
I really can't stand people giving bad opinions when these opinions are based solely on hearsay. Get your facts straight first.
There was no trespass here.
She was showcasing where she could be seen from public property.
Which means she's either a tart or a moron - or both....
Someone should tell Kate, though, that constantly having the paparazzi around is part of life with the royal family. However, if she doesn't want to be caught topless or naked she should keep her clothes on when she's outside!
I will never forget, though, that the paparazzi litterally chased Princess Diana to her death in that tunnel in Paris. I can definitely see why William and Kate would be threatening to sue! William probably doesn't want his wife to be litterally chased to her death!
Who cares about her breasts? I would have thought you, being part of a party that is paranoid about privacy issues, would agree that this is a gross invasion of privacy. Instead all we get is a typically hateful response from a member of the hate party.
---
First of all twit, I am an Independent. Which means to anyone with half a brain that I embrace no party, much less one of hate.
But you're obviously left out of that grouping.
Secondly, anyone in view from public property is not "private".
Again, any moron would undertand that.
Well...maybe not ANY moron......