STOP PRESS: “Topless photos of Kate Middleton reveal she has nipples.” That was the headline on website Jezebel at the weekend and we couldn’t agree more.
But this isn’t just about nipples. Or Princess Katherine. The fact that the Duchess of Cambridge has nipples shouldn’t really be a news story. But it is – in fact it’s the most-read news story on most news sites around the world this week and it’s the second Royal photo scandal in three weeks. The question is why.
It’s just been revealed that the topless photos were taken from a distance of 1.6km from the private chateau where the couple were staying. In other words, the photographer was hardly just walking by when she stumbled upon a topless Princess. This was a deliberate invasion of privacy.
The story developed from the question of whether the French magazine should have published the topless pictures of Kate taken while she was holidaying in the South of France, to a question of what the consequences will be for the person who took them and the people who published them.
WHO HAS PUBLISHED THE PICS?
Here’s Closer magazine editor Laurence Pieau explaining her decision to publish.
The pictures were taken by a photographer named Valerie Suau, who has defended her work. This from news.com.au:
Suau said her pictures were published in a French regional paper, La Provence, and were “all decent”.
One of her colleagues said: “Valerie is concerned by the fuss. She says she was given free rein to do what she liked – taking pictures of the couple enjoying themselves in full view of the road.
“There were other people around, including walkers and cyclists, as well as staff at the chateau. The Duchess was sure to have known this, and perhaps should have been a bit more careful about displaying her body in such a prominent position.”
Ms Suau said there was no visible police presence around the chateau which will put pressure on the royal security team, already heavily criticised for allowing compromising pictures of Prince Harry to be taken in a Las Vegas hotel room.
Media baron Richard Desmond last night announced he was taking immediate steps to terminate his involvement with the Irish Daily Star after it became the second publication to print topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge.The chairman of Northern & Shell, which co-owns the newspaper with Dublin-based Independent News & Media, said he was ‘profoundly dismayed’ at the decision, which was taken without his knowledge.
The intervention by the multi-millionaire – who owns British newspapers the Daily Express and Daily Star – came as St James’s Palace reacted with fury to the news, saying: ‘There can be no motivation for this action other than greed.’
Despite the royal couple indicating that they are willing to take legal action against any European magazines that publish the topless images, Italian magazine Chi – which is published by the company Mondadori (partners of Bauer) which also published French magazine Closer – is expected to publish 50 of the images today.
As to whether the pictures will be published in Australia, Australian
>PRIVACY LAWS:
The publication of paparazzi shots of a topless Kate Middleton that has called into question what levels of privacy the royal family are entitled to. The royal couple has revealed that they are suing the magazine, Closer.
Under France’s privacy laws, this would result in a 12-year jail sentence for the editor. William and Kate are also launching a separate case against the photographer who took the photos. (They’re pursuing a criminal case rather than a civil case.) They’re yet to confirm whether or not they’ll launch legal action against the Irish publication.
THEN THERE’S THIS:
Contrary to the rest of the world, blogger Vanessa Raphaely from Hurricane Vanessa has suggested that if Kate didn’t want to be photographed topless, she should have kept her bikini top on.
She writes:
Enough, I say, with the calls to “stop treating her like Princess Di,” and “Causing her extreme distress?”
Enough of The Daily Mail, for e.g,: “The couple have launched legal action against Closer France, but managed to put their concerns to one side as they attended a tea party held in their honour in Kuala Lumpur,” and ” As sources close to the couple said she felt ‘violated’ by the pictures, there was mounting fear among royal aides that the Duchess faces being relentlessly stalked like the Princess of Wales. A strongly worded Palace statement compared the photographs to the ‘worst excesses of the Press and paparazzi during the life of Diana’.
Let’s treat her a little more like Prince Harry, I say.
Let’s make a couple of jokes, diminish the shock value of the notion that a very privileged and cossetted woman is somehow incapable of dealing with the consequences of her actions.
The DoC (Duchess of Cambridge) was, after all, (* whispers* ) sunbathing within sight – (yes not easily, but within easy sight of a pap, let’s be sure of that, not walking from her bathroom to her walk in closet of bikinis) - of a public road.
And whether they like it or not, a world where her boobs have currency, is the world the Royal couple live in.
Big deal.
So, some unasked-for advice:
Next time, slip on a bikini top, dear Kate.
(Tan lines are not so bad, even though you shouldn’t be tanning anyway. Sun damage, don’t you know, is worse for both your physical and mental your well-being than being photographed topless.)
Next time, something – not lovely, but not tragic happens – shrug your royal shoulders.
And with the awesome outfits Princess Catherine keeps wearing, we’re frankly far more interested in what she’s been wearing. As opposed to her nipples.

Kate Middleton at a Scouts ceremony at Windsor Castle
Be honest, have you Googled the images of Kate topless? Where does the blame lie in this situation?










Comments
88 Comments so far
My goodness, what a tits up!
loading...
What a bunch of hypocrits.
The british royals were all rubbing their hands when Fergie was set-up and exposed boobs out, did all in their power to make sure Princess Diana was portrayed as a nasty piece of work, sit back every single day knowing the daily papers show bare breasted girls daily, yet when Kate Middletons little things are shown in a picture, suddnly the paperazzi are hunted! This is exactly why peole hate the brits and the royal family in particular. Hypocrits.
loading...
It’s about time someone hunted the paperazzi. They are disgusting vultures, who in the end hunted Diana to her death. As for the Royals painting Princess Diana as a nasty piece of work , I think that it was the media that did that. Fergie is no saint didn’t she just get in trouble for trying to set Prince Andrew up?
loading...
People hate the Brits? What, all of us?
loading...
Hang on. She’s not just any girl, she’s a woman whose wedding was watched by ONE BILLION PEOPLE. People are interested and, frankly, that’s the price of living the incredible life of luxury and privilege that she leads!!!! No one’s saying it wasn’t wrong to take the pics, but if you know that the world is interested in you at that ridiculous level and you also know that someone, somewhere is alwasy going to be around with a long-lens camera, PROTECT yourself!!! It’s not that she can’t roam around topless, it’s just that if she does, she should know that people are watching adn that someone will snap the shop and someone else will happily publish it. If that’s the case, don’t do it!!! After all, in all her time as Queen, there’s never been so much as a whiff of scandal!
loading...
This the same Kate Middleton who wore an itsy bitsy g-string under her billowy yellow dress onto a windy Canadian airfield on her first Royal tour in 2011? Yes, clever girl, very modest. If you think she had proper undies on, those were photoshopped in people! She was wearing a g-banger and we all saw her bare @rse. Classy!
loading...
Noone in including the DOC and you and I should have our privacy invaded by a camera and then have to endure thoses photos being published. Whatever we do in public should be fair game – end of story. With technology. progressing to the stage of getting very good images through walls, I hate to imagine what pictures may be published in the future. The pity of it all is that the public is very interested and that magazine stands to make a mint out of it.
loading...
A storm in a B cup
loading...
I agree that the media are in the wrong here but I do wonder – would everyone be so aghast if the same thing had happened to celebrity? Would we all be up in arms if the same thing had happened to Jen Aniston or is it because she’s a royal that we are all so appalled at the media’s behaviour? Just wondering….
loading...
I agree with “Kathy W” – this is an extremely serious security issue.
All public figures are aware of how vulnerable they are – particularly the Royals…………can you imagine the issues they faced at their wedding ? I was looking for signs of a vest under her wedding dress. ……one of the gutsy-est moments I saw on TV was when the Queen & Prince Philip rode in an open-topped car in a parade quite soon after the London bombings – those older Royals have lived with the threat of harm every day of their royal lives in the pursuit of their “duty in the service of the public” and now Kate & William must do the same.
I’m not a rampant Royalist I’m simply pragmatic when it comes to the protection of these high profile people (including our own ).
If our western world can’t carry out a joyful public event or protect our high profile people without an horrific event happening then our sense of peace and safety will be forever shattered – and in the light of recent events we simply have to be more vigilant.
loading...
I don’t believe anybody should be able to produce a copy of your image at all without your consent.
These sycophantic media types really are low, unproductive members of the human race.
loading...
We googled the pictures in my journalism lecture at Uni and the whole theatre (male & female) cheered.
I think kate has every right to sunbath topless on a private property without being photographed. If she’d done it in a public place, maybe I could understand them taking/publishing them. I think there should be a blanket ban on taking photos of celebrities in their homes or their friends/families homes. They do, surprisingly, have a right to some privacy.
loading...
Are you kidding me? 1.6 km is a long distance – it’s a 20 minute walk. If she was baring her breasts two meters away, fine. If there were neighbours who could look across the fence, fine. But 1.6 km is ridiculous. Of course she would have expected to feel safe.
Yes I understand she has a public image but she’s a person too. It was not a public beach, not public property. She was doing normal things with her husband. Geez.
loading...
Pingback: Why bother blogging? | housegoeshome
Of course she had a right to privacy she was in a private home on holiday she had the right wear what she liked I hope the they press criminal charges. If it was an average Joe being stalked by someone 1km away with a telescopic lens would that be any different ? Kate is the victim here she deserves the same rights as anyone else.
loading...
I would never sunbathe topless, not that I am famous (so who would care?), but rather, I would think sunburnt nipples would be very uncomfortable! These are the things I think about haha
loading...
She’s not Princess Catherine. She’s not Kate Middleton. She’s the Duchess of Cambridge. If we can all get Princess Mary’s title right let’s have a go at this one, hmm?
On topic – we shouldn’t be blaming the victim. She was in a private residence, not overlooked by any other building. What has happened to her is a disgrace. Why is she getting the blame?
loading...
Well said, Cat, both to her correct title/name, and the fact that a camera 1.6 km away, is hardly ” walking past a road”?? Que??
loading...
This is a total invasion of privacy. If you need a telephoto lens to reach the 1.6kms from the public road- I’m sorry but she should have an expectation of privacy. That said, it doesn’t change my opinion of her, or her husband. They are actually in love with each other so more power to them!!!
loading...
Regarding all the advice for Kate to not expect privacy unless the curtains are closed; where do you then stand on heat detecting cameras? There have been some appalling reports of invasions of privacy by law enforcement surveillance cameras lingering when they found something interesting to watch. As the technology makes more possible, are the royals expected to somehow anticipate and thwart everything, is it only their responsibility? Or is there a reasonable expectation of privacy that should be able to be relied upon?
loading...
Rule number one of being in the public eye:
If you do not want to be photographed naked, do not be naked outside.
Crazy logic, hey!
loading...
Agreed, agreed, agreed!!!
loading...
What I find very disturbing is if a camera lens could do this, then could a high-powered firearm do the same?
Their security was seriously compromised and I hope someone loses their job over this. Surely one of their minders or ‘people’ could have scoped the place and noticed that the road was relatively close. I mean it’s not as if the paparazzi and long-range lenses were only just invented. Anyone remember Fergie’s toe-sucking photos from way back in 1992? I think the photographer was a similar distance from her. What if it were a firearm – it’s entirely plausible.
It’s not Kate’s fault. It’s the fault of lax security.
loading...
Her security should have politely requested she put her top back on.
loading...
Why? It’s her private time off.
loading...
She should have been more careful to Protect her girls from the sun.
loading...
i think there should be a “do not stalk” list, if any person puts thee name on it then no footage or photo’s of them may be published anywhere without express permission or a court order that to publish is in the public interest. It is the publishers responsibility to check the list.
loading...
No no no no no.
It is irrelevant that she was topless. If she had been sitting by the pool reading a book dressed in a sundress and this low life took photos of her from ONE & A HALF KILOMETRES away they would be well within their rights to sue. That photographer is full of it. In full view? I know my eyesight isn’t what it used to be but I cannot anything that is 1.6 kms away.
When is this massively disgusting practice going to be outlawed? I hope they are successful in their suit.
loading...
“Kate Middleton topless and she has NO nipples”. Now that would’ve been a photo I would have googled but a topless woman that has boobs and nipples, I see that every day so not interested.
The unpixalated pic was emailed to me, though, and my first thought was simply admiration that “she’s just got normal boobs”.
As for the papers, if they broke the law then sue them. But despite her having “normal boobs” she does not live a normal life. For what ever reason, people love to see these type of photos and, for that reason alone, I would not venture outside without a top on even if I was sunbathing on the moon!
loading...
Princess Mary would never let this happen.
loading...
There isn’t worldwide interest in Princess Mary. Outside of Australia and Denmark she would be virtually unknown.
loading...
I am sure her breasts look great. She should flash them with pride.
loading...
The way I see it, Kate and William bring a lot of joy and positivity to so many people. An estimated 3 billion people tuned in to watch their wedding, they almost single handedly revived interest in the British royal family globally, everywhere they tour their genuine approach is applauded and their every move documented, they cheer on their home team at the Olympics, Kate is admired for her stylish dress sense whilst at the same time managing to be thrifty and modest, he has an honourable job in the armed forces where he rescues people, and the fact that their love actually appears to be genuine just beams out to the world.
All these photos tell me is what a fickle beast the media is.
loading...
“The DoC (Duchess of Cambridge) was, after all, (* whispers* ) sunbathing within sight – (yes not easily, but within easy sight of a pap, let’s be sure of that, not walking from her bathroom to her walk in closet of bikinis) – of a public road.”
Since when has within sight been 1.6km away? That is four times the length of the Olympic running track – hardly within sight. I hope that the photographer and the papers that printed the photos due get criminal charges against them, this is a total violation of privacy.
loading...
Yep invasion of her privacy, but really they’re just boobs! I find it more distasteful the endless speculation on is she or isn’t she pregnant. Can we not just wait until they announce it and be happy for them then? I find that speculation more invasive …. Who knows if they are trying to conceive, if they’re having issues with it… But when it comes down to it…. It’s no one elses business!!!
loading...
And they wonder why their circulation is down. I haven’t bought a magazine in years and I used to do so religiously. I’ve even stopped buying Woman’s Weekly and that was a staple of all the women in my family for four generations.
The last time I bought it was when they did a story on Australia’s inspirational women. Carrie Brickshaw and the other lightweight. Else rites are of no interest to me and I have no net notion of reading anything Zoe Arnold has to say.
loading...
If a man was taking photos of me over my backyard fence whilst I was having a topless sunbake and put then on his Facebook profile, he would be charged with a criminal offence. So why is it ok to do the same to celebrities? Should she be more careful? Yes for sure, but the full weight of the law should come down on photographers who take these photos.
loading...
I think that is the issue Jude – if someone took photos of you in your property from outside your property, that person would not be charged with a criminal offence (unless there was a course of conduct, such that his/her behaviour amounted to stalking).
Nor could the person be sued by you for breaching your privacy – there is no recognised right to privacy in Australia. The laws are somewhat different overseas, giving William and Kate a better chance of their legal action being successful.
loading...
I love Princess Katherine but do wonder if she has learned a tough lesson that nowhere is private for her. Yes her privacy was breached and the photographers/magsshould be penalised.
loading...
I don’t sunbathe outside topless as I know the 10yr old boy next door will be peeking over the fence. Yes, I know it’s private property, but common sense prevails that if you’re outside there is every likelihood that someone may be watching. People should not be deluding themselves that Kate Middleton is an average member of the public. She’s simply not. She chose this life and unfortunately that means she needs to keep her boobs indoors if she doesn’t want to the paps after her. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the life she has chosen to marry into.
loading...
I read on another site that the telephoto lens used to take these photos was as long as “the average dining room table” surely that is an invasion of her privacy. I do not know how these photographers sleep nights. What do they say at parties when people ask what they do? “Well, as a matter of fact; I stalk people round the clock just in case they drop their guard and flash their breasts, or to see if I can get a shot of their child crying”.
loading...
I heard a quote recently “Queen Elizabeth would never have been caught sunbaking topless because quite simply, she would never be topless anywhere but the shower.”
I think the young Royals need to realise that they are not just everyday people anymore and neither are they pop stars!
loading...
And I remember Princess Stephanie of Monaco being snapped sunbaking topless and she was labelled Eurotrash.
loading...
I’m probably prudish, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable baring my breasts on a private property where they almost certainly have numerous staff working.
loading...
Yes that’s what I was thinking. There would have to be staff on the property.
loading...
I find this whole thing so very trashy. For everyone who is saying “silly girl – future Queen of England thinking she can sunbake topless” I’d not be at all surprised if two weeks ago you were the same people to agree how refreshing it is to have Royals who are reviving the Monarchy with their youth and freshness. So she was doing what a happy, healthy woman does with her husband. Taking an hour off, for goodness sake!
One minute people love her because of her fashion sense, beauty, figure and kind nature. Next minute she’s foolish and naive to take her bikini top to get a bit of sun on her boobs. Good on her, I bet she’s earned it.
Secondly, being on a balcony facing bush in the middle of the country in France after working solidly for 18 months – it is not a sin to want an hour in the sun. They probably had guards and security staff on the perimeter of the property – who knows what these creeps did to get the shot. Waited for the security detail to get out of sight and dashed out into position probably.
And we all know the Paps regularly scale fences, climb trees and take photos out of helicopters to get shots/make money, so seriously, the problem is with the Paps and the publics desire to consume the commodity of these peoples perceived worth, not their actions. We are the problem, not her! I say leave it alone.
Lastly, yes Silvo Berlusconi’s daughter Marina is the chairman of the media company who owns Closer – remember the Bunga Bunga parties? I say ‘trashy breeds trashy does trashy’.
loading...
Working solidly for 18 months? Apart from a few weeks of royal duties here and there she spends most of her time hanging around a cottage in Wales waiting for William to come home and the rest of the time jets off with him on holidays just like the one where these photos were taken.
loading...
Surely these photos infringe on some sort of peeping tom/ stalker law. I know if someone was taking photos of an everyday person in their own backyard that would be a criminal offence and would never be allowed to be published, why just because they are famous it is any different… or am I totally wrong here?
loading...
As I understand it, you don’t own the rights to your own image. So you can’t stop someone else taking photos of you in the backyard.
loading...
This really pisses me off. Here we have a very high profile woman who just wanted a bit of alone time with her husband on holidays and some photographer has invaded her privacy just to sell magazines. Kate Middleton should be free to sunbathe topless with her partner in the privacy of a home or resort without being exploited by the press.
I would like very much to see laws enacted that made it an offense to publish photos of any person in a non-public space without their written consent.
loading...
taken from over a kilometer away and people are suggesting she is at fault? No wonder shes not up the duff straight away- why would you want to a bring a child into this world when you have no privacy even in private!
The palace compared the invasion to Princess Diana and you know who would feel the repercussions of how she was treated by the paps the most- William her son who is without a mother because she was harassed until the end (literally)
It’s so easy to throw stones and say they are royalty they are public figures but everyone deserves to have their private life kept private. I hope any press who publishes the images is made an example of. It’s just ridiculous!
Why are her tits in the national (and for that matter global) interests? they’re not! The editor was saying how it’s not a big deal they’re just breasts, well if they’re not a big deal then why did you publish them?
loading...
If you are on a private property and over 1km from the road then you should have the freedom to do as you wish without fear of being photographed. There is no excuse for those pictures and Kate should have been able to strip off without her privacy being invaded. I don’t care how high profile she is.
loading...
All this fuss highlights how weird we are in the Western world about breasts!
loading...
It’s not about breasts. It’s about the invasion of a woman’s privacy.
I’d sue them into penury.
loading...
I love the royals but really they are boring bunch of people with only doing charities well maybe not the young males who are risking their lives ……. What I love. More is a good royal uproar finally all those fiction books that jackie Collins or Jilly cooper write about the rich are true and the royals get up to all type of sexual antics of living the life……. Oh I wish……… Love it
loading...
I have to agree with Vanessa Raphaely. Why not just cop it on the chin? And next time cover up if you don’t want this to happen. I imagine this is not the only trade off she has to make in her life
loading...
The whole “it’s her fault for sunbathing” argument makes me uneasy when you consider that the photographer broke the law to take that photo. If it was taken a mile away with a telephoto lens it was a criminal act. Saying that Catherine is to blame is blaming the victim, not the perpetrator, and frankly is too close for comfort to the “she asked for it because of what she was wearing” mentality.
loading...
I’m a big Kate fan but I have to kind of agree with Vanessa here… She was actually outside so there is always a chance someone can see you. No matter how far away from everything you might feel.
loading...
Interesting that New Idea said no (or is it Women’s Day) when they so readily published unauthorised pics of Kate and Wills in bathing suits on their ‘private’ honeymoon. I guess we should be grateful that there is a line they won’t cross?
On another note, I live next door to a public building and I would NEVER strip off in my backyard for fear that someone could stick their head over the fence. And I am not anyone that the public would care about. Gutsy move in general on her part!
loading...
I feel really sorry for her and do not agree with the people who say it is her own fault.
She is not stupid – she was on a private balcony, on private property, where she had, one has to assume, been assured of security and privacy. I feel she has been let down by the people who should be supporting her.
I might also add that she was sitting there with her husband, who clearly had no objection to her topless sunbathing. A photographer chose, from over a kilometre away, to intrude on what was clearly a private moment. The photographer is the one in the wrong in this situation, and I hope they fully pursue all the legal recourse available. For me, that is the end of it. I really don’t like victim-blaming.
loading...
Agree 100%.
loading...
I have to say I really object to the term ‘victim” being used in regards to this story. Catherine was NOT a victim. She willingly removed her top and therefore risked someone seeing or photographing her. To me that does not make her a victim.
loading...
She is a ‘victim’ of having her privacy illegally invaded – if someone had their photo taken in a change room without their knowledge, they would also be a ‘victim’ of having their privacy invaded.
In my opinion, if someone violates your rights, you are a victim. The use of the word here does not detract from its meaning in other situations, and I was simply trying to say that I am tired of the whole ‘she was asking for it’ mentality.
loading...
I agree with you. She’s not Kate Moss or Sienna Miller. She is royalty and her behaviour is supposed to be a little more dignified.
loading...
Totally agree Kel
loading...
I may be labelled a prude here, but my honest opinion is that I expect a little better of someone who will one day be our Queen. There is enormous responsibility that comes with her role along with the incredible privelege and sunbaking topless, even in what they thought was complete privacy, isnt compatible with that.
She should have been better prepared for the fact that there will be a papparazi waiting and ready to snap her anywhere at any time.
loading...
I agree with you here, it also shows a great deal of disrespect for the Queen who ultimately has to cope with the fall out here. I’m not a fan of the Royals but have to respect the Queen, she’s hard working, unblemished, has never put a foot wrong but her family all around her take their positions for granted and act like morons. Not saying Kate acted like a moron but she should have known better…
loading...
I don’t necessarily disagree with you here Chillax, but out of interest are you equally as disappointed by Harry and his antics of late given the responsibilities bestowed on him?
loading...
Yes, I thought Harry was a dill too
Probably more disappointed in Harry because he has grown up surrounded by the pomp , ceremony and expectation of of royalty. And the worlds expectations. I dont want the people who we are supposed to ‘look up to’ and who certainly believe are better than the rest of us carrying on like they are reliving the Hangover. Kate’s decision to sunbake topless outside tells me that she is still just a common girl, but one with good posture and nice clothes. I think she would have well and truly learned her lesson now though. And I hope the Queen has a word in her ear.
loading...
I do think she was a bit silly. It probably felt nice and private but she has to learn that unless she is completely inside with the curtains closed, someone might see.
And that is SO WRONG. I don’t think anyone, royal family, movie star, singer, b-list celebrity, should have their privacy invaded like that. I can’t imagine how terrible it would be to live a life where you are being watched with cameras all the time.
loading...
I was reading this article this morning about the double standard evident in what happened with Harry compared to Kate. http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/newsstories/8532955/why-is-naked-harry-a-hero-and-topless-kate-a-fool
My thoughts are this: She was on a holiday with her husband at a private residence. Their identity as royals in this time is pushed to the background, as they are first and foremost a young husband and wife on vacation. They were enjoying a little bit of time away from their ‘real’ lives. Like any holidaying couple, they thought they would relax outside and enjoy a bit of sunbathing (granted they were at least being sunsmart!).
She decided to sunbake topless, as I’m sure many of us would if we thought we were on our own or with those we trust. I don’t think they expected there to be a photographer with a lens powerful enough to take photos from 1.6km away. Just because the photos were taken from a public road, does not make it okay. To the naked eye (for lack of a better word) she would not have been seen from this distance, and hence may have assumed she was safe.
Yes, they are royals. Yes, she will one day be the Queen of England. But does that mean that her privacy should be so publicly invaded? No. Does that mean that she should be demure and princessly all the time? Well, probably not in her private life with her husband. Yes, they are in a privileged position and are not necessarily like ‘the rest of us’, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do ‘normal’ things every once in a while.
I think this was a grand invasion of their privacy and the pictures should not have been taken, let alone published. I also think we need to stop blaming her for not leaving her top on – they thought they were alone.
loading...
I think it’s being treated differently because they reacted differently. With Harry the royals spokesperson and their PR did the usual things, but the vibe was “it’s no big deal”. Harry will laugh it off the next time he does an interview. Whereas with Kate they’ve made a huge deal out of how violated she feels, what an intrusion of privacy it is and so on, which is valid, but it does open them up to critisism.
You can bet the royals had people digging into Kate’s private life in ways papparazzi could only imagine before she married William. Being a royal means your personal life ends when you open your curtains. It may not be right, but it’s always been like that and given the incidents with Diana and Harry, you would think Kate and William would be aware of that. Had they simply gone “oops, that was a bit silly wasn’t it” this wouldn’t be such a big deal. But the fact that they are so desperate for the pictures not be printed elsewhere just makes them that much more interesting, and will keep the story going for months if they do take legal action.
loading...
Harry’s photos were done from fairly close up, like the same room by someone he was partying with. He probably wasn’t surprised they got published.
Kate, on the other hand was on a private residence, well back from the road and probably couldn’t have seen the photographer from where she was.
I would imagine that’s part of the difference.
loading...
Bear in mind that Williams’s mother, Diana, died while trying to escape the paparazzi that followed her every move. Williams’s distaste for them is well documented. He obviously sees similarities with the way they are going after Katherine, and he would be doing whatever he can – and rightly so – to protect her.
loading...
I agree, plus in their situation, you would assume that if you do nothing about it, then the problem will escalate. The attention on Diana was relentless and ultimately tragic, so how could he possibly choose to ignore it happening to his wife?
loading...
It really stands out for me that when Harry nudes it up in Vegas with a coterie of blondes (and allegedly a ton of party enhancing substances) he’s ‘one of the boys’ having a good time, but when Kate is papped with her top off in a private house, with her husband, she’s portrayed as the victim of a terrible violation and/or a fool. Double standard much. I’d like to see a meme like the one with nude soldiers saluting in support of Harry.
loading...
MM, it might be worth mentioning that the publishing company that first published the photos is owned by none other than Mr Sleaze himself Silvo Burelesconi a man not know for his respect of woman.
loading...
I wrote about the photos on my blog on Saturday and views went totally wild. While there’s debate about the morality of what the photographer and magazine did, I think we need to start asking bigger questions about why the public care so much. Because while they do, the paparazzi will keep seeking scandals to satisfy them.
http://housegoeshome.com/2012/09/16/royal-boobies/
loading...
“The owner of Closer is Bauer, the German publishing giant who just last week bought Australia’s largest magazine group, ACP, making them the new owners of Woman’s Day, the Australian Women’s Weekly, Dolly, Cleo, Cosmo, Madison, Harpers Bazaar and dozens of other magazines.”
You ought to amend this. Bauer does own the Closer title and publishes it in many countries. However, it is published under license by another company in France (interestingly, part-owned by Silvio Berlusconi and managed by his daughter).
Bauer has issued a strongly worded statement that it condemns publication and has said it will review it’s licensing arrangements in light of this privacy breach.
More detail here at Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/17/will-bauer-rein-in-acps-at-times-cowgirl-approach/
loading...