Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, aka Kate Middleton, is mad as hell, and she is not going to take it any more. Well, to be honest, I have no idea if she is mad as hell; I can only imagine she is, but it’s clear she is not going to take it anymore!
In news more shocking than the actual topless photos that a French magazine published of Catherine today, St James Palace has announced she is going to sue. The internet and news outlets from around the world are buzzing with news a magazine has published photos of Kate sunbathing topless. The photos, obviously taken with a zoom lens, were shot earlier this month as Kate and her husband, Prince William, vacationed at a private villa in France. While the photos themselves are not outrageous, for me at least, I believe the act of publishing, and even taking them in the first place, has certainly crossed the line. They are rather innocent photos of a young woman and her husband sunbathing at a private residence. At one point Kate removes her bikini top and her husband applies sunscreen to her back. Obviously they had no idea photos were being taken. The magazine, in an attempt to look like they have taken the moral high ground, has also said that they have even more “intimate pictures” that they haven’t published. Call me cynical, but that actually sounds a bit like a threat to me.
All of this leads me to ask: Is there any such thing as privacy anymore? Yes William and Kate are public figures who lead a public life. In fact, as royals they are even on the public payroll. But does this mean the public has a right to see everything about this couple? Because they are “public figures”, have they, in effect, become animals on display at the zoo with no cave in which to hide from prying eyes? Does it mean NOTHING can remain private? Can any industrious photographer with a zoom lens capture on film private moments and sell them to the highest bidder? I can just imagine the dollar signs the photographer must have seen when Kate stood up to remove her bikini top.
I just don’t understand the thinking behind “it’s all fair game” when it comes to the way we view public figures. Whether it’s royalty, movie stars, people who appear on reality TV shows, or even someone who posts a YouTube video, there seems to be a large portion of the public that thinks they have the right to know everything about that person. I don’t understand the thinking that if someone reveals part of their life to the public, the whole kit and kaboodle is up for grabs.
Think about this: Ultimately, if the public didn’t think they had the right to know, there would be no paycheck for the paparazzi and the media that sells the story for profit. We feed the beast.
I guess it all comes down to this question: When does the right to privacy trump the public’s right to know? I would love for you to share your thoughts.
About the Author:
Patty is a busy Mom of 2 with a background in TV and Film production, and Information Technology. She is a champion of the underdog. She loves good food and to laugh out loud. She still hasn’t decided what she is going to be when she grows up. She’ll let you know when she does. You can reach her at Pattypie@imperfectwomen.com
I would need to see the pictures before I can make any more comments.
I hate to see the paparazzi start with Kate & Will. You can’t help but think about how Diana died when you hear these stories.
I just think the paps should leave them alone, unless they are out in public. I agree BH, makes you think of Di and the terrible ending to her life. 🙁
It should be against the law to take pictures on private property! Thank goodness Will was with her. No tellling what story they would be spinning.
Diana’s end is still so fresh in my mind I have a hard time trying to be fair so I’m just going to agree with snickers but the truth is Diana was out in public when her life tragically ended.
I’m glad Kate’s going to sue.
This invasion into personal space has to stop.
British newspapers are saying that the pap was a 1/2 a mile away when he took the photos. I think a line has been crossed and that she should take legal action or else it will be anything goes. However legal action will probably drag on for years. Justice is not swift.
It’s one thing for Harry to be at a party going nude it’s another thing for someone at a private residence to be photographed in this manner.
The UK edition of Closer magazine is saying they have received death threats even though it is the French magazine that published the photos. The UK publishers have a statement up distancing themselves from the French publication and stating they would have never published those shots. The UK Closer has been forced to shut down their website because of hate-filled comments. It appears that the two magazines are published by totally different companies and they are saying they make independent editorial decisions.
The UK edition also states they asked the Close France to take the photos down and refrain from publishing any further pictures.
I was reading that France has strict privacy laws , the article I read says its totally forbidden, this was was not the street, it was private and intimate. They went on to say the publisher probably weighed the cost of breaking the law against their profit and knew they’d still be ahead. Makes you sick doesn’t it.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kate-middleton-topless-photos-closer-370383
This is a good article.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/world/europe/france-privacy-law-qa/index.html
As with all warped sense of entitlement, anyone dancing that line of inappropriate behavior starts the justification with ‘well she/he is a public figure……’. We see this with all celebrities, people thinking they are privy to private details, throw out their ‘this seems wrong’ chip. Public citizens are not open books, nor should the public expect them to be. It was obviously a PRIVATE spot, a private moment and I would hardly think being topless with your husband is a scandal. The scandal is the photographer using a lens that would allow he/her to capture this.
As much as I think death threats are completely ridiculous, it is great to see the outrage pointed at the right people, the paps!
It should be against the law to take pictures on private property! Thank goodness Will was with her. No tellling what story they would be spinning. ~GeeWhiz
That’s what I think. Those paps are like peeping toms. How can they get away it?
It’s the not being aware and not having any sense of privacy. I remember when the topless pics of Fergie came out after she and Andrew were divorced. She was w/some guy on private property.
New article up at People about this today: “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.”
Good for them. Meanwhile the article says even more magazines posted pictures over the weekend including “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. ”
I guess they all must feel that the bump they will get by publishing them outweighs what they will lose in a suit.
While the photos that were taken of Kate are a gross infringement of privacy, one still has to question – is it a good idea for one of the most photographed women in the world to go topless outside? Anywhere? In particular, in France?
.
The French don’t have the same regard for royalty as does the UK and they certainly have a perverse enjoyment in finding the British royals in compromising situations. It was in France that the nude photos of Fergie and Prince Charles were taken years back. Given the tragedy of Diana at the hands of the French press, I’m surprised Prince William chose a vacation site in France.
.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world where all of us can be photographed any time we leave our home.