Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
BRITAIN’S ROYALS ARE seeking €1.5 million in damages over the publication of topless photographs of Prince William’s wife Kate, it emerged on the opening day of the trial of six media representatives for invasion of privacy.
French gossip magazine Closer and regional newspaper La Provence in September 2012 published long-lens photos of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless in the south of France, triggering outrage in Britain.
The prosecution in the invasion of privacy trial called for “very significant fines” over the grainy pictures, while a lawyer for Closer said the royal couple wanted €1.5 million in damages.
The lawyer Paul-Albert Iweins insisted that the photos showed a “positive image of the couple” and criticised an “Anglo-Saxon reasoning of damages and interest”.
The pair were snapped on a break at a chateau owned by Viscount David Linley, the son of Princess Margaret, the late sister of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II.
One of the most intimate shots, which were offered to some publications but not published in Britain, shows the Duchess of Cambridge topless and having suncream rubbed into her buttocks by husband William.
Laurence Pieau, Closer’s editor in France, Ernesto Mauri, chief executive of the Mondadori group which owns the magazine, and Cyril Moreau and Dominique Jacovides, two Paris-based agency photographers suspected of taking the pictures, face charges of invasion of privacy and complicity at the trial in Nanterre outside Paris.
‘Not shocking’
La Provence’s publishing director at the time, Marc Auburtin, and photographer Valerie Suau are also standing trial.
The case had been delayed for four months to give the lawyer for the agency photographers more time to prepare their defence.
Prince William’s Kensington Palace office declined to comment ahead of the trial when contacted by AFP.
The case was being heard shortly after the royal couple visited Paris in March.
Pieau defended her publication’s actions at the time of the scandal, saying the pictures of Kate, now 35, were not in the “least shocking”.
Police said two photographers were confirmed to be near the chateau at the time of the royal couple’s stay after combing through lists of hotel guests and telephone numbers.
But both photographers have denied taking the photos, despite evidence that both received substantial payoff amounts after the images’ publication.
The magazine has steadfastly refused to divulge the identity of the photographer who took the topless pictures.
A week before Closer published the shots, other images of the couple from a different angle were printed in La Provence.
La Provence photographer Suau has been charged for taking photos of Kate in a swimsuit in the same place, but her paper has denied that their photographer took any topless images.
The snaps triggered a furious reaction from the British royal family and a furore in Britain where several newspapers had rejected an offer to buy the pictures.
The angry royal couple launched legal proceedings soon after they were published.
Their lawyer argued that the photos were particularly distressing as it brought back painful memories of William’s late mother Princess Diana’s death in a car crash in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi.
French authorities sided with the couple by banning any further reproduction of the pictures before launching a probe into how the snaps were obtained.
But the topless photos still appeared in several other European publications in Italy’s Chi, which, like Closer, is owned by Mondadori, in Ireland’s Daily Star and sister magazines in Sweden and Denmark.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sounds like they’re making mountains out of molehills if you ask me…
@Jack Cullinan: lovely pair of molehills all the same
Would these be the same royals who are bombarding us with pictures of their kids? Can’t have it both ways.
@Declan Murphy: no that would be the media
@Declan Murphy: The majority of their personal snaps of their children, are not released. However due to public demand they allow only certain pictures to be taken / published by certain authorised photographers / media.
I think only a couple of photos taken by themselves have been released (due to public demand).
@Lily: You must be part of the Royal household to know so much.
@Declan Murphy:
Rather have Kate’s breasts shoved in my face than the spoiled brats.
@Declan Murphy: the pictures were taken by a zoom lens from over 200 yards away, how would you like to see a member of your family on a private holiday with their baps all over the paper
@Declan Murphy: my
There really should be legislation on use of zoom lenses and invasion of privacy.
@Kal Ipers: there is – that’s why they’re going to court.
@Ryan Comiskey: No there isn’t hence they are going to court over invasion of privacy. If there was legislation they could just charge them with the offense.
Try to keep up with what you’re saying here.
You said:
“There really should be legislation on use of zoom lenses and invasion of privacy.”
And then you said I was wrong, and that:
“they are going to court over invasion of privacy”
You just confirmed I was right, and that there is a law in place: INVASION OF PRIVACY.
@Ryan Comiskey: You aren’t very bright
lol – you said there should be legislation over invasion of privacy. Then in your next post you said they’re going to court of invasion of privacy.
You’re very slow.
@Ryan Comiskey: No Ryan I said legislation for zoom lenses AND invasion of privacy. There currently no legislation on zoom lenses with relation to privacy laws. As I said not very bright.
@Kal Ipers: Invasion of privacy already covers zoom lenses when used to invade privacy!!
Just like “assault” covers punches, shoves, trips, etc. We don’t need a separate law for each one – it’s all covered under “Assault”.
@Ryan Comiskey: It doesn’t cover zoom lenses that is point I am making. This case is unusual. If you are on a private beach a photographer can be a mile out and take pictures and sell them. That is why a new separate law needs to be brought in. There is a court case now to argue if it is an invasion of privacy.
@Kal Ipers: over here, the question would be as to whether she had an expectation of privacy where she was being cheeky.
Maybe they should have done a drawing of Kate in the nude. Just as Charlie Hebro did. Freedom of expression and all that.
William should just upload a picture of his ballsack to twitter to balance things out
@Thinck: Fair’s fair!
Surprised at Kate and William. Thought the British kept that kind of thing behind closed doors.
@Jack Cassady:
They were behind ‘closed doors’ – that’s the point.
@Avina Laaf: People don’t usually sunbathe behind closed door’s.
@Just Me: I think you need to troll away somewhere else.
It was a private estate they were in and the photo was taken 200 metres away outside the walls of the estate so behind closed doors is a fair statement you feck ing ass. Get a life or at least post under your name and own photo and be a man and stand behind what shite comes out of your fingers
@Jack Cassady: Behind cloosed doors, But it was the british media who made the Topless photo part of normal news. I don’t agree with taking long lens photos, But it’s a bit like the pot calling the kettle black when the home of the red top is doing it.
@Michael Hayden: You should talk to a shrink regarding your anger issues.
One really should conceal ones baps when one is sunbathing in the south of France .
Making mountains out of molehills if you ask me…
@Jack Cullinan: you already said that.
The pictures are not as hot as you might imagine. On had Kate bent over holding her knickers with William rubbing cream on her arse. It more embarrassing than sexy.
@SuzukaYuiMoa: do you have a link? Asking dor a friend…
Pesky Germans hogging the press as usual!
have your say