Duchess wins damages over topless photos

www.bbc.co.uk...

The right royal hottie is on the news again today , after she found she was up the duff , yet again yesterday . She is properly fit , do we not reckon , but I'm sure when checking out her face , like others in her class , there is definitely some horse dna in there !

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been awarded 100,000 euros (£92K) in damages after a French magazine printed topless pictures of the Duchess. The French court ruled the images, taken as the royal couple holidayed in Provence five years ago, were an invasion of their privacy.

Topless ? Was William topless too ? Cos they got 50 000 euros each ? ? wtf ? why does Wills get that much as well ? His boobs are no where near as interesting !
Do they need another £92k ? I wonder how much in personal spending money they get off the taxpayers anyway ?

The judge awarded the royal couple 50,000 euros each in damages. She also fined staff and photographers on Closer magazine more than 100,000 euros - the maximum amount allowed. The damages fall short of the 1.6 million euros (£1.5m) sought by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's lawyers.

I don't think this is fair ! They should be allowed to point their lens and snap at anything they can see , from a public field off a public road . Topless beauties at 2 miles away included . But Wiiliam gets some payout too ? Er , did they publish it with his membership card out ?

I wonder if the hardcopy Closer mags with the offending article on display are now worth some moular ?

Long-lens images of Catherine sunbathing on a terrace were published on the front and inside pages of the Closer publication in 2012.

Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded.

a reply to: GeneralMayhem

We're going to need to examine the evidence. It seems they were staying at a private Chateau, so they weren't really "out in public".

a reply to: Woodcarver


"Out in public ..."

Do you mean her breasts or Williams balls?

a reply to: GeneralMayhem
No need to put her pics in the paper. No need to be negative about her appearance - ie horse comment.

No, I don't support the monarchy, just decency.

a reply to: and14263

prude pruːd/Submit noun a person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity.

synonyms: puritan, prig, killjoy, moral zealot/fanatic, moralist, Mrs Grundy, Grundy, old maid, schoolmarm, pietist,

Red Globes........ I'm having red globe grapes right now. Damn the seeds. Oh the Duchess ? Cute melons.. Better wrap those puppies up.

So google , -do the royals get a salary ?-

and you get *nothing* on topic , but the search bar predicts the question .

Maybe they'll be suing every published long lens photographer for money , maybe they don't need to , who knows ?

If his grapes weren't on the table being eaten , how come WILLIAM gets a money? Its can't be the first pics of Him at some French Chateax enjoying the private views . The bbc title , is it misleading directly to Kates baby feeders I wonder

Pics or it didn't happen.

a reply to: UnBreakable

ah , that old chestnuts

Maybe she was just trying to save the world and changed her mind when money got involved?
www.youtube.com...

Can't stand the Royals but the paparazzi are one of the lower classes of scum our society spews out...closely followed by the vacuous retards who gobble up the tabloids.

She's not particularly fit anyway, standing next to a bunch of haggard inbreds in public will make anyone look good.

I was surprised by this verdict. But only because it has taken so long to arrive that I had forgotten about the court case itself. This was an open-and-shut invasion of privacy of the worst kind, and it was clearly so from before the shutter had even snapped. Indefensible by any known definition of the word.

a reply to: audubon

I don't understand why Wills gets a compensation though , jokes aside . It's not like it was his being topless . But he gets an equal payout to Kate ? Can you explain it ? If they brought the case as husband and wife then a lump sum would be fine , but they each got a separate , equal amount , according to the link .

Just think, if someone could publish a current photo of Queen Lizzy topless, she'd likely be ordered to pay anyone who viewed the image compensation for injuries and trauma.

Oh, and Kate Middleton a horseface as the OP suggests? WHUT? Look man, I am the furthest from an angliophile you're gonna get. Not only do I not have any blood ties to the UK that I am aware of, but my heritage is mostly made up of countries that waged war against the Brits for the past 1,000 years or so... but she's a fair sight in my opinion. But then again, what the hell do I know? When I was a young teenager I thought Fergie was cuter than DIana, so maybe I'm odd like that.

a reply to: GeneralMayhem

Depreciation

originally posted by: GeneralMayhem
a reply to: audubon

I don't understand why Wills gets a compensation though , jokes aside . It's not like it was his being topless . But he gets an equal payout to Kate ? Can you explain it ? If they brought the case as husband and wife then a lump sum would be fine , but they each got a separate , equal amount , according to the link .

My reading is that the Duke and Duchess brought the case as a couple, because both of them had had their privacy invaded by photographers and then by publication (i.e., pictures of William and of Kate were published).

This is being obscured somewhat by the fact that the topless Duchess shots were what got all the attention, and were the star exhibits in the case, and why everyone remembers this prosecution in the first place.

The damages would then be paid as a lump sum of 100k (Euros), consisting of 50k (Euros) to each victim of the intrusion. Because there were two physical victims, although they sued as one party due to being married.

You'd have to ask the Judge how that was worked out, but it looks like the fact that Kate was topless in some of them didn't alter the degree of intrusion she had suffered (from a legal point of view).

Otherwise (e.g.) it could still have been worth 100k (Euros) but comprising 30k for William and 70k for Kate (rather than 50/50).

a reply to: audubon

There must be so many long lens photos they could sue for then , it almost seems absurd . Maybe the french are particular about this tort of thing . Good on him for sticking by his beautiful wife , he's a lucky man for sure .

Just think, if someone could publish a current photo of Queen Lizzy topless, she'd likely be ordered to pay anyone who viewed the image compensation for injuries and trauma.

LOL thats hilarious ! A royal ribtickler

originally posted by: GeneralMayhem
There must be so many long lens photos they could sue for then , it almost seems absurd . Maybe the french are particular about this tort of thing . Good on him for sticking by his beautiful wife , he's a lucky man for sure .

They seem to be a really pleasant pair of people, and very happy together. It's the spontaneous stuff like their laughter together that tells you this marriage isn't masking something more toxic. Good for them, William in particular needed a nurturing spirit in his life after the loss of his mother, and Kate seems to have found a mellow and unchauvinistic man to complement her own gregarious personality.

Too little, the damages should be 10x that or 100x that. Filthy vultures.

a reply to: Woodcarver

We're going to need to examine the evidence.

If this wasn't the first sentence in the first replying post I was going leave ATS.

I guess you could have made some happy,

But I have to thank you.


Edit: and a heads up the UnBreakable for the classic pics or it didn't happen