Palace furious over topless Kate photos

LONDON (AP) - Paparazzi, French media and a British royal: The publication of topless photos of Prince William's wife Kate has reunited the same players whose clash ended with the untimely death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a Parisian car crash.
William, who has long harbored a grudge against the paparazzi who chased Diana in the days and hours leading up to her 1997 death, was clearly infuriated. The royal couple hit back with an immediate lawsuit against the popular French gossip magazine Closer.
The blurry photos, called a "grotesque" abuse of privacy by royal officials, show Kate - the Duchess of Cambridge - wearing only a skimpy bikini bottom. They are the first to show Britain's likely future queen with her bosom exposed.
St. James's Palace officials sharply criticized the magazine moments after the photos hit French newsstands, comparing the intrusion on the young couple's privacy to the tragic paparazzi pursuit of Diana, which many believe was a contributing factor in her early death on Aug. 31, 1997.
The parallels between the past and the present were eerie. Diana was hounded by paparazzi who took telephoto shots of her vacationing on a yacht with her boyfriend Dodi and tailed them relentlessly in Paris.
Earlier this month, a photographer with a similar long lens captured Kate and William relaxing in the sun at a private estate in Provence, a vacation spot near the French Riviera.
Instead of challenging the authenticity of the blurry photos, palace officials said they appear genuine - and should never have been taken, much less published.
"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," a St. James's Palace official in London said in a statement.
The British press - chastened by a deep scandal over phone hacking and other misdeeds - all shied away from using the photos. That restraint came even though Rupert Murdoch's The Sun tabloid is famed for its daily "Page 3" topless shots.
The photos, which were not available on English newsstands, appeared to unite many Britons behind their royal family.
"I think it's quite outrageous," said Alice Mason, 24, from London. "They were on holidays in a private place and some creepy journalist took pictures. It's not in the public interest to see this.
"They are always going to be in the public eye, but there is a line, and they (the press) crossed that line."
She said the royal couple has "every right to be outraged, especially with what happened to Diana."
Much of the anger seemed to stem from the fact that the royal couple was at a private residence when they were photographed.
Prime Minister David Cameron chimed in supporting the royal couple's right to privacy. William and Kate married in 2011 and both have recently expressed an interest in having children.
Royal officials have stressed that William and Kate should not be photographed when they are not in public. They have complained before about candid pictures of the couple walking their cocker spaniel puppy Lupo on a wintry day in north Wales, where William is based as a military search-and-rescue pilot. The palace has also complained about an Australian magazine's use of photos of the couple on their honeymoon.
Those complaints were expressed quietly compared to Friday's stern reproach of the French press.
Laurence Pieau, the editor of Closer, defended the decision to use the topless photos. She told French radio the couple was on a terrace that was visible from the road when they were photographed.
She said they were not making an effort to conceal themselves and called the photos "joyful," not degrading.
"We must not be too dramatic about this," she said, refusing to say how much the magazine paid for the pictures.
A French lawyer who is an expert in media law said the royal couple has clear grounds for an invasion of privacy case against the magazine. Last week, French first lady Valerie Trierweiler won a judgment of €2,000 ($2,580) 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.
The British press, wary about an ongoing U.K. media inquiry into suspected criminal wrongdoing at a number of papers, has generally respected the palace guidelines.
"There's absolutely zero chance of the British press publishing these photos," Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the Murdoch's News of the World, told The Associated Press.
Wallis, who was arrested last year in the British phone hacking scandal, said the arguments against publication under British rules are many: Kate had an expectation of privacy, she was doing nothing wrong and she was photographed by stealth by someone using a long lens.
In contrast, he said the recent publication of photographs of Prince Harry naked in a Las Vegas hotel suite was legitimate, because it raised questions both about the security arrangements for the third in line to the British throne and also about his judgment.
William, who has long harbored a grudge against the paparazzi who chased Diana in the days and hours leading up to her 1997 death, was clearly infuriated. The royal couple hit back with an immediate lawsuit against the popular French gossip magazine Closer.
The blurry photos, called a "grotesque" abuse of privacy by royal officials, show Kate - the Duchess of Cambridge - wearing only a skimpy bikini bottom. They are the first to show Britain's likely future queen with her bosom exposed.
St. James's Palace officials sharply criticized the magazine moments after the photos hit French newsstands, comparing the intrusion on the young couple's privacy to the tragic paparazzi pursuit of Diana, which many believe was a contributing factor in her early death on Aug. 31, 1997.
The parallels between the past and the present were eerie. Diana was hounded by paparazzi who took telephoto shots of her vacationing on a yacht with her boyfriend Dodi and tailed them relentlessly in Paris.
Earlier this month, a photographer with a similar long lens captured Kate and William relaxing in the sun at a private estate in Provence, a vacation spot near the French Riviera.
Instead of challenging the authenticity of the blurry photos, palace officials said they appear genuine - and should never have been taken, much less published.
"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," a St. James's Palace official in London said in a statement.
The British press - chastened by a deep scandal over phone hacking and other misdeeds - all shied away from using the photos. That restraint came even though Rupert Murdoch's The Sun tabloid is famed for its daily "Page 3" topless shots.
The photos, which were not available on English newsstands, appeared to unite many Britons behind their royal family.
"I think it's quite outrageous," said Alice Mason, 24, from London. "They were on holidays in a private place and some creepy journalist took pictures. It's not in the public interest to see this.
"They are always going to be in the public eye, but there is a line, and they (the press) crossed that line."
She said the royal couple has "every right to be outraged, especially with what happened to Diana."
Much of the anger seemed to stem from the fact that the royal couple was at a private residence when they were photographed.
Prime Minister David Cameron chimed in supporting the royal couple's right to privacy. William and Kate married in 2011 and both have recently expressed an interest in having children.
Royal officials have stressed that William and Kate should not be photographed when they are not in public. They have complained before about candid pictures of the couple walking their cocker spaniel puppy Lupo on a wintry day in north Wales, where William is based as a military search-and-rescue pilot. The palace has also complained about an Australian magazine's use of photos of the couple on their honeymoon.
Those complaints were expressed quietly compared to Friday's stern reproach of the French press.
Laurence Pieau, the editor of Closer, defended the decision to use the topless photos. She told French radio the couple was on a terrace that was visible from the road when they were photographed.
She said they were not making an effort to conceal themselves and called the photos "joyful," not degrading.
"We must not be too dramatic about this," she said, refusing to say how much the magazine paid for the pictures.
A French lawyer who is an expert in media law said the royal couple has clear grounds for an invasion of privacy case against the magazine. Last week, French first lady Valerie Trierweiler won a judgment of €2,000 ($2,580) 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.
The British press, wary about an ongoing U.K. media inquiry into suspected criminal wrongdoing at a number of papers, has generally respected the palace guidelines.
"There's absolutely zero chance of the British press publishing these photos," Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the Murdoch's News of the World, told The Associated Press.
Wallis, who was arrested last year in the British phone hacking scandal, said the arguments against publication under British rules are many: Kate had an expectation of privacy, she was doing nothing wrong and she was photographed by stealth by someone using a long lens.
In contrast, he said the recent publication of photographs of Prince Harry naked in a Las Vegas hotel suite was legitimate, because it raised questions both about the security arrangements for the third in line to the British throne and also about his judgment.
Put up a hedge...my neighbor would be over in a minute complaining about my wife if he saw her topless in our back yard...probably for other reasons.
Outside is a public place. I don't care where it is. Kate should keep her shirt on outside if she has a problem with topless pics of herself.
It is reasons like this as to why I left studying Journalism in college! People's lives don't need to be shown to the world, especially the Royal Family!! I also have a grudge against the Paparazzi after what happened that night 15 years ago. There should be a job out there like Bounty Hunters or Assassins in which they search out the Paparazzi and keep them away from the Royal Family and all celebrities because I don't want another tragic event to occur and people deserve some privacy, regardless of their fame!!
"I think it's quite outrageous," said Alice Mason, 24, from London. "They were on holidays in a private place and some creepy journalist took pictures. It's not in the public interest to see this."
Â
Well, you had most of it right, Alice...except the journalist part. Â The person who took the photos is no journalist.
This is disgusting filth for the sake of same. That view of her belongs to her husband, and him alone.
Â
Is nothing sacred any longer?
Â
Easily the nicest, most classy royal couple in decades. Leave them be. They represent a nation, not trash.
If you look on GoogleEarth at where Chateau d'Autet is located, it is remote to say the least. Â Â It may have been a "public road" but with the Chateau's location I can't see how the couple would not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Â
 @JCCBlvu Do you know how many people work in a place that she'd be staying at. No, going outside and taking her shirt off doesn't lead to an expectation of privacy on the lawns of a company she's renting a room at. Seriously, anyone could have taken the pic and it's her fault as well as the helps.
For Goodness Sakes! They are just boobs. But, still...The French paparazzi should be ashamed for invading Kate's privacy.
I guess it's a bad thing because they are "royal boobs". Taboo to be seen. Shield thy eyes. ;-)
First Prince Harry, now Kate. Talk about The Royal Young And The Reckless.
Ah~ Kate. Â This reminds me of our nights together~ Â -James-
Palace, queen,king prince,princess,ROYALTY. What century is this?
 @sliverpickerÂ
Â
"What century is this?"
Â
Why, that would be the 21st century that like all the others believes in tradition and values. That is why they have been passed on, some of them for hundreds and most of them for thousands of years. The are a collection of the best that the world has to offer. And whether you like it or not this will not become the century where perversion and progressives realize their dream.Â
 @ByeByeBarry  @sliverpicker Hold tight to your tradition and values as they will spice up the gruel you are serving on the collection of the best princess di collector plates that the world has to offer.
 @ByeByeBarry  @sliverpicker Ah so you're against progress. What are you - 70? 80? I'm trying to figure out who would align perversion with progress.Â
I feel it is very sad that just because someone is famous that they can't have some privacy and a normal life like all the rest of us. So what if she wants to sunbath in the nude. Why do we have to know that? These people have to live like they are in cages and are there for our entertainment. It's not right. Press should have to make an appointment to photograph them and should have to have permission to publish articles and pictures about them. They deserve the same privacy as all the rest of us. Those who break the rules should be punished.
Â
This comment has been deleted
Although I certainly don't excuse it, if you're a public figure this type of thing happens often. Photos make a lot of magazines money. Â If you don't want pictures taken of your naked body, leave the clothes on in public and only unrobe in your own residence. Pretty simple.Â
Â
Harry also sounds as if he needs to grow up. Using drugs (cocaine) and having hookers (call girls) over is not keeping with the "Royal" family code of conduct. Â
Â
Personally, I'd love to the see UK do away with the whole "royal" thing. These people do nothing except take taxpayers dollars and pose for pictures. Easy money.Â
 @HallandOates "If you don't want pictures taken of your naked body, leave the clothes on in public and only unrobe in your own residence."
Â
She wasn't in public, and she WAS in a private residence ("...a private estate in Provence") So is she supposed to leave her clothes on at all times, even if she takes a shower? The editor who claims that they were  "on a terrace that was visible from the road when they were photographed" is full of it. Maybe it could be seen from a road a mile away with a telephoto lens, but this just went way too far beyond invading someone's privacy.
 @here_I_go_again  @HallandOates Apparently there was someone around to take pictures, so no it wasn't all that private. It could have been a maid for all we know. She's going to have this problem unless she goes out in the desert with only herself and her husband and then there are things like google earth where anyone on internet can hone in on her. Really, she's an idiot to think outside is not a public place no matter WHERE she is outside.
 @super Private property, especially one that large, you would expect privacy. Sadly zoom lenses are so good these days, the paparazzi can see them but there's no way the royals would have been able to see the paparazzi.
Indeed, ive been "scrutinizing" them for the past 20-minutes!
well, who"s gonna post the link? ; )-
This comment has been deleted
 @super  @Scoondog Her breasts look fantastic, are you kidding me? The picture is obviously cruddy due to how far away it was taken but those are quite a fine pair.Â
Just Google "Topless Kate".
Just well cared for celebrities. Don't know why the have such a hard time keeping their clothes on. They know the rules.
I have to agree that her privacy was invaded. It would have been different if she were on a public beach, and sunbathing topless.. but in a private garden? It is an expectation of privacy.. and it seems the media doesn't know yet, when to stop the pursuit of anyone..Â
Then again, the media is responding to people who like gossip..
She is a beautiful woman,.. even with her clothes on.. She and Prince William make a very nice couple... Royalty or not... He is fortunate to have such a beautiful person by his side, likewise she is also just as fortunate, to have such a handsome person by her side...
I do hope they do file suit for the gross misconduct of the press...
How udderly horrible for the royal family...Â
Â
Sorry about that, it had to be done.Â
The paparazzi will get their pictures, one way or the udder...
OK, so other than the fact she is the future Queen of England, who gives a rats patootey!!! If they don't want nudie shots of Kate getting out there, then she needs to keep her clothes on!!!! And really, whoever took the photos, was it necessary to even take them? Same for whoever printed them. It's simply disrespectful to Kate as the future Queen (to any woman, actually!).Â
Â
On the other hand, we've ALL seen boobies. Get a life.....................
She can never be queen, as she is not of Royal blood.
When Wills becomes King, she will be Queen. Were she a direct descendent, in line for the throne, her husband would never be called King; he would be the Queen Consort, as it is with Prince Philip, the current Queens hubby.
Â
She WILL be Queen as Diana would have had she lived, stayed married to Charles and he took the throne. However, IF Charles takes the throne, I don't know if Camilla will be Queen as she is the second wife due to divorce and produced no royal heirs.
 @Photogal58 But we love them so!
Oh the horror.
Good grief..... Looked up the photo's on Google....... There's virtually nothing nasty about the pictures! Barely could make out the side view of her breasts.... Whoopee do! Most people are mature enough in Europe to see boobies..... It amazes me how some American's react to partial nudity..... ridiculous.
 @Funky-Munky I don't think you saw all the pictures then.  Either way I agree with you, it's a none issue, no reason to get worked up about it.
@oledawg @Funky-Munky I have to disagree with you. They were on an estate of over 600 acres and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone stalked me, used a long lense to take photographs and sold them for the world to see when I was in private, it would be a very big issue to me, and to most other people as well.
 @oledawg Oh, I missed some more pictures.... Oh, well.
 @Funky-Munky The article is about the royal family reaction. I didn't see anywhere about Americans being disturbed.
 @cyclops  @Funky-Munky Read some of the posts pertaining to Kate's pictures.....
No word that this was paparazzi...they would have been on the lookout for that and if they were blurry and long distance, everyone knows the pros can see a fly from a mile away. It is truly sad that there is such obsession w/ people, famous or not. Consider how the lives of ordinary people are ruined by those who cannot seem to grasp what privacy means, upskirters, lechers, peeping toms, cyber-stalkers, you name it and people's lives are turned upside down for what?Â
I hope the Royal Family sues the bujeezus out them and countries around the world will reconsider privacy laws, rendering crap like this useless.
This comment has been deleted
@Headwrench What rack?
@northwestsurfer ok they're not huge but I expect them to be just dashing haha
I am guessing the pictures are utterly beautiful. LOL!!!!!!
"Paparazzi-ism" should be banned and prosecuted. Simply parasites. Indeed if you or I hounded another citizen the way paparazzi do we would be in jail.Â
The paparazzi just goes too far. So much of what they do, if done by the average Joe, would be considered illegal -- i.e. stalking, voyeurism, etc.Â