'Saddened' UK royals consider legal action over topless pictures of Catherine

[SkinInsite]

(CNN) -- A French magazine has stoked controversy by publishing pictures of Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, topless while on vacation with Prince William, prompting the threat of legal action from palace officials over what they blasted as a "grotesque" invasion of privacy.

The pictures were taken while the couple was staying at a private chateau in Provence, in southern France, according to Closer magazine.

A St. James's Palace spokesman said the pair were "hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner.

"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.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/world/europe/uk-royals-photo-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Link to NSFW photos

[twa]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

[renaissance]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

[twa]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

.

I'm pretty sure that is the major appeal of them.....not like it is hard to find plenty of better quality pics(no insult intended towards the Royal peaks)

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

So NOBODY in the public eye deserves any privacy?

Taking the pics in the first place is bad enough. To then publish them for sensationalism is beyond, to quote the Duke and Dutchess, a 'grotesque and unjustifiable invasion of privacy.'

Hail.

[Duckus]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

So ****ing creepy. I have no idea why people want to see these so bad.

[SkinInsite]

Nobody will bat an eye if this was someone like Lindsay Lohan instead of the future Queen.

[@DCGoldPants]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

[Corcaigh]

A St. James's Palace spokesman said the pair were ...

Wait, what pair is he talking about?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

Classic "blame the victim". Love it. twa you are nothing if not consistent.

I once worked with a guy who blamed an 80 year old lady because a couple of kids stole her bike. :doh:

[Destino]

Stalkers with telescopes for cameras shouldn't be considered acceptable simply because they are working for the press. It's a shame they can't do more than simply sue the paper. Those photos are now on the web and no one can ever remove them.

[Corcaigh]

Get your souvenir of this important occasion. The 'Kate Middleton Topless' Commemorative Plate.

The world was enthralled on 14 September 2012, when a French magazine published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.

And now, this historic moment has been captured forever - on Huffington Post UK Comedy's special commemorative plate.

• Limited edition - only available in France
  
• Can only be viewed through a long lens
  
• Buy two, get a commemorative 'Prince Harry Naked In Las Vegas' plate FREE
  

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/14/kate-middleton-topless-spoof-news_n_1883153.html

[Special K]

How are there not laws against "peeping Tom"-like paparazzi?

I feel really badly for Kate, she is a classy woman who has brought an air of freshness to the monarchy. I'm sure she's mortified

[skinsfan07]

wtf did the person take those pics with? A potatoe?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

[ixcuincle]

A year after the Scarlett Johannsen pics leaked

What a hilarious coincidence

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 10:39 AM ----------

Bah it's all blurry

CAn't see clearly

Boo

[twa]

So NOBODY in the public eye deserves any privacy?

Not when in the public eye obviously.....maybe she should wear a burka :pfft:

If the photographer is trespassing I fully support stringing him up,but if she was visible from a place he had a right to be they share the responsibility.

I agree with Buford

[ixcuincle]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

This reminds me of the European topless beach in EuroTrip. :|

[@DCGoldPants]

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

I totally see it in this situation. I think its scumback TMZ tabloid BS. My point is that if nobody cared about stuff like this, then hiding in the bushes to get it wouldn't get the $$ from the tabloid is does now. People are entitled to their privacy and this was f'd up.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I totally see it in this situation. I think its scumback TMZ tabloid BS. My point is that if nobody cared about stuff like this, then hiding in the bushes to get it wouldn't get the $$ from the tabloid is does now. People are entitled to their privacy and this was f'd up.

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for jumping.

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not when in the public eye obviously.....maybe she should wear a burka :pfft:

If the photographer is trespassing I fully support stringing him up,but if she was visible from a place he had a right to be they share the responsibility.

I agree with Buford

Easy to say when you're not the one in the photos.

[@DCGoldPants]

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for jumping.

Hail.

Cripes. My reply was filled with typos. Sorry.

[twa]

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

The difference being since they are rich and famous they are entitled to more privacy since they can afford it?

I would be fine with forbidding publishing pics w/o consent, but that is not the way it works.

[killerbee99]

Meh, he was putting some lotion on her "butt" and "breasts" , BFD, you know you take a chance when you do stuff in this day and age, especially being royalty. Oh, well, now that everyone has seen the goods, maybe it will blow over, as long as they don't sue. Then it stays in court for months dragging the whole thing into public view for another couple of months.

[twa]

Easy to say when you're not the one in the photos.

Nudity is not a issue to me

besides it might take the heat off Harry .