The criminal trial in France regarding the topless photos taken of the Duchess of Cambridge while on holiday in 2012 has begun.
The Duke of Cambridge submitted a written statement as part of the legal proceedings in which he called the photos “particularly shocking” and said that they “made it all the more painful” bringing back memories of the battle with the paparazzi that his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales faced. It was read out by the attorney, Jean Veil, during the proceedings. He also stated that he and his wife had been looking forward to “enjoying their privacy” while on their trip.
His Royal Highness said, “In September 2012, my wife and I thought that we could go to France for a few days in a secluded villa owned by a member of my family, and thus enjoy our privacy.
“We know France and the French, and we know that they are, in principle, respectful of private life, including that of their guests.
“The clandestine way in which these photographs were taken was particularly shocking to us as it breached our privacy.”
Mr Veil added that the publication of the photos resulted in significant damage to the entire British Royal Family.
Six people are on trial in the Paris suburb of Nanterre which includes three photographers associated with the French magazines Closer and La Provence. Additionally, Closer’s editor, Laurence Piau is also on trial for the invasion of privacy.
The Duke and Duchess have demanded £1.3 million from Closer which published the images on the cover with the headline “Oh My God!” five years ago. They are also demanding £42,000 from La Provence for the publication of pictures; the magazine chose to not publish the photographs of the Duchess topless.
The attorney said the damages requested represented “Anglo-Saxon level of punitive damages.”
At the time the pictures were taken, Their Royal Highnesses were at the private chateau in Provence. The chateau was owned by David Armstrong-Jones, the now 2nd Earl of Snowdon. He is the son of the late Princess Margaret and nephew to The Queen.
Clever lawyer invoking Diana’s memory. So like a lawyer. Don’t recall Diana ever in this particular pickle. Pity Wills couldn’t have made a personal appearance. A tear in his eye might have significantly jacked up damages. Must need the money for his Kensington basement.
Difficult to imagine the “significant damage” this shoddiness has had on “the entire royal family”. One recalls Sarah, Duchess of York, bare-breasted for a toe sucking. Now this.
Having never placed herself in such a situation, HM had no fear of expose’.
When one is an international star whose clothes set trends and are all the rage, one must simply assume peeping eyes, human and electronic, lurk everywhere. A downside of fame and fortune.
Clever!
Absolutely–this kind of intrusion goes hand-in-hand with celebrity. When we have an opportunity to see how photographers can earn thousands of dollars/euros/pounds (sometimes a million for one spicy photo) for a successful invasive shot, we can see how it’s nearly impossible for paparazzi to resist the potential photographic opportunity of a lifetime. It’s an unfair fact of reality, but those in the limelight must be aware of, and even expect, these intrusions. Call it, if you will, one of the costs of their fame and fortune.
I recall the days of the then future Duke of York and Koo Stark. They were enjoying a “private” weekend somewhere in the Caribbean. Of course paparazzi were lurking everywhere. Andrew came to a window in the buff for a stretch which was dutifully recorded on film. Another one of those pics that would greet HM at breakfast from the days of Yorks. The whole thing reminded me of a hilarious scene from Monty Python’s, “The Life of Brian. The tabloids were respectful enough to keep the Royal privates just that: private. Other than that, everything. Fortunately for the then very young prince, he was still in the RN and in tip top condition.
Willy always playing the Diana card – people are right: he really is an arrogant, self-absorbed #$##
Personally, I think that everyone is allowed their privacy, so what if Diana was mentioned – if it wasn’t for the French she might be alive today to see her grandchildren.
If it wasn’t for her being a manipulative self-absorbed twit who got into a car with a drunk driver, she would be here. Not to see her grandchildren – she doesn’t have any natural ones to date.
What on earth do you mean by Diana not having “any natural ones to date!?!?” Is this the newest scurrilous topic trolls are using to tear down the heir to the throne and his young family?
It’s called the facts, sugar. Sorry that the truth hurts, now get a life, viper?