world

British royals sue French magazine over topless pics of Kate

38 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

for one, i ain't sad. not at all.. besides, why be ashamed of something so natural...?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The sad part is that so many people are so fascinated to see her breasts. And so intrude on her privacy. for waht exactly? Money.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Nothing to see here. Move along...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ugh. I'm not sure what's more disgusting, if it is true or if it isn't. If it is true, it just shows what a gross invasion of privacy the media has, how obsessed they are with sexualizing strong, mature women. If it's false, it says the same, except that they're willing to lie to get what they want.

Seriously disgusted, and not at Kate.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I for one will certainly not be searching for images on Google, and I hope you will not either.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's just boobs.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

These French vulture paparazzi have no respect for anyone or anything. They couldn't leave this young couple on holiday alone. Apparently the photos were offered to British newspapers who refused them. I find the publication of the pictures by Closer disgustingly low and repulsive. It is sad there is a culture out there that thrives on filth.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

When, where, and with what will this type of thing end? Especially heinous if they turn out to be fabricated. What the paparazzi won't do for a buck (or, I guess, a pound) these days! Quite shameless!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

After all, they are humans too living in the make belief world like us. they must be extra careful for the part they have chosen to play. Sorry you cannot have the best of both worlds.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Poor Kate and William have my sympathies. But they ought to keep in mind that along with the many benefits that come with their positions there are also negative aspects, paparazzi being one of them. Being a high-profile couple is not easy. Unfortunately, Kate and William will have to accept that they are onstage 24/7.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Photos or it didn't happen. ;)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I'd take the family sharpshooter along on the next vacation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow I never knew that she had breasts. Stop the presses.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Peeping Tom media. They go to low extremes to make money. I would not buy their magazines. Pure invasion of privacy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"topless Kate"

I can't believe the images I was bombarded with when I googled this, lol.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As much as I hate paparazzi, the more of a public figure you are, the less privacy you'll enjoy. Want to be a princess but don't want your breasts to be seen by al? Don't bear them outside of the 4 walls of your room.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

“These photos are not in the least shocking. They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches,”

Yeah, so show the millions of young women you see on the beaches... oh wait, that wouldn't get the paparazzi and the magazines they sell to the millions of dollars they want. Seriously, someone needs to make an anti-paparazzi magazine and have people do the same thing to them as they do to everyone else. A lot of them might not care, but start involving their families and the family history, private moments, spats, facts, and see how quickly they start complaining about privacy.

Hell, it'd be nice to see the young woman in the buff, but if I am asked not to look I would respect it. Same with Harry -- while I'm not at all eager to see his naked pics, if he has qualms about them they should not be made public simply for whom he is -- both he and she share the same parts as every other male and female on the planet; if you want to see naked like that, go for porn. A princely manhood or princess set of boobs will not differ from that of your spouse by very much.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ms. Middleton married into this family for status, prestige and fame. The paparazzi are the price she pays. The tax to pay for this pantomime is the is the price I pay. My heart bleeds.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They take the pictures because they know the public will buy their papers.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

if there's no pic here in JT, it didn't happen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

typical french press>>

1 ( +1 / -0 )

These photos are a terrible invasion of privacy, taken on a private vacation at a relative's house where they thought they could go to get away - I really hope they sue. Everybody deserves to be protected from the press.

Oh, I do hope that Jimizo's significant other never finds out that he's only with her for the money. I hope nobody reveals to his parents that he only visits them to make sure of an inheritance. And for heavens sakes don't tell the kids they are not loved, just reared to assure full-time geriatric care.

I mean, there can't be any love there, obviously.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I thought the media was supposed to call her Kathrine from now on?

If you don't want the pictures out there, don't put yourself in the position to have them taken? She's a princess and should have known that any "right" to freedom pretty much left the day that ring went on her finger. Does that mean I support the paps? Heck no but we all know they are scum and will do anything for a pic. Don't give them that opportunity.

Or... get over the topless thing and ignore it. All women have breast so not really much of a story from where I sit. It is the reaction from the royals that is causing this to be a story.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

What's this thing the royals have with taking their kit off? First we had Fergie topless, then Harry letting it all hang out, now Katey.

I agree with tmarie - don't want your photo taken without yer top on - keep your top on. It's not rocket science.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Maria I thought you were building up to use 'fairytale'. By the way, neither I nor my 'significant other' are from affluent backgrounds and stand to inherit very little. You may have no problem with the ridiculous and immoral concept of hereditary privilege and taxing working people to pay for it, but my wife and I certainly do. WE also question the motives of anyone prepared to live this bizarre and unnatural lifestyle. This isn't a Disney movie, it's an affront to democracy and an outrageous abuse of tax.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Jimizo - Thank you for your reply. It has little to nothing to do with this topic, which is one of privacy, and should those in the public eye have less right to it than any of us on this site (for example).

I noted your comment:

Ms. Middleton married into this family for status, prestige and fame.

and considered it rather speculative, quite bitchy, and a bit sexist. Most people know the hazards of marrying into the royal family - Ms Middleton (as was) would have been very aware of it after a 10?year relationship with William. She can't have weighed the pros and cons and decided she loved him enough to risk it, can she? The wealthy and famous don't have love?

If I was magic and could be in several places at once, climbed up a tree and onto the top of a roof and waited, I bet I could get some nice candids of most of you in the altogether. Your significant others, too. Quick! Shut your curtains, now and forever, and forget about changing rooms and public baths!

What, I've no right? You shouldn't have been naked, then.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Maria You are missing my point and wandering off into Disney/Pretty Woman territory. The whole royal/celeb culture which she married into is just as odious as the publishers of this magazine. They deserve each other. The point is nobody WOULD take photos of me naked because I am not part of this grotesque pantomime. If you live in the sewer, expect to see the odd rat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are you calling her Ms. Middleton when she's clearly married and no longer goes by Middleton?

Zichi, indeed it is but the royals - and everyone else - knows this is now "normal" in terms of distance. Again, if you don't want the world to see your buts, cover them up. That or don't make a deal about it when they are flashed all over the world.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I agree that Katie should sue. The low quality of the photos don't do justice to the high quality of her assets. Clear misrepresentation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cleo, Tmarie

if you were photographed in the shower would you adopt the same policy or would you assume that there are limits?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Heda Madness - The shower or bedroom is one thing, a poolside, hotel party or beach is quite another. So yes, there are limits. If the door is closed and you're on your own....no photos. If you're outside or in a public place....remember those long lenses are pretty good and getting better.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No respect for privacy, yes. But, it's just the human body and with the good ol' Internet we're all getting pretty used to seeing a lot of nudity. I feel bad for the paper and photographer. They are now in the crosshairs of the royals. Bye bye.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Royalty or not, I believe they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I do believe that Will and Kate have learned a most valuable lesson in a very cruel way.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

These paparazzi are as sneaky and perverted as the guys who take upskirt photos on subways and airplanes - and elsewhere.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Agree with Cleo. I don't want people I don't know seeing my bits which is why I don't walk around nude. At home with the doors closed is another story - more so in this heat!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites