Prince William and Kate looking for £1.3m in damages for topless photos

Famous or not, a breach of privacy is a violation

Picture this scene. You’re on holiday, you’re in what you think is a totally secluded terrace of a private home and you decide to sunbathe topless.

Yes, it all sounds pretty legitimate to us, too.

Now, imagine that someone decides to use a long camera lens to violate that guaranteed feeling of privacy?

While headlines are obsessing over the £1.3m in damages and compensation that Prince William and Kate Middleton are after in the court case from the photographers and editors who published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, aren’t we all forgetting the pricelessness that is privacy?

Back in 2012, the royal couple holidayed at a South of France chateau currently owned by the Queen’s nephew Viscount Linley once (and once owned by Princess Margaret) when the invasive photos were taken. Published in the French magazine Closer and in La Provence newspaper, the pair began legal proceedings to stop any publications printing further photos.

Prince William released a statement via their lawyer Jean Veil saying: ‘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 photographers are currently facing charges of invasion of privacy while the editors and publishers are facing issues of complicity. When the photos were published in the press, and subsequently went viral online, St James’s Palace stated that it was ‘reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales‘.

The verdict from the court case will be announced on July 4th by judge Florence Lasserre-Jeannin in Nanterre, Paris and we hope that this finally makes the point that a breach of privacy is a breach of privacy, whether you’re famous or not.

Reading now

Popular