Notwithstanding Prince Harry’s penchant for semi-public nudity, the British Royal family takes their privacy very seriously. You are all too young to remember when the French paparazzi chased Princess Diana’s car, leading to the crash that killed her. But after that the British became fairly intolerant of the media intruding on their Royals, regardless of their very public lives. Well, as most of you have already heard, the French have struck again, and took and published several pictures of Princess Kate sunbathing topless with her husband, Prince William.
Word is now that the Royals have already sued the French magazine that published the pictures for the tort of invasion of privacy. They have also submitted a criminal complaint against the photographer, although the prosecutor gets to decide whether to bring criminal charges. So, back to the civil claim. The Royals want an injunction requiring the magazine to stop publishing the photos, and money damages for the invasion of privacy. I don’t know much about French law (OK, I know nothing about French law, except that you don’t have to pasteurize cheese, which leads to all sorts of yummy cheeses being sold there that you can’t get in the U.S.), but the NY Times says that a French lawyer thinks the Royals have a good case. In the United States we sometimes call this tort “intrusion” (see p. 144 of your book). Basically, if a reasonable person would find the intrusion offensive, the plaintiff wins.
Which raises the question – should the Royal family get “Royal Treatment”? In other words, does it matter that Princess Kate should expect to be photographed, so perhaps should keep her clothes on?
This case is full of intrigue, long-standing resentment between the French and English, lingering effects of the wiretapping scandal at British newspapers, and, well, Royals. But at the end of the day the Royals will have to prove their case like any other plaintiff in a civil litigation.
7 Comments
rovirosa posted on September 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Even if they were not Royal, they would sue for invasion of privacy anyway. I could only assume Princess Kate was tanning in a private area where she thought it was safe to do so.
As a Royal family, however, they should be extra cautious especially since this has happened before.
Rachel Spooner posted on September 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
An update: they won the injunction. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/18/william-kate-injunction-topless-photos
KP posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm
One one hand the Royal family members know well that someone is always following them to get some “great pictures” to be printed the next morning. So obviously it is not the best move to be naked anywhere in the public. On the other hand it doesnt mean I think it is fair that the photograph just takes a picture and publish it. Overall tough private life of the Royal family.
Hilary Bokoff posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm
The NY Times article said that the Royal couple was in view from the road. Generally my philosophy is if you’re doing something in public, you should expect people to know about it, see it, or find out later (easy these days with Facebook and cameras on our cell phones). And you should be even more careful of what you’re doing when you’re someone as famous as Kate Middleton – you know you’re a hot topic for the media. However, this is a little different because it was such an extreme circumstance and they clearly thought they were in a private area. As the article said, the photographer “invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and unjustifiable manner.” I think it’s also interesting that the article brings up what happened to William’s mother and relates the two, quoting Michael Ellis saying, “This will bring back painful memories.” The two together caused a lot of emotional distress to the family and I’m happy they won the injunction.
Samantha Moravec posted on September 20, 2012 at 12:13 pm
I think a lot of people will look at this situation as if Pricess Kate is an actual celebrity. Though it’s true that she is across the covers of hundreds of tabloids across the world, the fact is that she is a royal, not a celebrity. Being a member of the royal family, therefore, makes her more of a political figure than a celbrity. On the one hand, it is true that she should’ve exercised more discression, surely knowing that there was a good chance she was being observed. However, how do you think the world would respond if Michelle Obama was caught sunbathing nude? I can’t even fathom the amount of press that would come from this, as well as the amount of anger from the White House. With this perspective in mind, it is easy to see that there is a definite line between celebrity and political figure, even if it happens to be a very thin line.
Carolina Navarrete posted on September 23, 2012 at 12:26 am
I think this is a very difficult case because even though in trial they had to be considered as any other plaintiffs in civil litigation, I still think they had a “Royal Treatment.” Although I do agree with the verdict, Kate should always be very careful because there will always be photographers following her everywhere she goes.
Kanishk Pahuja posted on September 24, 2012 at 12:41 am
While this is an invasion of privacy, I think that the royal family should expect to be photographed at any time and be aware that they are in the public eye.