The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have launched legal action against the French magazine Closer over its publication of topless pictures of the duchess, Clarence House has said.
The celebrity gossip magazine printed pictures of the duchess taken during the couple's private holiday in France.
A royal spokesman said the legal proceedings had been launched in France and were for breach of privacy.
Closer's editor said the couple were "visible from the street".
"These photos are not in the least shocking. They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches," said Laurence Pieau.
She described the reaction as "a little disproportionate".
Why? Not up to much are they, a bit breastitute?
I demand pictures!!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
They are royal tits ...no visible means of support....
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
I take it there is a missing, "unlike his mum was", in that statement Jim?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
The photos are understood to have been taken using powerful, long lenses by photographers standing on a public road or footpath at a distance estimated at between 800 metres and 1.3 kilometres away.
Herald photographer Ben Rushton climbed to the top of Marks Park yesterday morning and zoomed in on Gabriella Duddy lying on her towel at the far end of the beach.
To take her picture he required camera equipment worth almost $20,000. He used a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV camera, a 600 millimetre lens and a 2x converter to double the magnification of the lens. He shot with a 1/1000th second shutter speed to steady the image, which shook under the extreme magnification. The lens was so heavy Rushton mounted it on a tripod to stop it snapping off the camera.
Photographer Ben Rushton takes a photo of Gabriella Duddy on North Bondi from St Peters park with a high-power lens. Photo: Edwina Pickles
''I felt like a sniper,'' he said.
The military reference is appropriate. Another Herald photographer, Brendan Esposito, said the industry jargon for a long-range shot like the one of the duchess was ''target acquired''.
''There's some suggestion those photos have been taken by a drone aircraft,'' Esposito said. ''That's the talk in the industry.''
Gabriella Duddy poses on North Bondi to demonstrate how the paparazzi was able to snap the topless photo of Kate Middleton. Photo: Ben Rushton
Ms Duddy, who agreed to be photographed, said she felt uneasy to think she could be captured in a clear image by a man she could not see, standing so far away.
''You think you're safe,'' said Ms Duddy, 21, who lives in Bellevue Hill. ''She [the duchess] probably thought she was safe and private.''
The British press has branded the editors of Closer as ''grinning perverts'' while the photographer has been labelled a ''peeping Tom''.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
