Royal Couple Sues Over Photos of Topless Duchess

By ALAN COWELL and JOHN F. BURNS

LONDON — In a dispute evoking the furor that swirled around press coverage of Diana, Princess of Wales, Britain’s royal household began legal proceedings on Friday against a French magazine that published paparazzi photographs of the former Kate Middleton, the wife of Diana’s elder son, Prince William, sunbathing topless at a secluded villa in Provence.

‘‘St James’s Palace confirms that legal proceedings for breach of privacy have been commenced today in France by the duke and duchess of Cambridge against the publishers of Closer Magazine France,’’ the couple’s office said in a statement.

Coming after the publication of photographs last month of Prince Harry, Diana’s younger son, cavorting naked at a party in Las Vegas, the appearance of the images of the former Miss Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge, in the French edition of Closer magazine raised profound questions about the limits of royal privacy and threatened to revive old strains with the press.

Before his marriage to Miss Middleton last year, Prince William repeatedly indicated that he wished to shield her from what the royal family depicted as the hounding of Diana before, throughout and after her doomed marriage to his father, Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne.

At the moment of her death in a car crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997, photographers were in pursuit of Diana. “William and Harry lost their mother in circumstances in France where the press, at that time, were completely out of control,” Michael Ellis, a Conservative lawmaker, told Sky News. “This will bring back painful memories.”

Another statement from the couple’s office called the publication of the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge “grotesque and totally unjustifiable,” comparing the images to “the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to the duke and duchess for being so.”

The images of the duchess were not, initially at least, published in Britain, where newspaper standards and practices have come under an unaccustomed and fierce spotlight after the phone hacking scandal that has focused primarily on Rupert Murdoch’s British newspapers.

A Web version of the cover of Closer hid its content behind a thick black bar. In France, the magazine went on sale with a cover showing the topless duchess, a headline in English saying “Oh my God!” and, in French, “The Photos That Will Go Around the World.” Inside, several grainy photographs showed the royal couple sunbathing beside a swimming pool.

Referring to the duke and duchess, their office said Friday that “their royal highnesses have been hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and unjustifiable manner.”

“Their royal highnesses had every expectation of privacy in the remote house. It is unthinkable that anyone should take such photographs, let alone publish them. Officials acting on behalf of their royal highnesses are consulting with lawyers to consider what options may be available to the duke and duchess.”

The images emerged as the couple traveled in the Far East as part of a tour observing the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II’s 60-year rule. Their schedule for Friday included a visit to a mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The photographs were taken before the official tour, while the couple vacationed in Provence, in southern France, last week at what British media reports described as a chateau owned by Lord Linley, the Queen’s nephew.

The villa complex, built around a 19th-century hunting lodge called the Château d’Autet, is set in 640 acres of woodland and can house up to 17 people at four main properties. Apart from being a vacation retreat for Lord Linley and his family, it has also been rented out for thousands of dollars a week, offering guests a variety of recreational options including a tennis court, a swimming pool and an area to play the French bowling game called boule. A promotional Web site extolled its unique “peace and quiet.”

Prime Minister David Cameron’s office joined broad condemnation of the publication of the photographs, saying that Mr. Cameron “echoed the anger and sadness of the palace” and that the duke and duchess “are entitled to their privacy.”

Condemnation of the publication spread across the British news media, sometimes evoking old rivalries between France and Britain. A headline in the tabloid The Daily Mirror referred to the French edition of Closer as a “sneaky French mag.”

Diana’s friend Rosa Monckton said in a message on Twitter: “I’m on a rant and very angry having seen at firsthand the emotional price paid for press intrusion. My last word on this: leave Kate alone.”

According to the newspaper The Evening Standard, photographers, including local cameramen not linked to international paparazzi, said the couple were visible from a nearby road as they relaxed on a terrace beside a pool. Prince William appeared to be reading an iPad as Kate rubbed sun cream into his back, the newspaper said.

Closer magazine insisted there had been no breach of safety or security, according to The Evening Standard. “If two public figures chose to strip off in full view of a public road, then they can expect to be pictured, and they were,” an unidentified person at Closer magazine was quoted as saying.

The editor of Closer magazine in France, Laurence Pieau, defended the decision to publish the pictures. “For me those pictures are not shocking,” Ms. Pieau told The Associated Press. “Just a beautiful couple, an in-love couple in the south of France. Kate is the girl next door.”

Since the couple married, the British press has generally fallen in with informal requests by their office for privacy, although The Sun, a Murdoch-owned tabloid, defied a royal request to refrain from publishing the photographs of the naked Prince Harry after they appeared elsewhere.

The British edition of Closer magazine said on Friday that it had not been offered the photographs of the duchess and would not anyhow publish them.

But overseas outlets have been less cooperative with the royal household, publishing photographs of the couple and their puppy despite efforts by royal officials to discourage coverage of the dog.

According to British media, there have been Internet photographs of the couple walking the dog on a beach in Anglesey, near a Royal Air Force base where Prince William is a search and rescue helicopter pilot. An Australian magazine has also printed pictures of the couple on their honeymoon in Seychelles.

French legal experts who work on privacy issues said the couple could have a strong case under French privacy laws if they sue in a French court. Jean-Frédéric Gaultier, a parter in the law firm Olswang, told the BBC that the couple could sue for an injunction to force Closer to withdraw the issue carrying the photographs, and to prevent any sale of the photographs to other publications. They could also sue for damages, he said.

Mr. Gaultier said that there had been a longstanding wariness in France toward media invasion of the private lives of public figures, but that this had eased since the sex scandal that enveloped Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former French finance minister and onetime head of the International Monetary Fund. 

“Things are changing,” he said, but not to the degree that French courts would accept paparazzi using “long-lens photography” to intrude into the private lives of the duke and duchess. “The overwhelming public interest in this case is not obvious,” he said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 14, 2012

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Laurence Pieau, the editor of the French edition of the magazine Closer, as a man. Ms. Pieau is a woman.

‘Walking Dead’: Another episode, Shane now a Zombie

Those were the words Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) spoke at the beginning of this episode of “Walking Dead” during his eulogy for the dearly departed Dale Horvath. It was Rick’s big “Live together, die alone” moment, his opportunity to step up, prove his leadership skills and unite the group.

Less than an hour later, his words were proven false. Rick and his posse of dysfunctional, perpetually bickering zombie-pocalypse survivors are still as cracked and fractured as ever. And as a result, another key character is dead.

Warning: spoilers ahead. (But really, not that spoilery since I think we all pretty much knew this person was going to bite it this season.)

Shane Walsh, you magnificent, stubborn, Otis-killing, Lori Grimes-obsessed, pseudo-bald bastard — you had to go and get stabbed and then shot by the Grimes boys, didn’t you?

You had to because the “Walking Dead” writers promised major developments in this season’s final episodes, and major developments in a show about a horrifying dystopian society usually mean casualties. You had to because Lori Grimes made that speech about how much she appreciated what you had done for her, which was the first red flag that you were so not going to live through this episode. You had to because Jon Bernthal, the actor who plays you, has signed on to Frank Darabont’s upcoming pilot, “L.A. Noir,” which was kind of a clue that Shane might not survive to hook up with Andrea another day.

Still, it’s a little sad. Shane stood out as perhaps the most compelling conflicted character in season two. It was never clear what Shane might do next, and on a show where everyone has had the same argument at least five times, a dose of unpredictability was welcome.

Naturally, the circumstances surrounding Shane’s death — which occurred after Shane got rid of Randall and involved a stabbing, a zombie-fication and a shooting committed by a preteen — have raised some questions, as did a few other things in this episode. Let’s address some of those now, with further conversation to follow in the comments section.

Why did Shane turn into a zombie?

This was definitely confusing. I watched the ending three times to try to figure this out and I’m still flummoxed.

After Rick stabbed Shane, there were quick flashes of zombies growling and feasting on something. But we never saw Shane get attacked. It appeared that Rick was standing over his body the whole time, and that the walkers didn’t approach en masse until after Shane turned.

So when and how did this happen? Did Shane have traces of the infection in his bloodstream that were activated once he died? If so, that flies in the face of zombie rules and regulations as we know them. Is it possible Rick was in some sort of trance and that Shane was bitten during that time, while Rick remained unscathed? Because that makes no sense at all.

I am eager to hear theories on this one because honestly, I’m stumped.

Update: As many smart commenters below have noted, it seems fair to assume that the virus that causes zombie-fication is indeed airborn and was already in Shane’s bloodstream when Rick stabbed him. (I failed to note that Randall also zombiefied after Shane broke his neck, another clue that the walkers-must-be-bitten-to-become-walkers rule is actually off the mark.)

The “Walking Dead” writers have not explicitly explained the details yet, but that basic premise — that everyone is already infected — makes sense. And it raises the stakes enormously if anyone who dies immediately adds to the walker population. Thank to all the readers who astutely processed all this. (Also — hey, Andrea, let’s not enable anyone else’s suicidal tendencies anymore, um-kay?)

What was Shane’s plan — did he want to kill Rick or force Rick to kill him?

Shane was clearly goading his old buddy with some highly charged language during their stand-off. (“Lori and Carl, they’ll get over you. They’ve done it before” — I mean, that was cold. Like, buried-in-the-back-of-the-freezer cold.)

But if he had genuinely wanted Rick dead, he could have offed him quickly and easily, the same way he did Randall. Maybe Shane couldn’t muster the courage to kill his friend so quickly. Or maybe Shane just wanted Rick to kill him and put him out of his own guilt and misery, so he was trying to fire him up to commit the act. Personally, I am leaning toward the former — he wanted to blast Rick in the back of the head before he knew where the bullet came from, but doing so was just too hard.

Who is really responsible for killing Shane?

Technically, it was Rick since he stabbed first. But Carl shot Shane in the head after he turned walker, something he might not have done if both his father and Shane hadn’t encouraged him to hold on to Daryl’s gun. So really, this was a joint effort. Not sure how that would be explained in a court of law. (It’s not double murder since only one person died ... so maybe it’s murder to the second power?) Fortunately, since the “Walking Deaders” are living in a time of total anarchy, there probably won’t be a criminal trial in this matter.

Should we assume now that Rick’s transformation into Shane is essentially complete?

I believe so, given the fact that he killed his best friend in cold blood. (Yes, he screamed and cried and felt bad, but that doesn’t change it.). Plus, he gave his son what qualifies as the harshest father-son pep talk in TV history. “People are going to die,” he told Carl. “I’m going to die. Your mom — there’s no way you can ever be ready for it … the best we can do is avoid it as long as we can.” (This, by the way, is the exact same speech Howard Cunningham gave to Richie Cunningham in the rarely seen zombie episode of “Happy Days.”)

Rick’s better angels, to borrow the title of the episode, have become ruthless realists.

Why didn’t Rick and Carl see the thousands upon thousands of zombies heading toward them at the end of the episode?

In the last shot, an upward pan revealed that literally every zombie in the state of Georgia, as well as several from the Carolinas, are heading toward the farm. They were feet away from the Grimes guys. But they didn’t seem to realize how much potential they had to become walker meat in approximately, oh, ten seconds. How is this possible? Can this be explained by using the same flawed logic that presumably explains Shane’s zombieness?

Did Lori Grimes know Shane was going to die?

Per the conversation she had previously with Shane, it sure seemed like she thought it would be wise to have a “final talk.” But I don’t think she knew a stand-off was imminent. I do think she may have had a premonition that her former lover wasn’t long for this world. We women tend to have sixth senses about these things. Although you’d think her psychic powers would help her keep better tabs on her kid’s whereabouts.

Speaking of which, did anyone else laugh out loud earlier in the episode, when Shane asked Carl: ‘What are you doing wandering around by yourself?’

I was so hoping Carl would say, “I’m doing what I do in every single episode. Seriously, don’t you pay any attention to how negligent my parents are?”

This has nothing to do with Shane, but: Wasn’t it nice to see T-Dogg actually doing something (sort of) in this episode?

They finally gave him lines and everything! He even got to make a nice, subtle reference to the Governor, a character who shall rear his head in season three. Truly a banner week for T-Dogg.

Do you think Shane’s demise is good or bad for the future of ‘Walking Dead’?

Well, the narrative in the comic moved ahead just fine after Shane’s death. And there was only so long the writers could drag out the triangular situation between him, Lori and Rick. Plus presumably, Rick is going to go to even darker places after offing his friend, which could be interesting.

But as noted earlier, Shane’s starkly black and white approach to handling life’s major obstacles will be profoundly missed. From now on, we’ll just have to watch “Walking Dead” while always asking ourselves WWSWD — What would Shane Walsh do?

By Jen Chaney | 10:24 PM ET, 03/11/2012