The Princess and Her Privacy

Well, at least they did until this week. You would have thought being Princess, and being the future Queen of England, you wouldn't have nude photographs of yourself passed around the Internet for everyone to ejaculate over. For example, when our current Queen was just a Princess Royal, were nude photographs of her circulated? No. How about the Duke of Edinburgh? Did we have pictures of him naked, with only his cupped hands to protect his manhood. No. Or how about Prince Charles and Camilla? Well, thankfully not.

When the Queen was in her twenties and courting Phillip, the possibility of the paparazzi hounding them was unthinkable. In fact, photographers were not even called by the now derogatory term 'paparazzi'; they were just called ‘photographers’. Now, when the young Royal couple go anywhere in the World, they are followed by photographers and journalists. They are then kept in designated pens from which they are allowed to watch Prince William and Princess Kate collect flowers from young children, as they smile continuingly.

Due to the new generation of celebrity, and in a way of trying to make them seem like normal people, we now hear and see them referred to as 'Wills and Kate' by the media. I remember their wedding all too well, like most people, and I think of how happy the country was. How we once again loved the Royal family since the departure of our dear Diana. That is long gone now, and now every week we seem to prod the belly of Kate and ask:

'Are you pregnant yet dear?'

'You sure are glowing!'

'You seem very happy with the weight you've put on...'

'That top you're wearing is awfully baggy; trying to hide a protuberance?'

'Is that water in the wine glass? Is there a particular reason why it's not an alcoholic drink?'

How long before we get a celebrity magazine looking for tampons or liners in their bins every month just to check that she's still have her periods, just to get the scoop first?

That sounds unthinkable; doesn't it? Well, I'm not so sure after the amount of Royal bum, scrotum and nipple we have seen the past few weeks.

Now, the World is talking about one thing - the topless pictures of Princess Kate, and they're all saying, as the French version of 'Closer' headlined it, 'Oh My God!' And obviously, as a Royal Spokesman said, the Duke and Duchess "have been hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner".

Why Not Publish Them In The UK?

One might wonder why these photographs have not been published in the UK, and why there are no plans for any publication to show the pictures. Well, it's simple - the British press would be breaching the confidences they share with the palace regarding news stories of any member of the Royal family. Another reason is that it is not in the public interest of the British people to see the photographs, what with most people condemning the actions of the French publication.

An additional reason I see for them to not publish the images is because we now live in a post-Leveson time, and to publish the pictures would break privacy rules, which papers are no-longer confident to do, and again cause negative backlash against a still-wounded profession.

And finally, any publication to print them in the UK would more than likely be reported to the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), which regulates the press by a set of strict of rules which should be abided by. On the subject of privacy, it states that "It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent."

How is the French law different from that of Britain?

After saying that however, one must look as to why the French publication of 'Closer' magazine has chosen to show images, seeing as the French have a much more advanced, and stricter, set of privacy rules than in Britain. Put simply, it's all about money. The money the magazine is set to make from the photographs, is probably greater than the fine they will given for breaking the privacy laws. This is becoming increasingly common in France of late, with the fine gradually being reduced due to them becoming common place. Publishers now are now willing to accept a small fee.

Before printing a story or pictures which are about the private lives of people in the limelight, in France they have to receive permission from the person they are about or of. Then, if the person in question doesn't want the story to come out, they have the chance to take out an injunction. That is how the French privacy law has been broken in this case, because permission was not granted. Due to these laws, it is surprising that it should be a French publication to first publish the pictures of the Duchess topless.

Why Was No Legal Action Taken Against The Photographs of Prince Harry Naked?

Firstly, it isn't because he is ginger, and rumoured to potentially not be the son of Prince Charles, but instead because of the circumstances in which the photographs were taken. They were taken in a Las Vegas hotel, at a party with the public. Whereas the photographs of Kate were taken while she was on private property and enjoying a private holiday with her husband.

The editor of the 'Closer' magazine in France, Laurence Pieau, was quick to defend her action, in stating that they "were visible from the street". This may be true, until your realise the pictures were taken from a pathway over half a mile away and taken with a zoom lens which still made the images particularly blurred. Stop me if I'm wrong, but using a zoom lens to take a blurry image doesn't exactly scream 'visible', does it.

Exhibit A: An image from The Daily Mail which 'sort of' demonstrates how far the path is from their holiday chateau.

The editor's defense continues by saying "These photos are not in the least shocking. They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches." Again, true, but she wasn't on a beach like the millions of other women, she was on a private holiday, thus making the point mute. Also, it just reeks of the French stereotypical opinion of sex: Imagining this same woman saying in a French accent, 'but she has a beautiful body. She should want everyone to see it'. It has the same effect.

Since Friday, these are being reproduced, with the Irish Daily Star printing these images in their newspaper, and talk of an Italian magazine, obviously one owned by Berlusconi to fulfil another foreign stereotype, printing the pictures. The editor of the Irish Daily Star has also defended his action, which were obviously fuelled by no other reason that out of greed, in saying "The duchess would be no different to any other celeb pics we would get in, for example Rihanna or Lady Gaga." Mike O'Kane continued by saying that he printed the images as "service to our readers".

Unfortunately from Mr O’Kane, that decision has proved costly, as the BBC report that ‘Richard Desmond, chairman of co-owner Northern and Shell, said he was taking "immediate steps" to close down the joint venture which runs the paper.’

This now becomes a point of whether or not they are in the public interest, to which the definition of has been heavily discussed to great, tedious lengths at the Leveson inquiry. One would point that these are not in the public interest particularly; the public just want a nosey. A woman sat on a balcony with her top off is not in the public interest. A woman causing a danger is in the public interest.

Overall, I think this fiasco has, surprisingly, shown the British media in a good light, and even shows the progress made regarding privacy in the 15 years since Diana's death. It also shows how, even after the French privacy law changes and the French media causing the death of Diana, how repugnant their media can still be.

I think back to a Guardian event I went to last year, and how Sylvie Kauffman, the editor of a popular French Newspaper, praised her countries privacy laws, and refused to accept that there were any flaws in it. I blogged about this, and paraphrased her as saying ‘they have no tabloid press, which is the result of a cultural difference and the public having no appetite for those kinds of stories.’ How wrong she was…

Overall, I think this whole thing is a real shame that Kate, the Duchess of Cornwall, is subjected to this onslaught of media attention. Just because she is in the public eye, does not excuse her right to not have the World see her breasts.

EDIT:

The BBC have since produced a better visual aid which demonstrates how far away the chateau is from the road, using images from Google: