Some women like to bathe sunbathe topless, some don’t. It’s a choice. In a public place which is where this occurs for us normal people, any woman choosing this option knows that she will be subject to the occasional surreptitious glance from most men in the vicinity: and intrigued children. (The difference in maturity between the two groups may not be immediately apparent). The prettier she is, the more glances she’ll get. It goes with the territory. It’s a consequence of the choice.

Any woman, or man come to that, whether because of personal modesty or professional sensitivity doesn’t want to be seen or even photographed in this way is perfectly capable of preventing it: discreetly applying sun cream or covering up while changing – which is an amusing, slightly arcane art most of us normal men or women have perfected for beach use.

William and Kate’s supposed fury (I wonder if it is actually theirs) isn’t a claim to privacy, it’s a demand for privilege. This supposed incursion into their privacy was entirely self-induced; preventable with the barest (sic) minimum of common sense ordinary women on public beaches exercise every single day.

Royalty, like celebrity, breathes the oxygen of publicity and benefits from it. Hacking their phones is an invasion of their privacy: taking pictures of them when they expose themselves, even to long-lenses is not. That they enjoy endless privileges from birth or marriage, not merit, does not entitle them to a privileged form of privacy not available to the rest of us.

I can't agree with you here at all Zettel - if you really believe it! They were a mile and a half away from the road and this is an outrageous invasion of privacy (And I'm not even a Royalist!)

I agree with Jem. This is a privacy issue - we're not talking about a public beach here.

On the other hand, they have displayed a remarkable lack of judgement. In their high-profile position, surely the presence of some long-lens papparazzo lurking in the distance should be inferred at all times. Perhaps a walled garden or courtyard might have been a better bet - most chateaux have them, I'd guess. Adding legal proceedings to the scenario is only going to make this run and run and rather offsets the one positive benefit the photos might have had - that they present the new generation of the monarchy as being very much in tune with the modern age!

From what I've read it took a long time for Kate M to agree to become the next Mrs Windsor and it was because of all the intrusion business that made her stall. He, William, promised her that what happened to his mother he would never allow happen to her and his fury must be bound up in the feeling that it is all happening all over again. So I think his reaction is understandable given that he believes the French paps were partially responsible for his mother's death.

But, yes, where was the security? If you can point a long lense at the couple surely equally easily you could have pointed a gun, had you wanted to.

From a pragmaitc point of view, it is easy to see that Kate and William did not take adequate precautions to protect themselves from prying eyes.

But this is a topic raised in the Ethical Forum, and as an ethical issue, to have people spy on you and take photographs of you when you have a very reasonable right to think you are in a private area is ethically wrong.

I am astonished you think otherwise, Zettle.

Nick

I agree with Jem on this - if they had been on a beach they'd have been asking for trouble, but they were in a private grounds of a private house.

I heard John Major on the radio earlier and he described the taking of such pictures as the actions of a peeping Tom and he's right. If someone was going to extraordinary lengths to get such pictures because he wanted to jerk off, we would think that's awful. Just because the peeping Tom in question wants to use them for financial gain to satisfy other people's completely unjustifiable salacious interest in what the girl looks like with her top off - why is that ok?

<Added>

taking pictures of them when they expose themselves, even to long-lenses is not. That they enjoy endless privileges from birth or marriage, not merit, does not entitle them to a privileged form of privacy not available to the rest of us.

My house backs onto fields and is not overlooked. If you stand in the fields and look at the house with the naked eye you can't see inside, even if someone is standing right by the window. As a consequence, my fourteen-year-old daughter whose room is at the back of the house, usually gets undressed without closing her curtains. However, if someone really wanted to, I suppose they could probably see into her bedroom using powerful lenses. If we lived in a house that was overlooked/ could be seen into from the street, then I would think she was daft not to close her curtains, but living where we do, I think she has a right not to expect anyone to take extreme measures to spy on her. That's the issue here, surely. It's not that they are expecting a privileged form of privacy not available to the rest of us, but that they have a right to the basic rights that we should all be able to expect.

And I'm not a royalist, either, its just that I think the lack of a right to privacy for one sets a dangerous precedent that could then affect us all. I know someone whose child was murdered and they had to live with their curtains closed for months. They weren't suspects as the culprit was found very quickly, but the press felt they had the right to spy on them. It's wrong.

The pictures were not taken of 'Kate Middleton' they were taken of the Duchess of Cambridge - otherwise they would have been of no interest to anyone and with zero media value.

I mentioned it on the Ethical Forum because we don't have general news forum. The notion of ethics and royalty in general is too much of a quagmire to wade into. Neither the Duchess of Cambridge nor say the Prime Minister cease to be their roles just because they are on holiday. I don't say there is no valid concept of 'privacy' for such roles - just that it is a different, more limited concept for those who have chosen to seek them or accept them. The demand to be just like anyone else - when you chose; and to seek and encourage maximum publicity when you also choose was a central feature of the tragedy that was Diana. And I'm not sure the behaviour of either her husband or the Royal family would stand much critical evaluation. However bad the the media were. And they were.

That this fluff of a non-issue is dominating the news given all else that is happening in the world does raise ethical issues. The only substantive issue is a minor one of legality - was the French law broken - and I doubt it.

Are the pics tacky, intrusive, unworthy? Of course. But providing the consumer with the products they avidly seek and for which they have an insatiable appetite and for which they are willing to pay good money is a matter of the ethical values of a social culture which is an issue of substance and much wider.

Just like Harry's before them, the Cambridge's behaviour qua professional Royals was naive, unprofessional and careless. To try to elevate this nonsense to a serious moral issue seems to me to be grotesquely disproportionate.

The pictures were not taken of 'Kate Middleton' they were taken of the Duchess of Cambridge - otherwise they would have been of no interest to anyone and with zero media value.

But the problem is, this argument is then used to take away the right to privacy of anyone that the paparazzi think they can make a few quid from.

That this fluff of a non-issue is dominating the news given all else that is happening in the world does raise ethical issues.

Well, you brought it up, Zettel! And I don't agree that you aren't entitled to a private life if you're a public figure. No one would go into public life if that were the case, surely. And the Royals have no choice. Granted, Kate did, and she held out for a long time, but she clearly loves William and it is obviously requited. I'll give you Diana, who was crazy and confused and didn't know what she wanted, but Kate Middleton is nothing like her at all.

I don't think people in this country particularly want to see those pictures - I understand that in Ireland she is just a personality, not their future Queen, and also in the rest of Europe the same applies so they can make that excuse. But I think the majority of British people, even non-Royalists, condemn this loathsome behaviour.

I agree with this:

the presence of some long-lens papparazzo lurking in the distance should be inferred at all times.

I don't think that makes the media's actions any better, though. I think it is an invasion of privacy. I think Saturday's point about her daughter is a very good one: Where does one draw the line? If the magazine had hacked their computer to get hold of emails containing personal details, would they be blamed for putting that in writing?

I note this magazine is owned by Berlusconi. What a sleazebag.

And also licensed by Bauer who owns T-a-B!

The pictures were not taken of 'Kate Middleton' they were taken of the Duchess of Cambridge

Her name changed when she married, but she is still the same young woman, has the same mother and father. No young woman should be spied upon like this.

The notion of ethics and royalty in general is too much of a quagmire to wade into.

I'm not debating 'royalty in general' but the specific moral issue of invading peoples privacy and profiting from someone elses discomfort. I think that is a moral issue, with a clear answer to right-thinking people.

That this fluff of a non-issue is dominating the news

Why start such a debate if that is how you feel?

To try to elevate this nonsense to a serious moral issue seems to me to be grotesquely disproportionate.

The way the press behave is a serious moral issue for society and one that quite rightly is being debated a great deal. Some limits have to be set for the good of us all - who knows when the media spotlight might fall on any of us.

Nick

Royalty, like celebrity, breathes the oxygen of publicity and benefits from it. Hacking their phones is an invasion of their privacy: taking pictures of them when they expose themselves, even to long-lenses is not. That they enjoy endless privileges from birth or marriage, not merit, does not entitle them to a privileged form of privacy not available to the rest of us.

Completely in agreement with Zettel here, I'm afraid. If they seriously didn't entertain the possibility of lurking paparazzi, then quite frankly, that wasn't terribly bright of them, was it?

Saturday's point is perfectly valid, but her daughter is not a celebrity and has no reason to assume that anyone would want to go to those lengths to take those pictures. William and Waity Katy need to assume the exact opposite, or they'll be knee-deep in pointless law-suits for the rest of their lives.

To a point, in support of Astrea and Zettel, but then again...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2202895-15046777000005DC-546_634x460.jpg - road where photo taken

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2203515-14DE3B79000005DC-166_634x383.jpg - wall surrounding pool


Just sayin...
G

I'm with Jem on this, too. More generally:

If a woman or man strips off to any extent in a place which is clearly public (road, beach, town centre, park, etc.) then they can't complain about being looked at or photographed. It was their choice.

If a woman or man strips off in a place where they have reasonable expectation of privacy, then they can and should complain about anyone breaching that privacy, be it in person, by telephoto lens, or by spy-satellite.

Despite what paparazzi like to claim, there are no "grey areas". All any photographer needs to ask himself (and it mostly is a "himself") is: would I like it if someone else photographed me in this way?

The editor of the French magazine has tried to justify the pictures by claiming that it's no different to seeing any woman sunbathing topless on any beach in France. Which begs the question why they didn't simply photograph one of these other women (or, indeed, why the editor in question didn't strip off herself, to demonstrate how unconcerning it is to be photographed like that). The excuse she trotted out is, quite frankly, disingenuous, mealy-mouthed clap-trap, which I suspect even she doesn't believe. (And is anyone surprised that this magazine is owned by Berlusconi, that great Italian master of hypocritical lechery?)