I didn't really believe the establishment could be quite that intentionally manipulative; that they would actually meet and plan mass deception. Maybe a kind of subconscious self-preservation instinct, yes. But they did.

And were found out. So the establishment aren't all that clever at conspiracies, after all.

that being caught unawares, seen in a candid, intrusive situation is somehow worse, more morally objectionable because they are Royals

I certainly don't think that. On the contrary, I believe that any woman who finds herself on the unintentional receiving end of this sort of spying has a right to feel violated. I consider the photographing of a woman who happens to be sunbathing semi-naked on private property, via the use of a very long focal-length lens, to be little short of sexual assault. Because, let's be blunt about it, this is 100% about sexual exploitation. It's not about the Royals, or celebrities, or whether women sun-bathe topless on French beaches. It's about the fact that Kate is an attractive woman, and she was topless, and some perv with a long lens saw his chance to earn big bucks from that fact.

I agree - let's reduce Kate to a pair of tits.

<Added>

Although it was a woman who took the photos.

Okay, some perv with a long lens saw her chance...

And were found out. So the establishment aren't all that clever at conspiracies, after all.

Well, it took over 20 years and a lot of persistence from ordinary people to uncover the Hillsborough conspiracy, and it's not over yet of course. And I doubt for a minute that Margaret Thatcher, for example, will be made to pay for her part in it.

I don't think we can say the Diana cover-up has been found out; at least, no enquiry has found fault with anyone in the establishment as yet. They did a nice diversionary job, of course, of making Al Fayed the mad foreigner, conveniently forgetting that he lost a son.

And there are probably hundreds of others we know nothing about at all.

no enquiry has found fault with anyone in the establishment as yet.

Or, funnily enough, with the media, who were paying the paparazzi for whatever photos they could get by chasing her.

It was very convenient for Fleet Street that the chauffeur turned out to have been over the drink-drive limit. You could hear the collective sigh of relief from them that they weren't to blame after all. And let's also not forget that, 2 weeks prior to Diana's death, those same newspapers who made her such a people's martyr, had been painting her in a much less favourable light. Ian Hislop was right, at the time, about those events: it was the biggest vault-face in the history of journalism.

Throughout this debate I have tried to argue that we should accept a material distinction between 'Will and Kate' (whoever they actually are) and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Several people have expressed my position as them 'deserving all they got' - no what I said was that qua royals they have the means, the money and the help to prevent such pictures being taken and that qua royals they have a responsibility so to do - it just needed a minimum of care and discretion. And they didn't exercise it. Why should they? Because they are royals with the responsibilities those roles, however absurd, demand. No one deserves this treatment but it is the inescapable downside of celebrity and royal privileges - which are legion.

It muddles everything up if, refusing the above distinction and the difference it makes to the issues involved, one treats them as 2 ordinary people: they aren't, they never will be and they don't want to be (if they choose to, that is a genuine option - give up the crown, get jobs, earn their own living and so on....).

I wonder: if taking pictures from a mile away is to be called 'sexual assault' what language do we have left for physical or real psychological abuse, or for rape etc? And if we equate this commercial opportunism, however tacky with 'sexual exploitation' what words do we use for prostitution, systematic pornography, etc? Disproportion appears to bedevil this discussion at every turn.

Of course the Duchess of Cambridge will decide how she feels about this - that is a mere logical tautology: who else could? I'm suggesting how she should feel - only offering an opinion about how she did and now does act. Neither legal sanction nor ethical principle should be based upon subjective feelings anyway.

The Duchess of Cambridge is in the end, however the much she and the family she has joined hate to think of it, a paid public servant, endowed with quite extraordinary privileges at considerable cost to the rest of us. So I think we are perfectly entitled to express a view about how well she is discharging the role we have entrusted to her. Except in this case it seems to me this beautiful, intelligent young lady has done a great job with the surreal absurdity of what it is to be a royal. I would be as affronted as most of the rest you if it were plain Kate Middleton who had been treated this way (but of course she wouldn't have been) - but it wasn't it was the Duchess of Cambridge and qua duchess - she should have known the ever-present risk and exercised better judgement. I have put suncream on my wife's bare bum and a very pleasant activity it is too: but I don't do it in the garden, on the driveway or the patio - even though all are my private property.


<Added>

Of course I meant

I am NOT suggesting how she should feel.

Forgive non-Freudian slip.

Z

if taking pictures from a mile away is to be called 'sexual assault' what language do we have left for physical or real psychological abuse, or for rape etc?

I think it certainly bares comparison, if only in terms of the psychological effect on the woman on the receiving end of either. On the one hand, we have photos of a semi-naked woman being traded for the widest possible circulation among millions of people, and on the other we have a woman who has been physically violated. If I try to put myself in the position of either of those women, I think I would feel almost as violated by the one as by the other, even though the two violations are of a different nature.

And if we equate this commercial opportunism, however tacky with 'sexual exploitation' what words do we use for prostitution, systematic pornography, etc?

There's a big difference between a woman allowing herself to be photographed knowing that those photos are likely to end up in the public domain, and someone photographing a woman without her even knowing, or being able to anticipate, that this is being done. Consent makes all the difference in the world.

I found out about Diana's death in the corner shop at the end of my road. I saw the newspaper headlines, felt a moment or two of shock, then lost interest. I went back to the house where we had people staying with us, and thought I ought to mention it. As it turned out, our guests were far more affected by the news and wanted to talk about it quite a lot. As of course did most of the rest of the world.

The reason I didn't was because of the way I think about the royals, which is that they are human beings no more intrinsically important than any other humans. So the death of one affects me in exactly the same way anyone's death in a terrible car crash does: a moment of shock and sympathy, then move on with my life.

If it means any more than that to anyone else, it can't be the human in the royal that's significant but all the pomp and nonsense that goes with it. Which, as Zettel points out, we pay for. So, 'royal' is, rightly or wrongly, a paid-for role which the recipient needs to honour. It's a role that comes with all kinds of support, education, security arrangements, etc. Therefore, when Harry's snapped playing around with a hooker, or Kate gets photographed topless, they're failing in their roles. They aren't of course likely to get sacked.

Therefore, when Harry's snapped playing around with a hooker, or Kate gets photographed topless, they're failing in their roles.

I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference, Terry, between Harry's escapades and Kate's stripping off in private with what she thought was only one more person, her husband, present. Harry showed a stupid lack of judgement inviting strangers to his room and fair play that he was caught out. But I can't be budged on thinking that Kate's case is different.

I think it's different by degree, yes, and probably by intention in these two particular cases. But I just feel that if we make too much of those degrees, we're in danger of losing sight of the most important thing, which is that they're highly privileged individuals who have not had to earn that position, who's role is to behave in the manner prescribed. Look, I don't know anything about newsmen's camera ranges, etc, but she should. She chose to become part of that world, with all its complexities, lack of privacy, etc, and therefore needs to follow the undoubtedly sophisticated and knowledgeable training she's received for dealing with it. And if she doesn't, even if the cameraman in this case went to extremes, well, tough luck; just do the usual royal thing which is to ignore it and sail on.

I agree with Alex and Jem and I'm surprised at the victim-blaming going on here. I don't see how it can be argued she wasn't taking 'a minimum of care and duty' - it's hardly as if she was lying on a public beach.

And there's just no way sunbathing topless in private grounds one mile away from a public road is equivalent to cavorting naked with hookers! What???

I've never been much of one for the royals (to put it mildly!) but I've a lot of sympathy for Kate in this particular instance - I blame the paps and our shitty celeb obsessed culture.

Hey Alex

"bares comparison" - nice one. Bloody Freud!

Otherwise must agree to differ but I'm with Terry.

I certainly bare no malice.

best

z

And there's just no way sunbathing topless in private grounds one mile away from a public road is equivalent to cavorting naked with hookers! What???

I didn't say it was equivalent. I said it's a matter of degrees of failing in their roles. Or to put it another way, she's chosen to swap the level of privacy most of us enjoy in exchange for huge privileges of various kinds. For me, the danger in saying one failing is wrong and another is right loses sight of the functionality that is actually at play. An expensive functionality, both in terms of cost to the country and our ability to grow up as a nation.

Sorry Terry, I hadn't seen your second post. I was referring to this:

Therefore, when Harry's snapped playing around with a hooker, or Kate gets photographed topless, they're failing in their roles.

It doesn't say they're equivalent but it seems to me to infer it. That post didn't say anything about degrees - your second post does but I hadn't seen that at the time I posted my response.

More generally, for me this isn't even a question of privilege it's a matter of privacy invasion and sexism. Also, perhaps I'm being dim or idealistic but I don't understand the idea that any royal/celeb/whoever should accept a loss of privacy as their fate, as if the media sleaze and lack of privacy culture we have is just fine and great and shouldn't be challenged. Why shouldn't they fight it?

I don't know if I need to say it, but personally I've no interest in celebrities or the royals (other than where they may or may not be involved in establishment cover-ups). I don't look at celeb pictures, read about them, care about them. However, I haven't also been saying that medial sleaze and lack of privacy is a good thing.

But I'm not sure why you don't understand the idea that royals/celegs should accept a loss of privacy as their fate. That's the price, surely, and they know it. Certainly, Kate did. She could have said no. Celebrities (as opposed to people who get famous for actually doing something) take on the role because they want the privileges, and they know that comes at a price. I also didn't say they shouldn't fight it. They can do whatever they like. But I don't sympathise very much with the fight. Especially when it's probably going to cost the tax-payer several million in the process.