As is often the case, I think this thread has ended up being about something different to what it might have started out as. I'm not going into specific points, but I agree with Zettel that the question of how much press/public attention royalty should be expected to take on the chin as part of their role has been sidetracked into a complaint that men - i.e. the men on this thread - are as usual failing to see that when a woman is photographed topless without her consent it's an invasion of her privacy that amounts to sexual assault.

Well, I don't care if the royal in question is male or female. The same questions apply whatever their gender. And for me it's do with the contract - because that's what it is - that a royal makes in exchange for privilege, wealth, influence and fame. Do I think photographers should be taking pics of Kate topless from long distance? No. Do I think the royals should expect the same level of privacy as the rest of us? No. Do I think she has been trained in all the tricks the press will get up to in order to bag pictures of her? Yes.

In this issue, the question of whether or not they love each other is irrelevant. That's another factor that lies outside of the point. As it will if this ever goes to court.

Do I think photographers should be taking pics of Kate topless from long distance? No.

I think if we all accept that as given, and I think only Zettle has argued the contarary when he said "taking pictures of them when they expose themselves, even to long-lenses is not" (an invasion of their privacy), how much privacy Royals can expect is a non-issue.

I hope the people responsible feel the full force of the law, in the same way I would if someone scaled a tree to photograph my family sunbathing in my garden. I would not accept the argument 'well you knew there was a tree there - you only have yourself to blame'.

Nor do I accept Zettles other opening point that to expect privacy when on holiday in a secluded area is really 'a demand for priviledge' - I think privacy is what all reasonable people would expect.

The job she holds is a red-herring. We all have the right to be treated decently and within the bounds of the law, and if not, the right to seek retribution.

Nick

Nick

<Added>

I hope the penalty is strong enough to act as a deterant and protect innocent parties in the future.

I think I would have marginally more tolerance of the argument that celebrities ought to expect to be spied on if it applied equally to the people who make it their job to go around spying on them - i.e. journalists. But, of course, it doesn't. There are plenty of journalists, especially on TV, who are celebrities in their own right, yet I can only think of two occasions when they've found themselves on the receiving end of in-depth news stories. One related to that ex-BBC journalist (Andrew Gilligan?) who was linked to the David Kelley affair. The other, of course, was the current inquiry into press standards (and didn't some of them whine about what it's like to be cross-examined about their professionalism?). In both of those cases, the heat came off the journalists much quicker than it would have done for any other person whose professional behaviour had been under the spotlight.

So yes, there are double standards, and there are expectations of privileged treatment.

I should apologise.

When I said:

Hacking their phones is an invasion of their privacy: taking pictures of them when they expose themselves, even to long-lenses is not.

This was obviously too strong. As most of my subsequent posts showed my point was more relative and less absolute. What I meant to express was that in comparison to phone hacking etc this example of failure to respect privacy was a relatively minor offence. But it was an invasion of privacy. And I am pleased to see that it has been adjudged illegal - even if again in exaggerated language.

Many other, I think very interesting issues have been raised in discussing this issue. Which perhaps makes my original post useful if not as exactly expressed as precisely, post hoc as I would wish.

My basic position is that this was a relatively minor example of a very important principle. My position has been throughout to try to argue for a sense of humour and a sense of proportion. And a resistance to the idea that just because an issue involves a woman and sexual connotations - does not necessarily mean it raises important sexist or feminist issues. Especially when expressed in exaggerated or distorting terms.

My position on the key issues is very close I think to Terry's. That does not make us right but is does suggest that my position has some credibility and is shared by others.

I have made no secret of the fact that my position is deeply opposed to monarchism and the indefensible privilege it represents. As many of my posts have tried to argue I find it hard to get too exercised about this relatively trivial example of an important issue insofar as it affects the Cambridges' lifestyle and privilege which the taxes of very ordinary people, struggling to manage in a recession, pays to preserve.

The Queen understands that if you remove the mythology of the monarchy, predicated upon detachment and remoteness, you reveal the sheer absurdity of the whole institution whose unchallenged factual history is one of appalling violence, unrestrained pursuit of power, wealth and privilege. We get the monarch we are given: we must take responsibility for the politicians we elect. We can't excuse our failure in discharging our responsibilities for the latter by using the former as a crutch.

I don't want to overthrow anyone: but I do think we can't grow up as a democratic people taking direct responsibility for the people to whom we entrust power until we accept that even a powerless constitutional monarchy enables us to hedge our bets and avoid the responsibility we would have to accept were we to have to elect a head of state.

And before anyone advances the age old argument about how bad elected heads of state are historically: first that rather emphasises the point rather than refuting it. And any way its not such a knock-down argument in a world that has seen President Mandela, President Mary Robinson and hopefully, soon President Aung Sang Suu Kyi.

I raised the issue because it mattered to me and because I thought it posed complex and interesting ethical and related issues. The readership and number of responses at least suggests that judgement was justified.

The job she holds is a red-herring

This is exactly how the establishment wants us to think. Royalty anchors and sanctifies the British class prejudice system. The joke is we actually have to pay for it too. So I don't think it's a job like any other as your expression implies. No one else can apply for it, for a start.

I think I would have marginally more tolerance of the argument that celebrities ought to expect to be spied

I don't think anyone's arguing this. When you extend a point like this I think it can blur the dividing line between personal privacy on the one hand and the role a person may take on that requires public/media exposure on the other. So, when people get upset at the royals' privacy being invaded, it can very easily lead to misplaced sympathy, emotional statements like 'they're just like us', etc, and before you know it everyone wants to throw even more of our money at them.

So I don't think it's a job like any other as your expression implies.

I didn't implied that Terry.

What I meant was in the context of this debate, her job is irrelevant in as much as it does not take away basic rights we all should be able to enjoy.

Nick

Okay, Nick, sorry for not getting what you meant. However, in this context I don't think her job is irrelevant. Lack of privacy - at least compared with what non-royals would expect - is part of the job description. Which means we're back to degrees again: while it's not right that a photographer should take these sorts of pictures, it is at the same time part of her job description (not the taking photos but the lack of privacy). And she has to therefore take some responsibility for that, even if it's less than what Harry probably should have taken recently.