Peter A Clarke

The Age, in The Duchess of Cambridge in another privacy scandal, reports on the German Magazine Bild publishing an embarrassing photograph of the Duchess of Kent.  The Duchess has been the subject of long lens photography for a while now.  Some photographs have clearly been the result of a deliberate attempt to get her picture in a moment when she and everyone else would know she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  The most notorious incident was her being photographed at a private resort in France in 2012 (recounted below).  Facts are always critical in determining what is or is not private and what expectation of privacy is reasonable.  A fashion malfunction, to use the euphemism in a relatively public place is not the same as being photographed deep into a private property, away from a public thoroughfare and with enough shrubbery intervening between the subject of the shot and the boundary.  Clearly.

The article provides:

The Duchess of Cambridge faces yet another privacy scandal, after a German tabloid published a picture of her naked bottom.

The photograph was taken as wind from helicopter blades lifted up the Duchess’ skirt. The incident occurred in the Blue Mountains on the royal tour of Australia, but at the time British tabloids refused to print the photograph.

However, Bild was more than happy to publish the embarrassing picture. It used the image to create an article about the hot bums of summer, and to thank the helicopter for providing the wind to let us get a clear view of Kate’s ”beautiful bum”.

The photograph was published alongside two other famous derrieres – those of Kim Kardashian and her sister Khloe.

In the photo gallery accompanying the Duchess’ image are photos of other ladies’ behinds, Kate being the only royal in the mix.

This is not the first time a photo of Kate has lead to the media finding themselves in hot water with the royals. Even Australian magazines managed to get caught up in royal scandal.

Woman’s Day drew condemnation from the Palace when it said it would publish pictures in February this year of a pregnant Kate in a bikini.

Italian magazine Chi also published the images, which showed the pregnant royal splashing about in a blue bikini, taken while the Duke and Duchess were on holiday.

Woman’s Day’s editor said the photos were taken on a public beach and therefore it was acceptable to print them. Editor Fiona Connolly told the Herald Sun that Australians aren’t as sensitive about the royals as the British, and photographs of people in bikinis are just part of everyday life.

Yet the couple were actually on the island of Mustique, where privacy is so valued that the paparazzi are banned.

St James Palace expressed disappointment that the images would be published overseas. The palace said in a statement that the photographs were a ”clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy”.

In 2012 the French magazine Closer published photographs of the Duchess sunbathing topless at a private resort.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge sued the magazine for what they described as a ”grotesque” and ”unjustifiable” act, hoping to stop the publication from the revealing images. In an angry statement the Palace said the photographs were similar to the ”worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana”.

The magazine’s editor was unrepentant, saying the resort’s pool was in full view of a public road and easily seen by the public. However, Chateau d’Autet has a secluded woodland setting, and is hundreds of metres from the closest public road – so the royals were in  ‘‘full view” only as long as they were being viewed through a large telephoto lens.

Just to show the issue lives beyond philosophical musings the Daily Telegraph gives a curbside analysis in Why should the media stick to an antiquated code of etiquette when Kate doesn’t bother to protect her own modesty?   To the extent that the piece is commentary (and not an excuse to use the word willy and get away with it) it seems to be saying that if her Royal Highness in waiting puts her exposed deriere in the way of a lurking lens then what is the snapper to do but press the little red button.   As with everything context and nuance, a very Daily Telegraph sort of word, tends to get in the way of a “Don’t blame us Gov’ner” and “we did her a favour” justification piece.   Helicopter blades and jet turbines, not to mention wind generally, tend to ruffle, uplift and shift around loose-fitting clothing.  Of which workaday dresses and skirts tend to be in the modern era.  Take enough flights and sooner or later a skirt will go where it was not intended to go.  If there is a photographer nearby by, a certainty, then an embarrassing photograph is in the offing.  That is different to being photographed cavorting around in a state of undress.  The question of what, if any, expectation of privacy exists is dependant on the what, where and how the photograph came into being.

The article is a fun enough read.  Fast food for the brain; giving momentary pleasure, wholly without nutritional value and quickly to be forgotten.  It provides:

THERE have been a couple of exposed royal willys, several royal knockers and one legendary royal toe sucker but, until now, there has never been a royal bum like Kate’s.

Nor has there ever been a royal G-string of note, until now.

Over the decades the media have been consistently fairly kind to the royal family — the British media almost universally respectful of the royal decree that the royal family’s privacy should be maintained and their dignity upheld as it is in the best interests of the royal family and therefore, by association, their value to the ­British economy.

But it seems a bit ridiculous to expect the rest of the world’s media to follow suit, particularly in a world in which flesh and commercialism go hand in hand.

Why would the cheeky French, German and American media, with no Commonwealth ties to Britain, be ­expected to honour such an antiquated code of ­etiquette? Why should the media be responsible for turning a blind eye when the royals aren’t always vigilant about keeping themselves nice?

It becomes difficult to argue the necessity of honouring “do not publish” conventions when royals like Prince Harry are photographed cavorting naked in Vegas with buxom women.

When Kate was photographed sunbathing topless on a French balcony in 2012, the royals made a sound argument magazine Closer should not have published photos taken on a private estate. There is a very clear distinction between private and public property.

But when she is on a public street and her dress blows up again and again, surely the lesson is the media can only turn a blind eye for so long.

If the Duchess can’t be ­bothered protecting herself by having hem weights sewn into her garments, why should the media protect her?

It was only going to be a matter of time before the world glimpsed the buckshot.

And as it happens it’s not an unflattering shot; something that only serves to turn the tide ­towards the argument to publish and be damned.

The Guardian covers the story, including the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the story, in Rupert Murdoch paper prints picture of Duchess of Cambridge’s bare bottom providing: