Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

The Kate Middleton topless photos are the grossest invasion of privacy

If you buy into the worst kind of paparazzi antics, you are throwing away your own privacy too.

By Steven Baxter Published 14 September 2012 10:00

A nice, non-invasive, picture of the Duchess of Cambridge. Photograph: Getty Images

The royal boobs have apparently been seen. It might seem comical, or silly, or daft, a discussion that prompts sniggering and adolescent chortles. But with every fresh photo set there's a testing of boundaries going on and a new stripping away of privacy - not just of celebrities, but of all of us.

I haven't seen the photos. Why would I want to? Many media commentators have begun their discussion with a sadfaced confession: Yes, I have seen the royal breasts, I forced myself through professional necessity to look at them, like a surgeon inspecting a bundle of diseased organs.

Well no, not me. I have no interest in seeing sneaked photos of someone in private - the photographs of Kate were apparently taken while she and William were on holiday at Viscount Linley's chateau in France. Now, I don't go round on Weston Beach, say, gawping at other people's bodies, so why should I do so at home? If someone wants to walk around in their pants, so what? It's no business of mine. Let them live their lives.

Imagine walking around with a normal pocket camera, asking to take photos of someone on the beach. You wouldn't. Because you'd feel like a pervert. Because you would be. Add on a long lens and a hide, though, and suddenly this behaviour somehow becomes acceptable - acceptable enough for a magazine to pay for your dirty photos.

It's a slightly different situation from the Prince Harry pictures. He, the dozy fool, was mucking about in a Las Vegas suite the size of Blackpool, and got snapped by an onlooker. He, the buffoon (sorry, I mean the Brave Boy Battling the Taliban, having entirely coincidentally gone on a PR-boosting tour of duty since) may have been in a private space, but wasn't exactly acting in a way that didn't attract attention.

Kate, on the other hand, is not being drunk, not partying, not mucking about, but just standing there, I'm led to believe. What justification can there be for that? We all know human beings have holidays. This Kate incident has all the nasty hallmarks of the worst excesses of the paparazzi: the sneaking in bushes, the enormous long lenses, the grainy photos, the popular trashy press lapping it up.

Lapped up in France, at least. Closer magazine proudly declared that William and Kate were alone on a romantic holiday: "Well, almost. Closer was there!" Can you imagine a British magazine using such a jolly tone, post Diana?

In Britain, the dead-tree press have voluntarily agreed not to print photos of Kate other than at public engagements - not as a sop to the chilling effects of nasty Brian Leveson, by the way, but to keep things sweet with Buckingham Palace. So this is another example of national borders and old media being pretty meaningless when it comes to breaking stories.

For once, our press will be doing the right thing, though not just because it's the right thing to do. There's no public interest. There is no value other than curiosity and prurience. There is no reason for anyone to see those photos, which are a huge violation of privacy.

But how many of us are going to have a sneaky look at the photos? That's the telling factor. Searches for "Kate Middleton t*pless photos" are probably soaring into the stratosphere as I write this. People want to see. How soon before the lines get blurred again between "things people want to see" and "things which are genuinely in the public interest"? We may all claim the moral high ground, but how many of us can resist the temptation?

Royal flesh makes money. From Prince Charles's cock to Harry's bum and Kate's boobs, it seems we think we're entitled to a piece of them. I've written before about the expectations placed upon Kate, as the uterus on legs, with the maiden-aunt nation demanding she become pregnant immediately.

I don't think we are, because they're just people. Massively wealthy, privileged people, but people. So what if they have bodies, like every other person in the world? They don't belong to us.

One day it's Kate, the next it might be you with a lens hidden half a mile away taking pictures of what you're up to. If you buy into the celebrity photos, you're throwing away your own privacy.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: royal family Kate Middleton

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

73 comments

Wed, 2012-11-21 17:00 — Freestate (not verified)

Ever since there was a royalty, there were scandals, brutality, sex- trafficking, murders etc. See historical facts, or stories and fairy tales inspired by this topic, and you will see so many twisted minded, drunk, perverted, blood thirsty characters that would sell or kill their own mother in order to achieve what ever they intended. If we could only count how much blood and tears were shaded in the courts...how many boobs were out there during the long history of royalty...
Not so long ago, something tragic happened - one princess was literally driven to death by the family and paparazzi, and, surprise, that is a late mother in law of this very princess with the boobs! So , I think that this event was nothing comparing to the previous one. We had scandal plus death , so no bigger thrill for the nation. No prince charming this time to help her, only to push her where she is now, God rest her soul.
Every job, even 24/7 one has a vacation time. And, this new princess had her husband, who is actually the real blue blooded prince by birth So if he thought that his princess can go around in topless, why would we care? If she is a national property, that nation is entitled to see that same property, and the nation saw it! So, where is the problem here?
Can we imagine how much money is spent during this scandal? More than enough to help out someone in need. To provide at least a few gallons of clean water for the start.
Or food and medicine...or to build a safe house for abused families. But no...it is far more important that the pair of until yesterday not so royal boobs appeared somewhere where we can see them. That is spooky. At least to me.
So i think we should leave royalty do what they are best at - making scandals. That is in their job description! So, Kate, keep on stripping, there are more important issues every one of us should take care of.
Or I got it all wrong?

Tue, 2012-11-20 18:00 — Simple Simon Sez (not verified)

Seriously, what's the deal here? The way I see it: The Deal is that she took this job. The job is 24/7, 365 Princess on Duty. She understood exactly what she was getting into -- your life is over as you know it. You are representing now something that is much bigger than your SELF. Don't sunbathe topless any where. In fact, wear this one-piece, Victorian throwback.

Didn't The Queen's people and The Prince sit her down before the engagement to explain what "The Deal" is? "Sorry Kate but the Princess gig is not a fairy tale. It is an enormous responsibility. You will be an instant global celebrity, not cute Kate Middleton anymore. If you have a problem with this -- Do Not Take The Job."

"Otherwise -- Represent accordingly. Self-responsibility for your Choices, Actions and the Consequences. Self-responsibility. Wear a bra. Don't sunbathe topless -- period. Blame the photographer? The publications that chose to run the pics.? Free Enterprise. Supply & Demand. She's a Princess and plenty of people will pay to see a nice shot of her boobs no matter what they look like, out of curiosity if nothing else.

In my opinion, The Royal Family is to blame here. They need to re-evaluate their Princess training program. And, they should have owned up to their failure, and responded with something like, "It is clearly apparent that there is some re-training in order here for The Prince, as well as The Princess, that must be addressed -- IMMEDIATELY!"

Tue, 2012-10-02 18:54 — astewsassup (not verified)

SxwrLRJM [url=http://insanityworkoutshop.info]insanity workout[/url]
bltpHZUtz http://insanityworkoutshop.info
dhdyptirvh [url=http://coachoutletfactoryonlinesale.info/#0098]coach factory[/url]
IQFfMljuz sntmgp [url=http://longchampoutletusa.info]longchamp outlet[/url]
GpkMFGQAuvv

Mon, 2012-10-01 11:07 — Colonel Muriel Volestrangler (not verified)

I wouldn't mind if she had a cracking pair. But she doesn't. Zoom lens? They needed a f**king telescope.

Fri, 2012-09-21 03:28 — SoDarkie (not verified)

Pics were in loads of widely read but obscure chinese papaers because of the hue and cry. Please do not insult me your majesty I have a better degree than your son. His mum went out on a Lim no pun intended, as part of the Harrods Luxury boat trip for the Queen of Tarts. Every Essex girl would like to frolic with hubby but few get the privacy. Finally why is no one suing and prosecuting the Harry bodyguards or the police chief? We subjects deserve our day in court. Harry is out of hand but at least he gives value but even his war service is being guarded now!!!

Wed, 2012-09-19 11:26 — brook (not verified)

Part of Linley's property in Provence is a guest house. There is a split level swimming pool attached that looks south and is open on two sides, parallel to a road - the D22. It was here that the topless episode took place and is about as "private" as Harry's nude Vegas episode. Add to this the cautionary tale aspect - that the couple, as "ambassadors to the games" were expected to be at the closing ceremony of the Paralympics, but the Palace excused them saying they were "working" in Anglesey, when all the time they were holidaying in Provence... I think they got what they deserved.

Mon, 2012-09-17 21:02 — slowprop (not verified)

Who really does give stuff and why?

A privelidged but state dependent nobody is a bit pissed off. So what! There are genuine people with genuine problems that are overlooked and ignored all the time.
i wish we would stop idolising these parasites

Mon, 2012-09-17 20:24 — Jean-Paul Marat (not verified)

I, for one, am going to have a good old-fashioned wank thanks to these pics. It's going to be the revenge of the common people, baby!

Mon, 2012-09-17 22:58 — Jean-Paul Marat (not verified)

That was much harder than I thought.

Mon, 2012-09-17 14:41 — hugh markey (not verified)

Dispels the mystery! Just like any other young woman. Thanks be to goodness.

Public Relations

Sun, 2012-09-16 20:45 — davelong (not verified)

So, for all you fearless libertarians - since it's okay to publish sneakily-obtained pictures of a famous woman's tits for all to see, it's equally okay for any woman to use her breasts to feed a baby, as nature intended, whenever and wherever she likes. Isn't it? Guys?

Sat, 2012-09-15 23:31 — Pavlova

"Imagine walking around with a normal pocket camera, asking to take photos of someone on the beach. You wouldn't. Because you'd feel like a pervert. "

They don't need to imagine, plenty of them do precisely that and upload the photos for men to wank over without the woman's consent. On the tube, on the beach, in the street, up skirts, down tops, up cracks. Rape lite.

But not to worry, porn never did *you* any harm, Steve.

Sun, 2012-09-16 11:20 — jankaas (not verified)

"But not to worry, porn never did *you* any harm"

and i see you're still not bothered to provide any evidence of your oft repeated claim that porn = harm.

you define intellectual cowardice Pavlova.

Sun, 2012-09-16 11:53 — Pavlova

Here's some evidence: these pictures are porn and they are doing harm.

Sun, 2012-09-16 22:03 — jankaas (not verified)

"Here's some evidence:"

oh, goody, let's review your evidence then.

"these pictures are porn and they are doing harm."

eh? that's not evidence, those are statements. your sentence is exactly as evidence based if you'd written; "these pictures are not porn and they are not doing harm".

face it Pavlova, you have no evidence. just your opinion.

Sat, 2012-09-15 21:34 — T.jones (not verified)

my god you people do not have a clue! We are so lucky to have a royal family!!!!! Kate is so classy and we are lucky to have such a relaxed royal family! Kate was in the privacy of , if you like her home for the trip and had every right to take her top off! If you took your top off in your garden and someone started taking pictures you would probably call the police!!
With no royal family we could end up with a dictatorship...would you silly people rather that!!!!!! I couldn't careless if the queen took her top off it's not my business and nor is it anyone else's! EVERYONE is entitled to privacy and that was invaded!!

Tue, 2012-09-18 13:21 — brian clough (not verified)

Anything would be better than what weve got now

Mon, 2012-09-17 09:25 — Republican (not verified)

Let's all fawn over the royal family, yes. We are so LUCKY to be subservient to a bunch of buffoons who go around naked in broad daylight and then hav the temerity to huff & puff if someone takes pictures of them. Its "God and my Right to be naked in full view of the public and expect no one to take pictures". If you're famous, you'll be photographed. That's what the people want. That's why they pay for these magazines. Get over it. If you don't like the spotlight, don't marry a royal. If you were born a royal, abdicate. Tough t*tties!

Sat, 2012-09-15 15:47 — myouz (not verified)

If the NS is taken in by all the royal hype, what chance do we the general public have of not being taken in by the hype too.

Shame on you NS; you have lost your way. The cutting edge dazzle has faded!!

Sat, 2012-09-15 15:22 — myouz (not verified)

Should you not be writing for the Dail Mail. This article represents absurd nonsense. Why would someone on the left want to defend an over privileged feudal system.

She chased and chased William until she trapped him She knew what the deal was and embraced it greedily. There is no such thing as public and private.

As for her recent speech, I swear she had ahd elecution lessions. She sounds so false.

Fri, 2012-09-14 22:28 — MVW (not verified)

It is an invasion of privacy and people should stop buying these kinds of newspapers and magazines, but the grossest invasion of privacy? You really must be off your rocker. Our governments have done and continue do to far, far worse.

Fri, 2012-09-14 19:32 — Michael Rolfe (not verified)

Does anyone remember the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore sketch which had Greta Garbo in a fur coat on the back of a truck, driving through London, shouting"I want to be alone" through a megaphone? Give us a break :these are "celebrities" just like Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman.They exist to be on page one. If they can't stand the heat, the kitchen has an exit door.Gosh! There are paparazzi hanging around just waiting to snap the lovely Kate as soon as she flashes her norks. Who would have imagined it? And isn't it all just fodder for a nation which loves to buy a perve at a nice pair of Bristols every day in The Sun?

Fri, 2012-09-14 19:57 — Irish Atheist (not verified)

It's even worse than that. Nicole Kidman and Brad Pitt actually do some work outside of being celebrities, whereas the Royal Family's sole purpose is to ensure maximum publicity.

Sat, 2012-09-15 15:25 — myouz (not verified)

The royals want their cake and eat it. All this talk of censorship and suing will only increase the likelihood of this happening in the future.

Give up the throne William if you are so disturbed by what you see ahead!!

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:30 — Hikaru22

Herbert:

"But 'showing' themselves is what royalty does. It's all they're for."

No it isn't. The monarchy exists to preserve us from the worst excesses of republican tyranny - such as they have in the United States. There, you have a president who maintains and executes a Death List, who Drone bombs a poor and primitive people half a world away.....when, that is, he isn't blithering on about his nation's "shah-nin' val-yews".

God, and the monarchy, preserve us from all of that.

Sun, 2012-09-16 03:51 — Richard Crawford (not verified)

Well, yes, the monarchy certainly preserved us from the worst excesses of Thatcherism. Erm, hold on a minute, that's not right.........

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:45 — Irish Atheist (not verified)

Excuse me, but my country has seen both the excesses of monarchial (is that a word?) tyranny and republican tyranny from the UK, under various monarchs and Cromwell, a man driven by religious hatred. How does your description of both monarchism and republicanism explain that?

Sun, 2012-09-16 03:53 — Richard Crawford (not verified)

I was in Ireland on the 15oth anniversary of the potato famine, and I mentioned this to my landlady.

'Young man,' she replied, ' this country has wasted enough lives on this history nonsense. The last thing we need is more history.'

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:58 — Hikaru22

Don't say bad things about Cromwell around here. We're very left-wing, you know...

Fri, 2012-09-14 18:50 — Irish Atheist (not verified)

Well I'm not a left winger, and I assume you aren't either by your defence of the monarchy. You've also rather conveniently ignored my post.

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:11 — Matt1234569 (not verified)

Good for you Steven Baxter, not looking. How heroic. Now you've had your applause, kindly report on the shocking behaviour of "Royals" (who are clearly not better than me, who can remain clothed in public with ease) or shift your Royalist agenda elsewhere. Why should we care how you've taken this affront (that has effected you in no way)?

Dismissing the ridiculous nature of the article and poor logical conclusions pointed out by my peers, what's the problem, exactly? She was topless in public. She clearly doesn't mind showing off her wares, so why should she moan about someone taking a picture? What did she expect when she married for pomp and money? A free ride? Shouldn't say that, or that'll be the next video uploaded. None of them have any sense. Oh well, "god" appointed them and we can't question them, they can all step on us on their way to the bank.

Sat, 2012-09-15 19:59 — myouz (not verified)

Well said Matt. There is no distinction between public and private and because she is now part of the royal family she should not have got her kit off. That is what happens when you indulge social climbers too much. We are paying for them after all

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:45 — Sacha (not verified)

I'm a Republican but that comment was Repulsive.

Fri, 2012-09-14 18:52 — Irish Atheist (not verified)

How so?

Sat, 2012-09-15 15:41 — Sacha (not verified)

The assertion that if someone gets undressed in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy then they clearly want other people to see them is just nonsensical, not to mention degrading. She wasn't "topless in public" and her chest is not "her wares". That's deeply disgusting. Or does she have less right to privacy and dignity because she decided to marry someone who was born into obscene scrutiny and idolisation?

Sat, 2012-09-15 20:03 — myouz (not verified)

It was a hotel where the balcony could be seen from the main road. kate forfeited her right to privacy when she married hapless Will. If they are finding it all too much, they can always renounce the throne. Doubt they will do that as they seem to enjoy the good life too much. Being a royal courtesy of the taxpapyer means they cannot pick and choose. kate is far too arogant and out of her depth.

Sun, 2012-09-16 00:05 — beansmeansheinz (not verified)

Arrogant, not arogant. If you insist on publishing your bollocky rants, learn to spell!

Fri, 2012-09-14 17:04 — Ernest Bevin (not verified)

More right-leaning piffle in a magazine that seems to be less progressive by the week. If these people don't want to be papped in the nip they should keep their bloody clothes on. A small price to pay for a life of parasitical self-indulgence.

Fri, 2012-09-14 16:59 — New statesmam (not verified)

Personally I think it's a disgusting invasion of privacy.

I'm not saying we can never take pictures of the royal family or celebrities and if they are out on the town or out in public barely dressed fine take the pictures and write the stories. That's what celebrities sign up to.

BUT here Kate was on holiday with her husband. In a totally private resort. Where it should have only been the two of them. Frankly I think it's sad that they need to holiday entirely alone to get any for of privacy but the fact that some paps have followed them there and taken pictures is disgusting.

Someone mentioned in these comments that if she had class she would wear the top half of her bikini but SHE IS ON A PRIVATE HOLIDAY WITH HER HUSBAND. would you always ensure everything was covered when you thought you were totally alone with your partner? Of course you wouldn't.

The royal family deserve their privacy as much as anyone else and I think Kate is being very brave dealing with such an invasion.

Fri, 2012-09-14 20:23 — Peter B (not verified)

Sorry, but I really think it is very much an exaggeration saying that Kate is "classy". She is not at all, nor are any of her family. If she is hoping to be the Queen of England she needs to think hard about her role and stop all the swanning around on holidays, private Chateux, expensive clothes, living the high life. She does behave like a celebrity but she loves all the cameras and media attention. She constantly makes up to the cameras everywhere she goes. You can see her looking out the cameras and then making sure she gesticulates or moves her hands and tries to look intelligent. If she loves the cameras so much as she does she just has to take the rough with the smooth. That is the price you pay. Yes, camera men should not go around taking private pictures but then does she really need to go swanning around half naked in someone else's home. Think that is pretty low actually. You can dress respectfully and still get a nice sun tan. Where is the respect these days? Sadly none of the Middletons or even many of the Royal Family do not have any.

Sat, 2012-09-15 20:06 — myouz (not verified)

I am sure I speak for the silent majority who are sick and tired of this freeloading familiy who simply expect and receive for very little effort in return. Some of the threads here are absolutely spot on. Spongers the lot of them. There is no publci private when you take that amount of money from the public purse. I do not think the Queen would ever bare her alls in public. None of the younger royals understand the meaning of dignity!!

Tue, 2012-09-18 17:30 — sadd (not verified)

I am just as sure that you do not speak for the majority. You speak for yourself only. Regardless as to anyone's opinions on the monarchy there is no excuse for intrusion. Wearing a skirt isn't welcoming people to take picture up it, sunbathing topless at a private holiday home isn't an invite to take photos. So she was outside, so what. These photographers have amazing zoom capability on their cameras and think it's ok to use them as they wish. If you are sat in the nude in your living room, but someone can see through the window, does that allow them to take a photo of you? Then publish it? I think not. Stop arguing just for the sake of it, or think through what you're saying first.

Fri, 2012-09-14 16:57 — bob g (not verified)

wow lenses that that take pics of boobs from 1/2 mile away? wonder how much they cost. makes you wonder what the military have got doesn't it? it will be those 4 rotor model helicopters snapping you in the back garden with your beer and your copy of closer next.

Fri, 2012-09-14 16:29 — Hikaru22

Fair enough.

But perhaps in future, when sunbathing, the Duchess of Cambridge could be prevailed upon to wear the upper half of her bikini, as well as the lower half - regardless of how "secure" she might think her surroundings to be.

Sat, 2012-09-15 23:35 — Pavlova

Then the perving bullies have won. Frightening women into staying out of view to be treated with 'respect'.

Stop blaming the victim, she has every right to go topless in private or even in public and not to have it turned into titillating entertainment without her consent.

Tue, 2012-09-18 21:01 — McMac

By perving bullies I assume your referring to the female editor and readership of Closer?

Fri, 2012-09-14 16:23 — Jyri Kokkonen (not verified)

Lord knows we foreigners are also exposed to our fair share of media drivel, often much worse than this picture incident, but somehow this article makes me all the more grateful that I can live in a republic - as a citizen and not a subject.

Fri, 2012-09-14 14:49 — myouz (not verified)

Double standards at work her. Shame on in the NS for giving space to this royal apologist. The royal family want their cake and eat it. If kate had any real class, she would not be sunbathing topless; she would have gone to a salon. What qualifies Kate to be Queen is a mystery to me. Roll on republica!! Off with their heads.

Fri, 2012-09-14 14:31 — John Cheese (not verified)

Katie Duchey shows a large lack of common sense, maybe the tree needs to be expanded?

Fri, 2012-09-14 13:12 — McMac

Some bizzare logical somersaults in this piece. I think what your saying is prince Harry is entitled to privacy in a private place as long as he sits quietly, sipping tea. But as soon as he necks half a bottle of tequila and shoves his pants on his head it's a vital public interest?