Paparazzi Pictures: Harassment or a right? Neither, Really.

Kate Middleton outside her flat on her 25th birthday.

How much is too much? A lot of people are wondering just where the line is between the public's desire to get photos and the privacy owed the Royals. It is a tricky business and relations between the press and Royal Family are not always cordial.  One particular event sticks in the mind.  In 2005, in the run up to his own wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles, Charles was caught on microphone whispering to his sons his intense dislike of the media.  Whatever the justification or lack thereof, it was not his finest moment.  The boys stood and smiled cheerfully, but it certainly raised the question, "What are the Royals really thinking?" and frankly left a rather sour taste in many mouths.  Clearly the Windsors have cause for a certain jaded attitude given how brutal the past thirty years have sometimes been, but are they ever a little too jaded to see the predicament in the real light?  Essentially, I believe that the Royals are at times unjustly offended by the desire for photos, and in turn that the public unfairly holds a double standard when it comes to privacy.  There is fault on both sides, but the middle ground is not black and white. I am certainly deeply aware of the historical richness that the Monarchy lends the land, see earlier post, but as a realist it is important to understand that not everyone feels the same way about the Monarchy and so this question must be approached from the angle of practicality and reality.

Unhappy Prince.

The first premise must be agreed on--that royals are neither celebrities nor private people.  On some level, it seems William admits this since the very reason he gave for not proposing to Kate years ago was that she had to realize the intensely different life she would sign on for if she married into the Royal Family.  In the increasingly modern world, a royal family with greater popularity and public interest is a royal family that has greater relevancy.  Since much of a royal's job consists in charity work and raising awareness for their causes, the greater the public interest, the greater the leverage they hold, and the more securely they hold their job--the longevity of the monarchy.  To be royal is not a job in the conventional understanding   Unlike celebrities, who choose to be actors or actresses and demand that they are private people when off camera, you can only be royal if you are born royal--or marry a royal.  It isn't so much a 9am-5pm job as a way of life and that changes the rules a bit.

Then Kate Middleton Unhappy with Media Attention

The mot obvious argument against paparazzi photos seems to be a humane one, that the royals are people too and deserve their privacy.  They are people, and they do deserve privacy.  It would be a shocking breach of, no doubt civil law, as well as common decency, were the paps to worm their way to the little house on Anglesey for intimate shots.  Similarly, when in their private homes, or coming and going from their front doors, no one should be making daily life a chore or burden.  But what of the grey area?  The Royals out and about in the city, shopping, clubbing, walking in a public park?  These are all areas where the downside of royalty pops up.  As Britain's royal family they are the living representation of a national institution and so interest and photos are something that should be obviously expected from a patriotic public!

Stony Faced Middleton on her 25th Birthday

A very obvious breach of privacy are some of the photos of Kate before she signed on to royal life.  Several pictures show Kate visibly unhappy with the snapping cameras and flashbulbs.  Those were instances of harassment, waiting on her door step on her 25th birthday or the day of the Diana concert, and pursuing her when she was still a private individual.  The occasional grocery store shot of today does not equate.  She has security to keep photographers a safe distance and she holds the title HRH.  In perfectly appropriate Kate style, she has been only charm and grace in every picture both official and candid since her engagement when she stepped into the Royal arena.

Balmoral in Scotland: Nearly 50,000 acres of seclusion. 

To stay relevant, the Monarchy has to maintain a certain fascination for the people.  They must walk a thin line between too much information and not enough. There is such a thing as too much exposure, and not simply from the aspect of privacy.  Back in the '60's, against her better judgement, and the vehement protestations of the Queen Mother, Elizabeth II allowed a TV documentary to be filmed chronicling the RF in normal home situations.  It was an acknowledged mistake and damaged the mystique and the aloof nature of the Monarchy.  Some even believe it kicked off the situation we have today.  On the other hand, the Royals should also be keenly aware that this interest and goodwill of the many loyal monarchists, and to some extent the tourists who visit Britain drawn by the Monarchy, keep them a royal family with a throne and not just a title. Unfortunately, it is incompatible to be a royal and live a normal life of privacy and seclusion.

The photos from the park showed a distinctly unhappy Prince William looking in the direction of the photographer who was subtly--or more likely very unsubtely--snapping shots of the young couple out for a stroll. William's dislike of the press seems fairly obvious, and although overdeveloped and too extreme, one can see from his hurtful past why this would be the case.

Sandringham, where the Royals spend Christmas, offers 20,000 acres of land.

The key seems to lie in everyone realistically appreciating what it means to be royal and evaluating the perks of the job as well as the drawbacks.  Royals cannot expect the press or public to pass up photos of them out and about in public even in off time; they have relinquished the full privacy of a normal person.  But the public has no business getting offended when they splash out for expensive vacations in secluded locations!  Kate and William have plenty of money, and no one should begrudge them that!  It is lovely that Kate is sensitive of economic times, or just plain normal, by recycling her wardrobe and wearing pieces that don't necessarily always come with a four digit price tag. But it is also perfectly just for them to spend money to travel to the seclusion of tropical islands, or remote Kenyan preserves, to find real privacy and relaxation.  I have no problem with vacations throughout the year in tropical locales and it is the height of hypocrisy to scroll through photos of Kate grocery shopping and then be offended when she jets off to Mustique for a week when she "should be working."  Most of all, if you really find the photos offensive, neither view them nor pass them on; the interest of the public generates the photos.

William needs to remember that if he wants to walk in privacy through the woods he has options, any number of large royal estates are available for a hike that will never be seen, but when he strolls through a park in the middle of Edinburgh at the height of public interest and popularity, his presence will cause a stir and his picture will be taken.  For any attitude other than understanding to come from this scenario casts William in a very poor light and leaves one wondering if he really does understand how the whole world of modern monarchy actually works.  As future head of state, he needs to understand the balance to keep his institution healthy and intact for his son and grandson.