Snap!

I started writing this post earlier but James beat me to it. We appear to have two entirely different takes on the same situation. Here is my opinion.

Prince Harry, possible future King of England, was snapped drunk, in the buff, with another naked human being (female) a few weeks ago and the world was outraged, for about 5 whole minutes. Google coined it in, and The Sun cashed it in, yet, with a little bit of dignity, aka keeping quiet, and a lot of outside support and humour, the whole furor died a record breaking public death in a matter of days. There was no weeping, no rending of garments and most certainly no reference to Harrys’ poor dead Mum.

Fast forward to the present day and the whole universe is up in arms. Why?, because, even after Harrys’ recent ‘indecent exposure’, The Duchess of Cambridge was still foolish enough to strip off in public, and got snapped doing so. Or, as Timmy so wonderfully put it, Skinny Sloane Flaps Baps*. Yes it was in public. She was outside, and that makes it public. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they can’t see you. I can’t see satellites in space but my house is still on google earth.

It can’t be nice, having your boobs splashed all over some cheap, chavvy magazine, but hey, them’s the breaks. If you are in the public eye, that eye doesn’t blink, let alone sleep. It will watch you 24hrs a day, just waiting for you to fuck up. Well lit, nicely orchestrated photos of you and your Hubby, relaxing at home, will make any magazine, and their reporter, a nice steady income. Long distance, fuzzy shots of you and your crack pipe/shaved head/boobs is what get’s that same reporter a second place in Tuscany and the Magazine in question first place on Google.

I bet every single British paper, and MSN journo, that has declared their ‘utter outrage’ over these snaps had a letch copy, or even several, of said magazine, long before they went to print. I also bet that sales for that magazine will be through the roof this month, because regardless of the faux public outrage, everyone will want a copy, just to see what all the fuss is about. Not to mention all the people that will be googling, trying to get a peak for free. It’s human nature.

Anyhooters, back to my confusion. How can St James Palace get it soo right the first time, and yet soo very, very wrong the second?. They have decided this time around to sue the magazine. For what, breach of privacy?. Too late amigos. That train left the station when The Sun published those pictures of Harry and you all kept a dignified silence. More importantly, why the hoohah over Kate, and not over the third in line to the throne?. Enter, stage left, the all enduring ghost of Princess Diana (yawn). Cheezus that woman hangs around worse than a bad fart.

Poor Kate can’t seem to do anything without some lazy arse idiot in the MSM comparing Her to Diana. She can’t even wear a scarf and visit a mosque without some twat opining about how doing so ‘evokes strong memories of Princess Diana’. No it bloody doesn’t. My daughter wasn’t alive when Diana visited her Mosque. In fact she wasn’t even alive when Diana died. Her first reaction, on seeing those photos was ‘Wow, she looks so beautiful’. My daughter is a huge fan of Kate, as are most of her friends.

My first reaction was, ‘Oh for fucks sake, not Princess fucking Diana, again’. I had to explain, yet again, who Princess Diana was, and her connection to Kate. My daughters response was ’So, She’s dead, right?’. ‘Yep’ I replied, ‘Bummer……..OMG, can you do my hair like that, with the pearls and everything, it’s totally lush?’. There is no way, every time Kate brushes her teeth, drinks a cup of tea or selects an outfit that Wills pipes up with ‘OMG, you’re soooo like my dead mother it’s proper fucking spooky’. So, why do the press keep doing it?. And why, now, after soo long, have St James Palace suddenly decided to try and invoke the spirit of the very dead, but never fucking forgotten Diana as some kind of protective shield against the press?. They have managed to ignore all and every attempt by the press, so far, to foster or encourage any kind of ongoing rivalry competition between the very much alive Kate and and the very much dead, but still alive in our heart of hearts, Diana. And then they threw it all away.

A strongly worded Palace statement compared the photographs to the ‘worst excesses of the Press and paparazzi during the life of Diana’.

They make no mention of the worst excesses of Diana, and how, even though She gave up the right to be Queen, She was less happy to give up the front pages. If you marry the future King of England, the whole world is going to be watching you. It’s in the job description. How you deal with that is up to you. Kate has kept a low profile, carrying out her duties as the future Queen of England with dignity and style, in quite possibly the busiest year for Royals ever known to man. Diana courted the press. Even during her marriage She was never without a few candid shots of her playing the perfect Mother or taking some time out. After the divorce She used every type of media to wage a one woman war on The Royal Family. There was not a bitter, nasty stone left un-turned in Dianas’ unending and all consuming quest to remain front page news, long after a more dignified woman (Sarah Ferguson for example) would have faded into the back ground. She fed herself, willingly to the wolves, and in the end, her bitterness, vanity and desperate quest to remain front page fodder got her killed.

I think it is a great shame, that having spent so many years, quietly undoing the damage Diana did when She was alive and, even worse, when she died, The Royal Family have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. Whilst trip trapping over the bridge, a troll jumped up. Instead of simply ignoring it and carrying on their way, they stopped, had a bit of a panic and then made the all to familiar mistake of feeding it. All in the vain hope that this would appease the Troll and allow them to carry on, peacefully, with their journey. Everyone knows what happens when you feeds the Trolls. They get a taste for it.

*I think this may possibly be the funniest blog post title, ever.

19 Responses to “Snap!”

  1. macheath September 15, 2012 at 22:41 Permalink

    Well said!

    It raises the interesting question of what happens if or when the required scion puts in an appearance.

    Since bottle-feeding is, one hopes, out of the question, how will everyone cope with that inevitable point in a mother’s life when what were once elusive objects of interest turn into kitchen utensils?

    The attentions of the world’s press and their increasingly powerful telephoto lenses are likely to mean that the poor baby will have to be fed only in completely shielded and enclosed locations; a recipe, if ever there was one, for a particularly bizarre complex.

    I wonder if this has anything to do with the choice to take action now.

  2. ubermouth September 16, 2012 at 01:20 Permalink

    I am astounded that,given your obvious disdain for the press invoking the name of the late Diana[a more respectful introduction than your "Enter, stage left, the all enduring ghost of Princess Diana (yawn). Cheezus that woman hangs around worse than a bad fart." ,don't you think?] in terms of all things Kate, I am surprised that your article on Kate spent more time abusing and disrespecting a woman who did a great deal for Britain and the disenfranchised than you spent on the supposed purpose of this post ;Kate.

    Diana handled herself with dignity ,poise and grace and was a great humanitarian. Whether you agree or not, one would think you would refrain from such cheap,distasteful shots when it comes to a woman who died tragically before her time. To blame her for her own death and resent her for her memory ever being invoked takes the cake!

  3. dearieme September 16, 2012 at 01:40 Permalink

    “the future King of England”: that job was abolished in 1707.

  4. Amfortas September 16, 2012 at 02:41 Permalink

    #”Yes it was in public. She was outside, and that makes it public”

    Nonsense.

  5. Dave September 16, 2012 at 03:22 Permalink

    The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will parade nude through the streets of Honiara in an open-top vehicle shaped like a canoe when the couple arrives in the Solomon Islands later today.

  6. Amfortas September 16, 2012 at 05:57 Permalink

    In Las Vegas, the Prince Harry was mearly joining in local customs, as is quite usual with Royals. It was acknowledging the culture of a particular place and people, and with some gusto and authenticity. Jolly fine example, I say. Our jaundiced media simply failed, as usual, to get to the nub of the matter so intent as they were on his knob.

  7. Jeremy Poynton September 16, 2012 at 06:39 Permalink

    “The Duchess of Cambridge was still foolish enough to strip off in public”

    Uh? A privately owned Chateau is NOT public.

    Twaddle

  8. wiggiatlarge September 16, 2012 at 09:13 Permalink

    I really couldn’t give a stuff about all this, but the hypocrisy that abounds in all quarters when something like this happens has just been topped by the announcement that Richard Desmond (yes for it is he) well known publisher of all things shite and the late night adult ! channels,has decided in a moment of showing his credentials for moral decency to shut down his joint venture with the Irish Daily Star, you really couldn’t make it up.

  9. James Higham September 16, 2012 at 10:45 Permalink

    I think I’m more with Wiggia here – there is a ridiculousness to it now. The people I’m arguing most with are those saying “oh what a terrible breach of privacy”. Sorry, I don’t buy that in exactly that simplistic way and though I agree with Amfortas on many things, that position doesn’t take everything into account.

    We’re not really at odds anyway – I do agree it was a gross invasion of privacy – but it’s a difference of focus perhaps – my focus is on the security people and that such things will happen and have happened in the past. Look, security should have been on that lawn days before, with the owner of the property, asking things like, “Are there any local roads within viewing distance? Are there an y points with line of sight to the house and the lawn?”

    If there were, there are no measures which could be taken vis-a-vis the public on those roads but security would have briefed Wills and Kate as to the possibilities of snipers/paparazzi. I mean, that’s what those bozos are being paid for. She would have kept her top on and knickers in public, all would have been well.

  10. Amfortas September 16, 2012 at 11:03 Permalink

    Oh for the good old days of the Monarchy. The King, Princes and Princesses, caught naked would either laugh it off and say ‘f*ck the peasants’, or have their knackers off. Queens just the latter. They were not noted for their humour.

    Rarely were ‘royals’ alone, even when having a shyte. They screwed with a ‘lady in waiting’ a few feet away watching the royal arse rise and fall and the royal legettes tremble akimbo. There was a chap or chapette to wipe the royal arse and carry off the royal turds.

    Time we brought those traditions back. maybe the security people would be more gainfully employed. Heck, there might even be a big line in royal publicity snaps that the media were obliged to publish.

  11. ivan September 16, 2012 at 11:53 Permalink

    It appears that there is a hint that this might have been a photoshop opportunity.

  12. James Higham September 16, 2012 at 19:11 Permalink

    Jeremy:

    Uh? A privately owned Chateau is NOT public.

    Yes it is when a cameraman can get a clear shot. It seems very public indeed. ;-)

  13. Jeremy Poynton September 16, 2012 at 21:09 Permalink

    James – no it is not. This is defined by the property – which is private. Which is why they will be able to take legal action.

  14. ubermouth September 16, 2012 at 22:34 Permalink

    From a legal standpoint one would assume that it is not where the house sits that determines if it is public or private,but if it can viewed it from public property without having to trespass onto the ‘private’ property. An when one knows that there is a likelihood of photog lurking with long range lense cameras then in effect they ARE stripping off publicly.

    Either way, she is a chav for stripping off and I wonder if it was to get some attention.

  15. CherryPie September 16, 2012 at 23:34 Permalink

    At the end of the day it is all about cashing in on money!

    The media is cheap and resorts to manipulating the basic instincts of the people. Those basic instincts have been indoctrinated by the media for a number of years.

    The indoctrination has led to people forgetting what is really important…

  16. Jeremy Poynton September 17, 2012 at 09:25 Permalink

    ubermouth, on September 16th, 2012 at 22:34

    That’s pathetic.

  17. James Higham September 17, 2012 at 09:37 Permalink

    Jeremy, I don’t know why your comments aren’t automatically posting. Neither of your names is on any list and the IP is fine. I’ll rummage around and see what I can find.

  18. ubermouth September 17, 2012 at 17:05 Permalink

    No, Jeremy. There was,in fact, a case in the States similar to this. A couple were having sex IN their house,on their kitchen table which was in front of the window. Because they had not closed the drapes a court decided that they should have been aware that, as the inside of their kitchen was viewable from a public sidewalk and they had not taken precaution to make sure they were not being viewed by the public,by closing the drapes, they were committing sexual acts IN PUBLIC.

    Now granted the public in this case[or cases where people having sex in their cars have unsuccessfully argued they were in their private space] in those scenarios a person did not need a long range lens to view them. The point is though she was NOT in private if she was viewable from a public road,nor did she take precautions to ensure she wasn’t.

    Being outside topless is still being outside topless ,no matter where you’re standing. Even on a deserted island in the mile of nowhere, every fool would be aware planes could fly overhead and gawp or photograph them.

    I had similar happen to me[but I was not topless] when an invited guest covertly took video of me without my consent whilst on my private property. That was a breach of my privacy as he was standing ON my private property[invited or not] and engaged in covert behaviour without my knowledge or consent. One can’t protect themselves against that.

    Kate could have.

    * Not that I condone what the press did for I don’t. But if she is going to ‘hand it to them on a platter’ they are going to take the pics.

  19. ubermouth September 17, 2012 at 17:28 Permalink

    BTW [not claiming to be an expert] but I did have to write a 2,000 word essay on what constituted private and public property for a law class based on the case cited above[which is the only reason why I recall it]. :)

    The entire class [including me] claimed the couple were having sex in the privacy of their own home not in public and should not have been charged and convicted as such. The [American] law stated that the only criteria for designating a place private as opposed to public property was if it was viewable/accessible by the public[without them having to trespass onto private property,of course]. I doubt that a telephoto lens on a public road would be considered a trespass upon private property[but I can't wait to see the verdict if this does go to court-although it will probably settle out of court].

    I would go further by saying that Harry’s breach was moreso a breach of privacy because he was in his private indoor quarters,not accessible or viewable by the public. But then again, the law does expect people to take basic precautions to protect themselves from obvious injury, so Harry knowing that most people carry mobile phones with picture taking capabilities, should have anticipated such an event likely occurring,given who he is. But then he could plead diminished responsibility because he was drunk. haha
    God I love Harry!

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string KF8RFP to the field below: