Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Stephen M. Twigg

GET UPDATES FROM Stephen M. Twigg
 

Topless Kate - The Real Price of Tittle Tattle

Posted: 17/09/2012 00:00

So once again we have a paparazzo clandestinely taking photos of an attractive female member of the royal family with her breasts exposed, in what she assumed was a private situation where she was safe - and once again we have editors willing to buy and publish the embarrassing images so the world can gawp at them.

Already the resulting photos are on the internet and it will surprise no one if British tabloids argue that since the pictures are now readily available across the globe, the press should have the freedom to show their readers what all the fuss is about - in the public interest.

Commentary about the incident so far ranges from the sympathetic to the cynical and the downright hostile. Quite common is the view that those blessed with beauty, position and wealth should not complain at such a minor inconvenience as that of having their semi-nude body exposed to the scrutiny of billions of strangers. After all what harm can it do?

Quite a lot actually, is the answer to that question.

In May 1994, pictures taken surreptitiously of Diana, Princess of Wales, as she adjusted her swim suit while sunbathing beside a Malaga swimming pool, were offered to the world's press for £1 million. Those photos were purchased and disposed of by Eduardo Junco, proprietor of Hello magazine in Spain, so they would not be seen by the public.

The incident impacted heavily on Diana's emotional state, nervous system, muscles and digestion. The effects lasted for days that time. Regardless of how she seems to be coping, Kate will be experiencing similar, as will her husband, who has now seen his wife subjected to the same kind of hurtful exposure as his mother, who described the intrusion as "like a rape."

The accumulated effects of similar invasions of her privacy, one after another during the years she was in the public eye, were undoubtedly damaging to Diana's state of health and peace of mind. We can only wait and see whether Kate can place these latest events, and her concerns about what the future might bring, into a context that will enable her to remain well and happy with herself, her life and her marriage. One thing is certain, she will be changed by this incident and others that will certainly occur in the future.

Everything that happens shapes the events which follow it. Invasion of privacy, that embarrasses its target for no good reason other than the personal gain of the perpetrators, causes genuine physical and psychological harm to the victim - but the damage goes beyond that. The lack of understanding and compassion required, to take and distribute distasteful images of other human beings who would certainly object if they could, erodes the humanity of those who commit the act and the voyeurs who cannot stop themselves sneaking a peek at what would enrage them if the pictures were of their own relatives.

In this latest situation the victims are a future king and queen of Britain. They already have an immense potential for carrying out humanitarian work that will benefit millions, and in the future they will have greater influence still, for good if they choose to exercise it. They will have been affected already by what they have experienced and at least one outcome is likely to be a detrimental shift, however subtle, in their attitude towards the media, and the public which condones its activities by buying offensive material or viewing it on line. What change in outlook and commitment to their roles do you think is likely if they find themselves treated with similar contempt, time and again, over the coming years?

 

Follow Stephen M. Twigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mydianastory

FOLLOW UK
So once again we have a paparazzo clandestinely taking photos of an attractive female member of the royal family with her breasts exposed, in what she assumed was a private situation where she was saf...
So once again we have a paparazzo clandestinely taking photos of an attractive female member of the royal family with her breasts exposed, in what she assumed was a private situation where she was saf...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 60
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Parade Keegan
I Can Hear You
04:08 PM on 09/23/2012
What "humanitarian work"? They "glad hand" people, smile and nod. They do not "do" humanitarian work but they talk about it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Stephen M. Twigg
05:15 PM on 09/23/2012
Hi Parade Keegan. Thanks for taking the trouble to comment about the blog and for providing me with the opportunity to respond. The position I was in, working with Diana, left me in no doubt she was doing 'humanitarian work'. It required hours of effort and much energy, reading briefings, discussing the diplomatic, political and financial implications of engagements and appearing before a cynical world's media in environments that were stressful and often extremely unpleasant. Diana was naturally introverted and being the guest of honour at a charity event before 1000 guests was as challenging as visiting hospices in the slums of India or hospitals full of patients suffering from leprosy or HIVAIDS in Africa. The outcome of her efforts was seen in increased public and political support and funding received by those charities she helped, and which were able, as a result, to employ people who worked in the more conventional sense at the front line. It would be interesting to find out just how many tens of millions of £'s she raised during her short life. I mentioned the 'potential' William and Kate have for making a similar impact if they choose to do so - but I have to wonder why they would bother unless they receive some indication that they are considered as human beings with feelings and emotions, and that there is some appreciation for their efforts and their right to lives with some privacy when not engaged in the public duties they have accepted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Parade Keegan
I Can Hear You
06:26 PM on 09/23/2012
Thank you for your reply. I absolutely do think Diana did humanitarian work and did so on a global scale but that was fourteen years ago. I hope Will and Kate can also eventually tackle international humanitarian issues. At this juncture Will and more specifically Kate haven't earned international respect/honor such as Diana did, hence Diana's "exposure photos" were "buried". I have to admit I haven't viewed Kate's photos nor did I view Harry's but from what I've read they are tame. Not my business, not of interest to me. Since they are "local" celebrities they are "honored" due to birthright and marriage IMO. I'm surprised Will isn't more insightful of the differences in perception of them beyond the national stage as I expected him to be more "worldly" and I "blame" him for this faux pas or debacle. I also expect Will to be well schooled in the deviousness of the "pap press" and if he had been more aware of self and not feeling "entitled" he would have looked down 5 degrees and seen the public lane and the "dangers" of being publicly exposed. I do think everyone has a right to privacy, a societal right to privacy not a legal right unless one is photographed in an enclosed private location such as inside their home/suite/fenced yard. Cont...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
06:39 PM on 09/23/2012
Nice one Stephen. Now could I ask a question? As a recent "blogger" I wonder if you had any difficulty getting your item published? Did you have to jump any hurdles, or did you just submit and up it came? Did you have to wait long between submission and publication. Am only wondering as an item, admittedly a little bit controversial, hasn't appeared yet and I wonder if it will?
02:10 PM on 09/23/2012
bdvc
29 Fans
5 minutes ago (13:59)
Mr. T.w.i.g.g has 0 fans - who's more popular?
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive
Permalink | Share it
bdvc
29 Fans
6 minutes ago (13:58)
I don't like censorship especially from the press.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Stephen M. Twigg
05:40 PM on 09/23/2012
Hi bdvc - do those letters stand for anything by the way - anyway thanks for making so much effort to get something off your chest? I've just taken a quick peak at your Huffpo history and see you've made 1155 comments since February 2012 - congratulations, it's a great medium isn't it? I started 18 days ago. Perhaps when I've been offering my opinions for another six months, and people get to know what I think is interesting and worth sharing, I'll get a few fans too - maybe like the 671 Parade Keegan has collected over the past 2 years - that's an average of around 168 every six months - now that's good going. I understand your not agreeing with my blog bdvc - what I don't understand is your comment that I'm 'wrong' - surely that's more a matter of interpreting facts - assuming of course we each have the same facts to hand?
06:48 PM on 09/23/2012
That was frustration along with all the other stuff. My original post which was not published was not in any way abusive or offensive. I just wrote a reasoned post which raised a few points of difference. It was not really even disagreeing with you but HP obviously decided that not criticism was allowed! That got me going with the results that you witnessed.
I feel that everything should be published as it is on the AOL side but HP was independent and on the US edition almost everything is moderated. But then they can be pretty vile and abusive judging by some other US comments sites!
Abusive comments should be removed, of course, but the perpetrators name should be left in place. That's my twopenn'orth. Ciao.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
06:46 PM on 09/23/2012
bdvc you seem to have managed to get a bee (and there are far fewer than there used to be) somehow entangled in your bonnet over this one. What's the cause of your distress old chap?
07:03 PM on 09/23/2012
Hi Tim, thanks for the sympathy! I wrote an innocuous comment which raised some points which differed from Mr Twigg's opinion and it did not even get posted. Hence my ongoing tirade about censorship. Censorship is wrong. Remove abuse by all means - leaving the abuser's name so we know who does it, but leave things alone in the first instance. The press are not in a position to be censors.
02:10 PM on 09/23/2012
I don't like censorship especially from the press.
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive
Permalink | Share it
bdvc
29 Fans
8 minutes ago (13:56)
You just don't like me disagreeing with your blogger do you?
02:08 PM on 09/23/2012
bdvc
29 Fans
0 second ago (14:07)
This comment is being processed and should appear shortly.

HP is a joke.
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive
Share it
bdvc
29 Fans
0 second ago (14:07)
This comment is being processed and should appear shortly.

t.h.e.c.e.n.s.o.r.s.a.r.e.o.u.t.i.n.f.o.r.c.e.t.o.d.a.y.
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive
Share it
bdvc
29 Fans
0 second ago (14:06)
This comment is being processed and should appear shortly.

Thecensorsareoutinforcetoday
02:07 PM on 09/23/2012
HP is a joke.
02:07 PM on 09/23/2012
t.h.e.c.e.n.s.o.r.s.a.r.e.o.u.t.i.n.f.o.r.c.e.t.o.d.a.y.
02:06 PM on 09/23/2012
Thecensorsareoutinforcetoday
02:01 PM on 09/23/2012
Just because I disagree with something one of their bloggers said.
02:00 PM on 09/23/2012
Huff post censorship again.
02:00 PM on 09/23/2012
I am going to contact the press complaints commission tomorrow.
01:59 PM on 09/23/2012
Mr. T.w.i.g.g has 0 fans - who's more popular?
01:58 PM on 09/23/2012
I don't like censorship especially from the press.
01:57 PM on 09/23/2012
Censorship!
01:57 PM on 09/23/2012
Your blogger is wrong.
01:56 PM on 09/23/2012
I disagree with your blogger - let me say that!