The parallels, of course, are being drawn with William's mother and her relationship with the media - to wit, that they in the end killed her. But they also gave her life while she lived. Their willingness to follow Diana's every movement and listen to her every word was exactly what she wanted, even if that was complicated by the fact that she was at the time having a right royal scrap with the Windsors. It's a nice tabloid notion, of a saintly princess being hounded to her death by crazy photographers, but frankly I don't buy it. Any more than I buy the notion of Kate Cambridge being a sweet little victim of a monstrous media. The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference, Elie Wiesel reckoned. The royals know that; they live their feather-bedded lives by it.
I'm intrigued, Jude by the public response. The most common reading of this is that the Windsors are ordinary people like the rest of us and entitled to privacy. It's not so long since the argument would have been the very opposite of this, that they are special people, deserving of our reverence. Now the only person who seems to think that is Nick Witchell. But if 'royalty' calls upon human rights laws and the press complaints commission to defend it, on the same terms as it would defend you or me, then it concedes that it is not royalty at all. All these people have left is a kind of celebrity status, different from that of say Brad Pitt or Sinead O'Connor only in that they actually do nothing at all to earn it. Off with their heads.
ReplyDeleteYet we pay for them so they are 'kept'; they are, in effect, the last of the slaves. We own them and are entitled in return, at least, to the small amount of amusement they provide.
Welfare recipients should not complain about invasion of privacy. As royals have a misplaced sense of entitlement, they should take the money and shut up!
ReplyDeleteThere are two different issues here.
ReplyDeleteFirstly the issue of having a royal family,subsidised by the public purse. I wouldn't bother myself, but the great British Public seem to be happy enough with that. They pay for it and they get whatever they get out of it.
Unrelated to that, in my view, is the right to privacy. Everyone, even Kings and criminals should have the dignity of not been photographed in their private moments.
You can be a republican and still treat people with basic human respect. Surely?
you seem to be saying a few things here:
ReplyDelete1. You intensely dislike the british royal family, yes yes, same old same old, never could accuse Jude of being a Royalist. why you put so much effort into hating a forreign monarchy is more than i know..
2. If you court the press in your day-to-day role then you are owned by the press. Really? Is that so? I would suggest its more of a symbiotic relationship, without these people, some press wouldnt have a job either.
While I can understand roughly what you are saying, it does sound awfully like the argument about 'legitimate rape' not many weeks ago.
So you have a somewhat promiscuous woman who dresses provocatively, she's then raped.. is she not allowed to complain afterwards? Is it a different story for her than when someone attacks someone who 'wasnt asking for it'??
I think the two have some parallels. This womans job is to represent a nation, its a JOB, yes it has some perks but what job doesnt... I dont plan on working when im in my 90's but they have to. For some photographer to catch a photo of someone changing their outfit to be considered legitimate sickens me.
If you've worked in the press or used them, how would you feel if they published a photo of you taking a shit? Surely you'd be up in arms.
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference"
ReplyDeleteSo why even mention it?
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference."
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I don't really care.
I'm interested in the defence of the Daily Star, that Kate is not a future Irish queen, therefore she can be treated like any the celebrity would. I think that is a good argument. If the norm is to spy on celebrities in the hope of catching them naked, then that is appalling, but there is no particular reason for exempting Kate from that. The fact that we fund her through our taxes makes her more our property than the others are and gives us more rights over her. If she doesn't like that, she has an option to withdraw from that arrangement, an option the rest of us don't have.
ReplyDeletemalachi
DeleteThis is really about us, society, rather than them, celebrity.
Do you want to be part of a collective bunch of peeping toms?
Liking or despising royalty has bugger all to do with it.
We fund the NHS through our taxes. Should that entitle us to spy on nurses in their bedrooms?
The reality is unless the camera men broke into private grounds or private property or left hidden cameras were they shouldnt then what is the problem and how could the royals even think they have a case to sue. I mean you are one of the most chased people on the planet by the paparazzi so if you dont want naked photos to appear in a paper then dont sit on a balcony or a beach or a boat with no clothes on that is stupid and as for being naked at a party with a room full of people you have just met well that is even more stupid - who is advising the royals and who is looking after their security if the last couple of weeks are anything to go by then the answer must be no-one!!!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"the issue of having a royal family,subsidised by the public purse. I wouldn't bother myself, but the great British Public seem to be happy enough with that. They pay for it and they get whatever they get out of it."
I live in North America so I may have missed something here. But did the great British Public vote for the royal's subsidy (referendum) or was the British Public ignored. As you say "they pay for it."
"the great British Public seem to be happy with enough with that."
You're generalizing here and it's a weak argument.
Jim Lynch
DeleteMy point really was that irrespective of who the individual is we should not consider their private moments to be available for our entertainment. Do you agree?
As for the views of the public, well you are right I did generalise. I'm not trying to make an argument for royalty, but I don't see any angry crowds setting up guillotines outside Buckingham palace.
giordanobruno; "We fund the NHS though our taxes. Should that entitle us to spy on nursesin their bedrooms?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty dumb analogy. The NHS provides an essential service for the welfare and good of ALL citizens. What essential service does the royals provide?
Jim Lynch
ReplyDeleteThe point malachi made was that as we paid for the royals, they are effectively our property. The nature of their service is immaterial to that argument.
Once again, I am not defending the royal family, I am arguing for a basic right to privacy for all,regardless of their value to society.
Do you agree or not?
Who tipped off the photographer?
ReplyDeletegiordanobruno: Of course I agree with you, but unfortunately that's not how life works in this day and age. In my opinion the royals don't want a "basic right to privacy," they want an absolute right to privacy. Two different things don't you agree.
ReplyDeleteI understand through the internet that the constant camera monitoring in your part of the world is an intrusion into your privacy. All done in the name of national security of course. ( What nonsense )
So there is really no basic right to privacy in the modern world.
How much privacy do you think you are getting sitting at your computer typing your opinion?
Not much, I guarantee.