The Duchess and the Photographer

Apparently the woman formerly known as Catherine Middleton has breasts.

Shocking, eh? I could scarcely believe it myself but from the feeding frenzy which has accompanied this ‘discovery’ anyone would think that she was the first post-pubescent female to have them rather than being just one amongst several billion.

Quite frankly I really don’t understand what the fuss is about. At some point we’ve all seen someone elses’ boobs – whether they were our mother’s, our partner’s, our girlfriends’, by the pool or on the beach, on the internet, on page 3 or in any other situation. The size varies, the shape changes (even on the same body) and some are more attractive to look at than others but in the long run breasts are breasts. If this is an issue for you then I suspect you have other problems to deal with first.

Where then does the ‘blame’ for this business lie?

According to Anne Diamond on BBC News 24 on Friday morning*, the Duchess of Cambridge has only herself to blame as she dared to bare them somewhere other than behind closed doors with the curtains drawn and the lights off**.

Since this is clearly ridiculous, we need to look further out. Should we therefore blame the Peeping Toms hiding behind their camera a kilometre or so away? They are certainly an easy target but they would say that they are just doing a job – as (at least in my opinion) distasteful as it is.

How then does this come to be a job? If there was no money to be made then it is unlikely that there would be hordes of people with cameras chasing the rich and famous around the world all day and all night.

So where does the money come from? It comes from the publishers of the likes of ‘Closer’, ‘Hello’, ‘OK!’ etc who know that they can make more money selling their glossy, large print magazines containing images of the aforementioned celebrities than it costs to buy the pictures from the photographers in the first place.

Why? Because a significant number of people apparently like to do nothing better than pour over the minutiae of other people’s’ lives and then gossip about it afterwards around the water cooler.

And that, right there, is the crux of the matter. Until our species grows up and stops caring about the private lives of people we will continue to get this sort of thing happening.

I would like to be around when that finally happens – if only to breathe a sigh of relief – but I suspect I’ll be dust long before then.

* I was in the gym, I didn’t have my iPod with me and the other option (besides silence) was Jeremy Kyle.

** Ok, she didn’t mention curtains and lights but the prudish inference certainly was there.

9 Comments

  1. MTG says:

    I think you missed the main points and maybe some things are going right over your head, Ms.

    • Misanthrope Girl says:

      Seeing as how you are all knowing Melvin would you care to educate those of us obviously not as intelligent as you are?

      • MTG says:

        Thank you but I must decline your offer. Better to defer to experienced helmsmanship in the matter of steering your cargo across the ocean of indelicacy.

        • Richard Carey says:

          Dude, I see you’ve got the ‘putting different words in order’ part of writing sorted, but you need to work on the ‘so that they impart meaning’ element.

  2. Furor Teutonicus says:

    I presume she DID know what she was marrying into? I also presume she was amply briefed on what to expect and how to “behave”?

    She learned nothing from why she now has no Mother-in-law?

    Na, then it IS her own fault.

  3. Demelza says:

    There’s a difference between what we have the right to do and what it is well advised to do. A lone female has the right to walk alone through a rough area of town late at night in a mini-skirt, but it is extraordinarily ill-advised. The Duchess of Cambridge has the right to behave as a normal woman of her age but, given the media spotlight which she knows is constantly on her, it is ill-advised. The photographs can’t be un-taken or un-published, her best hope now is to ensure that none of the parties involved has profitted from their actions: this hope is forlorn, even if there is no direct financial gain, the vanity of the photographer and editors has been enriched.
    It’s not right, but sadly it won’t change. She has joined Diana and Madeleine as circulation fodder, with the benefit that made-up stories are all the more plausible because she lives and breathes.

  4. nigly24 says:

    When Fergy sucked toes, she was blamed for the bad publicity. now it seems to be a different matter, the photographer is supposed to pause and consult his decency manual. Photographers shoot what they see. Diamond is right.

  5. Penseivat says:

    “Photographers shoot what they see.” That’s not quite correct. ‘Some’ photographers shoot what they see – that’s why we have photos of landscapes, the moon over the sea, and little fluffy kittens (usually 15 seconds before the dog gets ‘em, though that’s another story!) – but ‘other’ photographers shoot what they believe will make them money. There’s a difference. One group does it for the aesthetic pleasure of producing something that others will enjoy looking at while the other group does it for financial gain from selling the photos to someone who knows that others of that ilk will avariciously, and sweatingly, pore over them with the eyes of a sad, socially impotent, pathetic, creature. There’s a difference. The second group are nothing but commercial snipers, only they don’t use rifles, they use cameras with lenses which NASA want to borrow to repair the Hubble telescope. They also infringe human rights, invade privacy, and care no more for other people’s feelings than a rabid fox does as it devours a hapless creature. The papparazi aided the killing of the mother-in-law of the Duchess of Cambridge and, to add insult to injury, it was the French papparazi, the same nationality, as the person who took these photographs. The fact that it is believed to be a woman does little for the respect of one ‘sister’ to another. She has made her photographic name and will no doubt enjoy her notoriety in the short term. In the long term, however, who will trust her again? I personally hope she rots in hell or, better still, can only find a job in those booths that develop prints in 10 minutes!