I don’t know the Duchess of Cambridge; I have never met nor in any way interacted with her. She seems like a pleasant enough woman, but could be deplorable in person – I don’t know, and how would I? Neither do I care. She doesn’t affect my life in any particularly direct fashion, the usual arguments about the cost to the public on the institution of the monarchy notwithstanding.

But were The Man and I on a private holiday and I happened to lower my top whilst sunbathing, I wouldn’t expect pictures of me to be all over the internet and in shitty celebrity “magazines” and red-top rags. Why do the rules change for her?

Yeah, I’m not in the public eye (thank God). Obviously the former Miss Middleton is, and one might say quite deliberately (although it’s also arguable that she just happened to fall in love with someone, as, y’know, people occasionally do). So what? What has this fact got to do with how she and her husband spend their private recreational time?

Slimey shitbike Michael O’Kane, of the equally shitbiked The Irish Daily Star, feels that abusing Mrs Cambridge’s (Wales’? Windsor’s? I have no idea of how the conventions of surnaming such individuals work) right to a personal life is defensible on the grounds that:

The duchess would be no different to any other celeb pics we would get in, for example Rihanna or Lady Gaga.

[…]

[Publishing photos of her with her top off is a] service to our readers…Of course people are going to be interested in this.

I’m not sure whether this “explanation” nauseates me more than that of the spectacularly vapid Closer rag, whose editor “justified” publishing the Duchess’ semi-nakedness for the so-called reason of “celebrating a young couple in love” or some such faff.

Whatever the case, O’Kane’s comments about celebrity pissed me off no end. I should disclose the fact that, beyond a few writers, actors and actual-musicians-not-churned-out-predictable-non-singers that I like, I have no interest in the cult of celebrity. I never have, and I never will. I simply could not care remotely less about the lives of Lady Gaga or Rhianna, to use his examples.

But for whatever reasons, other people do. Fine. People are entitled to their own interests, however much they may mystify my ivory towers complex. Also, yes – much as it pains me to agree with O’Kane – Kate ex-Middleton should not be treated any differently from any other “celebrity”.

And this is the bloody problem with the whole thing.

Celebrities are, apparently shockingly, people. Yes! Really! Oh. Em. GEE!!! SHOCKHORRORWHODHAVETHOUGHTITEH?

O’Kuntane alleges that Kate:

…partially disrobe[d] on a balcony where it can be seen from a public road and she’s stunned now.

Oh, just right sod off, would you? These pictures were taken a fucking kilometre away from where the poor cow was innocently sunbathing. That’s not public; that’s a premeditated, thoroughly deliberate intrusion with a bastard of a long-range lens. I don’t know who’s the bigger arsehole here – the twat photographer that shot the pictures, or tossers like O’Kane and Pieau for using and spreading them.

If this isn’t a version of privacy intrusion, then what is? Where is the line drawn? News helicopters, because (somehow) they’re granted airspace, filming someone on a private island or something? Spy satellites acting for the media? Google Streetview filming through your window? What a load of bullshit.

And then Ms Pieau’s claim that there are “more intimate” pictures of Mr and Mrs Cambridge (if that’s who they are these days). If that means what it sounds like it means, is the paparazzi photographer responsible condoning non-consensual pornography? I take it it’s okay for any couple to have their sex lives sold to rags, then. That wouldn’t break any laws or conventions on individual rights.

Oh. Wait.

A couple having sex is not of any interest to the public. Because, you know…most adults in contented relationships have sex. In this case, a cynic (moi? Of course not…) might argue the entire point of the 18-month-ish long, apparently happy union is to have sex. Because apparently our great nation needs an heir(ess), yay. The birth of said child may apparently be newsworthy, but his or her means of production is not. People eat toast. People read crap blogs like this. And PEOPLE SUNBATHE AND/OR HAVE SEX. Wow-wee.

What is in the public interest, then, regarding sex? Arguably nothing – if, say, a politician and his/her secretary are having an affair, it might be a matter only for them and their respective partners, children etc. On the other hand, though, does that politician bang publicly on about “family values” or how disgusting s/he find deceit? If so, an affair may cast aspersions on their (rather self-righteous) character, and thus be worthy of being in the public awareness.

But (a) pictures of the act are not required. Proof, you say? Confront those involved if you must. This nonsense has no place on the front of some shite chipwrapper. And (b), this argument doesn’t apply at all in this case, because, y’know, they’re the married couple. Sigh.

I don’t like Rhianna or Lady Gaga, to once again use O’Kane’s examples (I have less antipathy towards the latter for at least being original-ish, despite her bastardisation of an iconic song from an excellent band. Please don’t mention the fact that she cites them as influences.) But whatever my view of them – as with Ms Middleton/Wales/Cambridge/Windsor – and regardless of their choice to be in the limelight, no one should have to deal with an intrusion into their personal life events to which they do not explicitly consent. How would you like it?

Of course, all this begs the question: who’s to blame? The scandal shitrags for publishing this kind of crap, or us mere mortals for apparently having an appetite for buying it?

Whatever the case, the human race isn’t always something one can be proud to be a member of.

—

Just heard on the news that Mick O’Kane has been suspended from duty “pending investigation”. This amused me considerably.

Though in fairness, one does to have to question to what level the decision – and even a lot of the foregoing material here – is hypocritical. After all, the proprietor of the group that owns The Irish Daily Star is not the best known bastion of sexual purity in the world…