This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/28/dailytelegraph-duchess-of-cambridge

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Palace upset by Telegraph using paparazzi pictures of Kate Palace upset by Telegraph using paparazzi pictures of Kate
(21 days later)
The Daily Telegraph today courted controversy by publishing two paparazzi photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge pushing a supermarket shopping trolley.The Daily Telegraph today courted controversy by publishing two paparazzi photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge pushing a supermarket shopping trolley.
It ran one on page 1, under the headline "Don't forget the nappies, Kate". And there was a second shot on page 3 with a story headlined "Who's holding the baby as Duchess goes shopping?"It ran one on page 1, under the headline "Don't forget the nappies, Kate". And there was a second shot on page 3 with a story headlined "Who's holding the baby as Duchess goes shopping?"
The pictures of the Duchess (aka Kate Middleton) were the first informal photographs to appear in the media since the birth of her child, Prince George, on 22 July. They showed that her post-baby bump had vanished and were considered by a senior Telegraph journalist to be "very sweet and charming."The pictures of the Duchess (aka Kate Middleton) were the first informal photographs to appear in the media since the birth of her child, Prince George, on 22 July. They showed that her post-baby bump had vanished and were considered by a senior Telegraph journalist to be "very sweet and charming."
Although other newspapers were sent the pictures by a photographic agency called Eroteme, they decided against publication.Although other newspapers were sent the pictures by a photographic agency called Eroteme, they decided against publication.
So why did the Telegraph use them? My understanding is that the decision was not taken lightly and that the paper carefully weighed up a number of factors before going ahead.So why did the Telegraph use them? My understanding is that the decision was not taken lightly and that the paper carefully weighed up a number of factors before going ahead.
Firstly, the Duchess was in a public place. Secondly, the paper was assured that she was not harassed and there were no security implications (and the Telegraph did conceal the store's location). Thirdly, previous pictures of her taken at the same supermarket did not result in any formal complaints from the palace.Firstly, the Duchess was in a public place. Secondly, the paper was assured that she was not harassed and there were no security implications (and the Telegraph did conceal the store's location). Thirdly, previous pictures of her taken at the same supermarket did not result in any formal complaints from the palace.
On 6 May 2011, for example, the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Mirror and The Sun ran pictures of the Duchess at the Anglesey supermarket.On 6 May 2011, for example, the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Mirror and The Sun ran pictures of the Duchess at the Anglesey supermarket.
But it is known that the palace are especially upset about the Telegraph's latest publication. Asked to comment, a palace spokeswoman said: "It is a matter between the Telegraph and the Kensington palace press office."But it is known that the palace are especially upset about the Telegraph's latest publication. Asked to comment, a palace spokeswoman said: "It is a matter between the Telegraph and the Kensington palace press office."
Similarly, Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher declined to speak about the matter.Similarly, Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher declined to speak about the matter.
Evidently, the press office is keeping its options open in terms of a possible response. But it is unclear whether that would mean a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) or some kind of legal action.Evidently, the press office is keeping its options open in terms of a possible response. But it is unclear whether that would mean a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) or some kind of legal action.
Recently, the palace has made it clear to editors that it does not approve of the publication of any photographs of members of the royal family that are taken when they are not on official duties.Recently, the palace has made it clear to editors that it does not approve of the publication of any photographs of members of the royal family that are taken when they are not on official duties.
The key difference of opinion is over the interpretation of the privacy clause in the editors' code of practice, which states: "Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy."The key difference of opinion is over the interpretation of the privacy clause in the editors' code of practice, which states: "Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy."
It has been assumed by editors for several years that once people step out in public they cannot claim to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy."It has been assumed by editors for several years that once people step out in public they cannot claim to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy."
But the palace has sought to redefine that interpretation, especially on behalf of Prince William and his wife. Aides have complained to editors about other pictures of the Duchess, whether alone or with Prince William, taken in the last 18 months, although no formal complaint about their use has been made to the PCC.But the palace has sought to redefine that interpretation, especially on behalf of Prince William and his wife. Aides have complained to editors about other pictures of the Duchess, whether alone or with Prince William, taken in the last 18 months, although no formal complaint about their use has been made to the PCC.
Instead, there have been discreet calls or letters to editors asking them to desist. That strategy seems to have made some editors nervous enough not to publish.Instead, there have been discreet calls or letters to editors asking them to desist. That strategy seems to have made some editors nervous enough not to publish.
But outside Britain, there is nothing the palace can do to prevent publication and freelance photographers are aware that there is an international market in photographs of the Duchess. Agencies have also been able to obtain pictures taken by members of the public on their smartphones.But outside Britain, there is nothing the palace can do to prevent publication and freelance photographers are aware that there is an international market in photographs of the Duchess. Agencies have also been able to obtain pictures taken by members of the public on their smartphones.
The royal family are not alone in attempting to persuade editors to redefine what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Downing street protested last week when four newspapers, including the Telegraph, published pictures of prime minister David Cameron on a public beach.The royal family are not alone in attempting to persuade editors to redefine what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Downing street protested last week when four newspapers, including the Telegraph, published pictures of prime minister David Cameron on a public beach.
It would appear that some editors are no longer confident about simply asserting that people in public places are "fair game".It would appear that some editors are no longer confident about simply asserting that people in public places are "fair game".
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.