Cherry Picking Privacy is how I’ve been describing it for a while. It’s the celebrity approach to privacy, as illustrated most recently by Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard, who are calling for a boycott on pap photos of celebrity children, and the publications that purchase them, but who also intimated that if it’s the parents’ “choice” to see baby photos to magazines – or laundry detergents – that’s totally OK.

It would appear that William and Katy Cambridge are calling it the same way. Because this shot of Princess Catherine with Little G that was taken on holiday and covers the new issue of HELLO! was tacitly approved by the royal family, even though in the past, they’ve tried to block the release of other photos that they consider to be an intrusion on their personal space.

The Telegraph (much more esteemed than The Daily Mail) released an article yesterday subtly calling out the royal hypocrisy. Turns out there were shots of William leaving a train station last week looking crusty – that were taken in the same fashion as the new shots of Kate – which the palace objected to. Those photos were not released in the end even though there was no harassment or pursuit in acquiring them.

What’s the f-cking difference?
Image, of course.

Not privacy but IMAGE.

According to legal experts consulted by The Telegraph, in allowing some pictures to go public and not others, the royals are establishing a pattern of inconsistency, making it “difficult for the media to judge what is acceptable and what is not acceptable”.

Up to this point, the royals and the celebrities have been telling us that it’s the media’s fault, that it’s OUR fault, that it’s NOT THEIR FAULT. But how can there be only one side accountable in the situation when the accusers can’t agree on an acceptable code of conduct? It’s not like Will and Kate don’t go Hollywood once in a while either. When they “accidentally” get shot by the same pap agency over and over again and those photos make it into the newspapers, isn’t it the same as Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds “accidentally” getting papped in a tiny little town in Utah, kissing at a bed and breakfast?

Is it about privacy or is it about control?

The Telegraph’s privacy legal expert says there’s a difference:

“Privacy is a very uncertain area of the law. It has ebbed and flowed over the last 10 years, but what previous cases have established is that that there should be a degree of consistency [by complainants]. If you do permit some things and not others it is a form of image control as opposed to a form of privacy.”

Right. So, again, in the ongoing Celebrity Civil War, if they can’t even f-cking decide on what’s consistent and condoned, how the f-ck are we supposed to figure it out?

Click here to read the full piece at The Telegraph.