Editor's note: Laura Beers He is a professor of history at American University. She is the author of several books on British culture and politics, including the recent book Orwell's Ghost, which explores the relevance of George Orwell's writings to the 21st century. Her views expressed here are her own. Read more of her thoughts on CNN.
CNN —
The already insane Princess of Wales controversy has taken an unexpected turn. In recent days, the debate has shifted from wild speculation over the princess's whereabouts to moral panic over the British royal family's apparent history of altering publicly released photographs.
The photo manipulation controversy has provided an excuse for more legitimate media outlets, including this one, to weigh in on Kate's great argument, but it's hard to shake the feeling that it's just an excuse.
So Kate edits the photo. Who doesn't do that these days? The real underlying question is whether the royal family is justified in asserting its right to privacy and keeping key details about the princess' health secret from the public.
The Palace's view, however, is that despite their status as public servants, their families should maintain some degree of medical privacy.
But let's take a quick look back at how we got here. Duchess Kate has not been seen in public since Christmas Day, just before she was admitted to hospital for “planned abdominal surgery,” but her recovery will require her to refrain from royal duties until Easter. .
After weeks of speculation about the princess's health and whereabouts, on March 10th, in honor of Mother's Sunday in the United Kingdom (Mother's Sunday in the United States), a photograph of the princess and the three of them, reportedly taken by Prince William, was released. The palace has released candid photos of the children. Day. But it turns out that candid photo wasn't so candid after all.
Shortly after, major news organizations Reuters, Getty, and Associated Press removed the photos from their systems and issued statements saying they did not meet journalistic standards of truthful representation.
The princess later apologized for the confusion over the photo, confessing that she likes to “experiment with editing” from time to time.
And on Tuesday, international photo agency Getty announced that a 2023 photo of the late Queen Elizabeth II surrounded by her grandchildren and great-grandchildren was found to have been digitally altered at its source.
Princess of Wales/Kensington Palace
A photo of the Queen and 10 of her young relatives was released last year. CNN has circled areas that show visible digital discrepancies.
All of this has sparked widespread debate in the media about the history and legitimacy of the royal family's image alteration, including a lengthy article published in Vogue, a magazine that ironically is known for altering its own photos.
It's no exaggeration to say that Kate has history on her side. The long history of decoration in royal portraits is also acknowledged in the rock musical Six, in which Anne of Cleves, her fourth wife of Henry VIII, sings “Ich bin Anna of Cleves – my portrait.'' When I saw him, he looked like Ja!” he sang. But it didn't look as good as the photo. '' This is a reference to the allegedly disingenuous 1530s portrait of Hans Holbein, who is said to have persuaded Henry to propose to a German princess.
Most people, royal or not, believe that a portrait, even an ostensibly candid one like the Mothering Sunday photo, is as good as, if not better than, their best version. We believe you should express your best self.
Photo editing is so widespread on social media that the hashtag #nofilter exists. This tag is used to show off that the photo is legitimately very impressive and does not require any digital manipulation.
However, you don't have to look online to find examples. I admit that I have a doctored photo of my husband's extended family sitting above my piano. My brother-in-law used multiple Photoshop edits to create an image of everyone smiling with their eyes open. And tomorrow my son will receive his first grade school photo. The school sent home a purchase order with an option to pay an additional fee to have the child's photo professionally retouched.
In other words, the outrageous pretensions surrounding Kate's embellished photo include Captain Renaud in Casablanca, who claims, “I'm shocked, shocked, to find out that there's gambling going on'' at Rick's Cafe; It reminds me of him shamelessly pocketing his winnings.
If most people aren't really surprised or particularly concerned to learn that official royal photos aren't authentic documentary evidence, why has this story generated so much interest?
Putting aside the question of whether the British public “worships” the royal family, they feel a certain right to the royal family, a right that goes beyond a belief that they should not be fooled.
Laura Beers
Daily Mail columnist Richard Kay argued last week that the real problem is one of trust. The people worship the royal family, but that worship is based on the truth being told. ” Putting aside the question of whether the British public “worships” the royal family, the British public feels a certain right to the royal family, a right that goes beyond the belief that they should not be fooled.
Most Brits feel that in exchange for state-backed privileges, they are entitled to a level of royal access that is at odds with Kate's mysterious three-month retreat.
More than 150 years ago, future Prime Minister Lord Salisbury made a similar point when Queen Victoria temporarily withdrew from public life following the death of her husband, Prince Albert. “Seclusion is one of the few luxuries that a royal figure cannot indulge in… To maintain loyalty requires a life of near-intermittent publicity.” Or, in Elizabeth II's famous motto: As the saying goes, “To be believed, it must be seen.''
This is a mantra that Charles III seems to have taken to heart. In contrast to the Princess, who allowed herself to be photographed leaving a London clinic on January 29th after undergoing treatment for an enlarged prostate, it is not clear that Duchess Kate left the same hospital on the same day. It was not recorded.
As head of state, he needs to be noticed externally. When it became clear that the King's health condition would affect his ability to carry out his official duties, he immediately informed the public that cancer had been detected during prostate surgery and that he would undergo treatment. .
While it's easy to understand that the princess would want privacy during what is undoubtedly a difficult time, the length of her leave feels inconsistent with her status as a “working royal.”
Get our free weekly newsletter
Duchess Kate has not yet appeared in public for official business, but some questions about her health were allayed on Saturday when she was spotted with her husband, Prince William, at a farmers market near their home.
Like Camilla and Duchess of Wales, the Prince and Princess of Wales and seven other “working royals” are supposed to publicly serve their country, at a cost that currently costs around £86 million from British taxpayers. paid from sovereign subsidies exceeding US$). million) per year. There is no doubt that their raison d'être is to appear in public.
The royal family, like other citizens, should be entitled to a period of paid sick leave. But just as many of us can't afford to take months off from work without a full explanation, some Brits are calling on the Windsors to be more candid about Kate's condition. Some people feel they have a right to it.
