Recently, photographs of his two-year-old daughter, Lilibet, were published without blurring her face for privacy, despite explicit requests from the royal couple.
Newsweek's "The Royal Report" sheds light on this matter, revealing that Lilibet was captured on camera while attending a July 4th parade in Montecito alongside her parents, Harry and Meghan Markle, and her brother, Prince Archie.
Soon after the parade, the New York Post, Page Six, and the Mail Online swiftly published the photographs of the little princess in Prince Harry's arms. However, an intriguing disparity emerged between the transatlantic coverage.
While the UK publications took care to blur the young prince's face, the New York Post and Page Six featured the images unedited. This disparity reflects a notable contrast in media culture and legal practices between Britain and America.
Jack Royston, Newsweek's Chief World correspondent, shared insights on "The Royal Report" podcast, emphasizing the enduring impact of Princess Diana's tumultuous experiences with relentless paparazzi pursuit.
This unfortunate legacy casts a shadow over Harry's life, particularly when it comes to intrusive photographs of himself and his children.
Although it remains unclear whether the photographs of Lilibet and her family were taken by a paparazzi photographer or a member of the public, they were ultimately sold to the tabloids via the paparazzi photo agency, Backgrid.
Prince Harry has found himself at odds with both Backgrid and Rupert Murdoch's media outlets in recent months. In February, following a harrowing encounter described by their team as a near-catastrophic car chase in New York, Harry and Meghan demanded that the resulting images be handed over to them.
Many of these images were captured by a Backgrid photographer. In response, the US-based photo agency issued a scathing public statement, rejecting Harry's attempts to acquire the images and invoking the principles of personal property rights enshrined in US law.
Furthermore, Harry has filed a lawsuit against Murdoch's News Group Newspapers, accusing them of engaging in historic phone hacking and other illicit practices to gather information about his private life, dating back to the 1990s.
The publisher has refuted several of the claims made by the Prince. The involvement of both Backgrid and Murdoch's media outlets in the publication of uncensored photographs of Lilibet will undoubtedly compound Harry's frustration as he strives to hold the media accountable for their relentless invasion of his family's privacy.
Notably, the circumstances surrounding these photographs indicate that they were taken without Lilibet's consent. Royston highlights efforts made to request the news outlets to edit their images to safeguard the princess, including a request to blur her face, which went unanswered by the New York Post. The contrast in legal frameworks between the US and the UK contributes to the divergent approaches taken regarding the portrayal of Lilibet's face.
Royston explains that in Britain, even if someone is in a public place, there is still a potential right to privacy if they are engaged in their private life. This nuanced distinction arises from European privacy laws introduced in 1998 under the Human Rights Act. Conversely, such laws do not exist in the United States, where the concept of privacy in public spaces is different.
The ongoing battle between Prince Harry and the media demonstrates the challenges faced in safeguarding personal privacy and the striking differences in legal frameworks governing publishers in different countries. The revelation that Lilibet's face was left unblurred in the US coverage adds another layer of complexity to this multifaceted issue, one that Prince Harry is determined to address as he seeks justice for the invasion of his and his family's privacy.
