Palace won't complain over naked Prince Harry photos as it has for Kate

The naked photos of Prince Harry in Las Vegas won't be taken to the British press watchdog commission because it would be a distraction to his deployment in Afghanistan. The decision contrasts with the lawsuit filed in France over publication of photos of Kate, topless.

Reuters
Prince Harry (l.) and Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton applaud as they view the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games Aug.12, 2012.

In contrast to the lawsuit and criminal complaint royal officials filed in France against a magazine that ran topless pictures of Prince William's wife, Kate, they say they won't complain to Britain's press watchdog about naked pictures of Prince Harry partying in Las Vegas that appeared in a British tabloid.

Gallery: Kate Middleton from girl to duchess

The Sun newspaper ran the snapshots of a Harry and a young woman, both disrobed, last month after they had appeared online and were reproduced around the world. A partygoer had leaked the photos from the prince's VIP hotel suite in Las Vegas. Celebrity news reports said that the prince’s gang met a group of women at the casino bar and invited them all up for a game of strip pool.

Harry's St. James's Palace office said Friday it had decided not to pursue a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission.

The palace said a complaint would be a distraction from Harry's deployment in Afghanistan, where he is serving as a helicopter pilot, and it "would not be prudent to pursue the matter further."

The topless photos of Kate were from a more private setting. They ran earlier this month in Closer, a weekly round-up of celebrity gossip. The five-page spread of photos showed Middleton relaxing topless with Prince William on a balcony at a 19th century hunting lodge in southern France it said is owned by a son of the late Princess Margaret.

Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this article

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.