To Publish Photos
But in a makeshift Band-Aid solution to the scandal, the royal family placed a non-legally binding ban on the publication of the naked Vegas photos of the prince. While it's more of a Scout's honour type ban, most newspapers have refrained from angering the royal house… Most, but not all.
The tabloid dirt master more commonly known as The Sun newspaper jumped the fence and plastered the notorious nude photo of Prince Harry on its front cover today with a zappy headline: "Heir It Is!"
Well of course it did.
Someone had to ignore the ban; it's no surprise it was The Sun. The newspaper explained that the motivators behind the cover were not ill wished; it wasn't aimed to ruffle any royal feathers, but to uphold the principles of "free press."
"This is about our readers getting involved in the discussion about the man who's third in line to the throne. It's as simple as that," editor David Dinsmore stated.
Of course, the newspaper did not just publish the photos. It also included an analysis of Harry's careless actions that led to the existence of such photos in the first place. Now his military and royal future are in jeopardy.
And that must be addressed.
To what extent does a royal's private life become our concern or our business? Should Harry be chastised for this "slip-up"? Do you think The Sun should or should not have published the scandalous photos?
There has been no comment from any royal representative.