And how are naked pictures of the third in line to the throne in the public interest?
The pretend debate rages on. Is it "right" to publish photographs of law-abiding people when they are naked in their own hotel rooms, without their permission? Is it right to take such pictures, then sell them to someone who will place them in the public domain if there is someone who is willing to buy? Gosh, ethics are so hard.
Ethics aren't that hard at all though, are they? Some nasty and exploitative person took advantage of an individual's vulnerability, a vulnerability that exists because he has an unsought role in public life, then distributed them to other nasty and exploitative people. Eventually, the Sun – and others – started claiming that since so many other people were being nasty and exploitative, then it had a "duty" to join in, so its readers could join in too.
I can't help wishing that we lived in a world where it was obvious that the initial betrayal of trust was ghastly – however misplaced that trust might have been – and that anyone who colluded in any way with the betrayal is contemptible.
It seems obvious to me that if people really are going to be given "important" roles simply through an accident of birth, then they are not necessarily going to turn out to be exactly the sort of perfect paragon, an empty vessel waiting to be filled, that the "position" of third in line to the throne demands.
There is a complex debate to be had about whether it is ethical, in a supposed meritocracy, to assign high-profile duties by reason of birth, then huff and puff about "the public interest". But since there isn't much appetite for that debate, then there isn't much else to discuss.
Take the royal family, or leave them. But don't declare your support for the monarchy, as the Sun does, then clutch at your pearls when members of that elite group turn out to like partying in Vegas.