Tensions between the Duke of Sussex and the press go back to the death of his mother

The publication of photographs showing the Duchess of Sussex with her baby son in Canada has prompted a warning by the royal couple’s lawyers against running images taken in such circumstances.

The warning comes as a debate over paparazzi photos was reignited after some sections of the press broke a self-imposed embargo introduced after the death of Prince Harry’s mother, Diana, more than two decades ago.

Since then, there has been a long running, often bitter feud between Prince Harry and the paparazzi. Here is some of the background.

How did the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, change the British media?

No formal pact was entered into, but the death of Harry’s mother following a high speed pursuit of her car through Paris by photographers resulted in a public backlash against sections of the press who had chronicled her every move.

Eight days after her death in 1997, the Daily Mail pledged to ban paparazzi photographs from its pages, claiming that it was “leading the way” with the move.

Others too embraced hitherto alien notions of privacy in an echo of a “gentlemen’s” agreement that had already been in place from 1995 in relation to coverage, or the lack of it, of Prince William going to Eton at the age of 13.

Other changes included a strengthening of the editor’s code of practice by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and, after Diana’s death, the introduction of The Protection from Harassment Act (PHA).

The PPC made specific provisions for the young princes, affording them protection while conceding that there could not be a “total blackout” on all stories about them at school. By 1999 it had judged its code to have been so successful that paparazzi who were once very much in evidence in and around Eton had virtually disappeared – “aware that there is no market for their pictures in the British press”.

Did it last?

While the informal understanding between the royals and Fleet Street was renewed in 2000, the pact began to fray after William went to university. There was a change in pace too after the profile of the Duchess of Cambridge – then Kate Middleton – grew.

While much has been made recently of the intensely critical attitude taken by Harry and Meghan towards media coverage, back in 2007 Kate was making complaints to the police about the paparazzi’s pursuit of her after a breakup from William.

What provoked the latest row?

The images that sparked a legal warning by the couple show Meghan walking with the couple’s son, Archie, in Canadian woodland. They have been used in a number of outlets, notably on the front page of the Sun, and were said to have been taken by photographers concealed in bushes.

Last year Harry accepted substantial damages and an apology from a news agency that took aerial photographs of his Cotswolds home, forcing him and Meghan to move out.

However, the new photos from Canada are said by lawyers for the Sussexes to have been part of a spate of “unacceptable” paparazzi behaviour, including attempts to photograph them inside their home using long-range lenses.

Will the couple’s move toward spending most of their time in North America make a difference to how the media cover them?

According to Mark Thompson, CEO of the New York Times and a former BBC director general, it is possible that by “not doing the kind of things that the paparazzi and celebrity hounds find interesting, you begin to have a quieter life”.

On the other hand, in the US at least, there are broader freedoms over issues such as privacy, the paparazzi are not constrained by the informal rules drawn up following the death of Diana and the couple are moving to an environment in which supermarket tabloids and websites such as TMZ remain as popular as ever.

As for Canada, relevant laws have been in flux in recent years with “intrusion upon seclusion” now recognised as a tort, or civil wrong. In comparison to its southern neighbour, the country’s media have also had more of a culture of self-censorship according to Lisa Taylor, an assistant professor at Ryerson University’s school of journalism.

“That more genteel approach is beginning to change however and it’s going to be interesting given that we tend to take some cues from the US and UK in equal measure,” she added.

A figure at one of the Fleet Street outlets deeply invested in coverage of the Sussexes said: “There’s no doubt that photos of Meghan are red hot at the moment and people will be making a few bob out of it.”

Images could change hands for tens of thousands of pounds, he added, and there was an expectation that new freelance operations will spring up in Canada to cover the Sussexes.

But he cautioned: “It’s notable that a lot of papers have held off on using what the Sun published today and I think people will abide by the rules.”

The notion that the “gloves will come off” in terms of UK press coverage of Meghan and Harry was also rejected by Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors.

Will the move mean anything in terms of their legal protection and remedies available to them?

The existence in British Columbia, where Meghan has recently been photographed, of a “privacy act” enabling people to take legal action “against someone who unreasonably invades their privacy” has been cited in some quarters.

As for Britain, the same codes governing press use of images irrespective of where they have been taken remain in place .

The Sussexes are also likely to draw succour from a 2014 high court decision to award £10,000 of privacy damages to three of the musician Paul Weller’s children after photographs taken of them on a California shopping trip were “plastered” over Mail Online. A subsequent unsuccessful attempt to appeal argued that the judgment created what was, in effect, an “image right” for the first time.

Ian Murray argued that the press had taken great care and made strong steps towards self-regulation through initiatives such as the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), and said: “That is not going to be thrown out just because Harry and Meghan have said they want to step out of the limelight.”

But he predicted that there would be a “healthy debate” about privacy and censorship, which would take account of how the press had the right to cover public figures.

“There are guidelines there about what is public and what is private and they will still apply,” he added. Within them, it was “a bit rich saying you can only take photos when we want you to.”