Palace outrage as Australian magazine publishers intimate photographs of Prince William and Kate's island honeymoon

• Woman's Day splashed a photo of the couple hand-in-hand on a beach on their front cover
• 15 more pictures are printed inside and the couple are said to be feeling 'upset and betrayed'
• Photos shows Kate's taut stomach in a tiny black bikini and William in colourful board shorts

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were said to be ‘surprised and upset’ last night after beach photographs of their honeymoon appeared in an Australian magazine.


The pictures – printed on the front cover of Woman’s Day magazine – show them strolling hand-in-hand wearing only swimwear on a beach in the Seychelles.


The images have since appeared on news websites and blogs, although most British publications are still refusing to show them.

Newlyweds: The Duke and Duchess on their wedding day last year. They decided to honeymoon in the Seychelles and the British press knew printing pictures of their holiday would be a breach of their privacy

The move has dismayed the couple. ‘They feel it is a significant invasion of a very private, special time,’ a source said. Until now, no pictures of their honeymoon have been published because the media made a collective agreement not to print them.

But more than a year later, the unauthorised photographs have been splashed across the front of Australia’s top selling weekly magazine.


The cover photograph shows the Duchess of Cambridge in a black halter-neck bikini with gold detail, while Prince William is seen in a bright pair of board shorts. Inside there are another 15 pictures – some of which show the couple in the water. The headline, Our Island Paradise, wrongly appears to suggest the couple approved the publication. 

Private: North Island in the Seychelles where the Duke and Duchess spent their 10 day break (file picture). An Australian magazine has now published pictures of the couple enjoying their honeymoon there

A St James’s Palace spokesman said: ‘The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge considered their honeymoon to be a very private event after their hugely public wedding. 

‘For this reason they asked the media to respect their privacy. That is something they continue to do.’


Last night, the editors of Woman’s Day magazine did not respond to requests for comment.


When the newly-weds jetted off on their 10-day romantic break to the Seychelles last year, there was an unofficial agreement among news organisations that they wouldn't print or publish photos of them on their holiday.

Australian magazine Woman's Day has decided to splash an unauthorised photo across its July 16 front cover (another edition pictured)

The publication of the honeymoon photos is likely to rile the Duke of Cambridge especially, as he has been trying to protect his new wife from press intrusion following the death of his mother Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997. 

It is unclear why the magazine, owned by ACP Magazines, has chosen to publish the images now. Editors have not yet responded for comment.

The couple stayed in a £4,000-a-night-bungalow on North Island in May last year after marrying on April 29. 


Their villa had its own butler, an open-air bathroom area with sunken bath and shower, a private garden and a wooden deck with freshwater rock pool and yoga pavilion.

It is understood that William arranged a surprise sunset cruise and asked the resort to set up a champagne picnic on one of the island’s most secluded beaches during their stay.

They first visited the Seychelles in August 2007 when they stayed on Desroches, 150 miles south west of the Seychelles' main island Mahe, for a week-long break. It was reported that William told islanders the Desroches trip was the best holiday he had ever had.

The four-mile long island, blanketed by coconut groves, has only a handful of luxury villas, each with stunning views across the warm Indian Ocean. 


It's not the first time an Australian magazine has got into trouble with the Royals. 


In 2008 there was a 'media blackout' and the British media officially agreed with St James's Palace not to publish the fact Prince Harry was serving in Afghanistan.

However, he hastily left the warzone after Australia's New Idea magazine broke a global media promise not to declare his presence in the country, as did a U.S. news website.

When the news was revealed there were fears it could increase the danger to him and his fellow soldiers.

Honeymoon: Kate and William at Buckingham Palace the day after their nuptials. They went on a 'mini moon' before their honeymoon in May last year. The location was a closely guarded secret until after they returned

Stunning: Desroches in the Seychelles is four miles long and blanketed in palm trees with only a handful of luxury villas. Kate and William visited the island in 2007 but went to North Island for their honeymoon

Prince Harry - who is known as Captain Wales in the Army - was serving as a forward air controller operating in Helmand province and co-ordinated air support and aviation across the area, calling in jets to drop bombs on enemy targets.

'We did not knowingly breach any embargo and were not party to any agreement for a media blackout on the story,' said New Idea in a short apology at the time. 


Few people noticed the initial report in New Idea, but a scandal erupted after the U.S. website the Drudge Report picked up the story and broadcast it internationally.

Breach: Prince Harry standing in front of an Apache helicopter last year. He served in Afghanistan in 2008 but was hastily brought home after foreign media broke a pledge not to reveal he was serving there

The magazine, which often runs cover stories of the British royal family, said it was not 'alert to the possible ramifications' of publishing the story of Harry in Afghanistan.


'We regret this serious lapse of judgement,' it said. 'We sincerely apologise to all our readers, to the servicemen whose lives are at constant risk while serving at home and abroad and to their families and loved ones.'

Media blackouts are not very common and refer to the censorship of a specific topic for a specific reason. They can be voluntary or enforced by the government, although this can be controversial especially in peacetime.

[Source : dailymail.co.uk]