Emma Cowing: Let Zara say 'hello' to Hello! next weekend

I'm not alone. I've seen women run across wooden floors in four-inch spike heels in a desperate attempt to evade their all-seeing lenses. Even the Royal Family got caught out by them two years ago, when Peter Phillips was sent to the regal naughty step after enlisting a Hello! magazine photographer to capture intimate details of his wedding reception at Windsor Castle.

Oblivious royals, who simply thought the snapper was there to record private moments for the Windsor family album (oh to have a peek at that one) were caught in various unguarded shots after imbibing a few Dubonnets, only to find themselves served up for all to see across 20 pages of the magazine. The royals, like anyone else whose tiddly, ever-so-slightly-pie-eyed physog has popped up on an unwelcome Facebook photo album, were understandably miffed.

So perhaps then we should have some sympathy upon hearing, as it was revealed recently, that the Palace has put its foot down in relation to Zara Phillips' wedding. Princess Anne's daughter and her rugby-playing fiancee Mike Tindall were thought to have been pursuing a deal worth 500,000 with Hello! to sell the exclusive rights to their upcoming Edinburgh nuptials, which take place in the city next Saturday.

Zara was told that the wedding must remain a "private, family affair" and that absolutely no photographers would be allowed to capture the intimate moments of the couple's reception. Princess Anne - not to mention Prince Harry and whatever hare-brained scheme he has planned for the disco (I'm guessing it involves helium balloons and some sort of uniform) - must be swallowing down great gulps of relief.

The stance from the Palace was that the pictures of Peter's wedding had somehow "cheapened" the monarchy. Perhaps they did. I didn't see them, and rather thought the monarchy was "cheapened" a long time ago around, say, about the time the "Squidgy" tapes were made public. Frankly, I've always thought the Royal Family do rather a good job of cheapening themselves without anyone else stepping in to give them a helping hand.

But distasteful as such unpleasant memories are, I do think Zara has a point here. She is, after all, a commoner. She gets no money from the public purse, and must - the horrors! - make her own living - something she has done rather successfully. She is undoubtedly an exceptionally talented horsewoman, a shoo-in, by the looks of it, for next year's Olympics equestrian team, and while she has of course had the trappings of a privileged life that allows one to support such expensive hobbies, unlike some in similar positions, she has made the most of her opportunities.

Zara is said to be "frustrated" by the Palace's decision, and I can't say I blame her. Born into a life she did not ask her, followed constantly by photographers, yet never having reaped the financial rewards, it does not seem ludicrous that she may view her wedding as time for a little pay-back. After all, there is undoubtedly the public interest. Details about the big day are already seeping out. Zara's hair, we hear breathlessly, will be swept into a 1920s up-do, while her dress will be designed by Stewart Parvin, the Queen's favourite couturier. The crowds will, undoubtedly turn out at the Canongate Kirk and down the Royal Mile next weekend in order to catch a glimpse of her.

The monarchy are said to want to update and modernise their image - and have been exploiting the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for all they are worth in an attempt to do so, with tightly controlled media events in all corners of the globe.

Allowing Zara's wedding to be photographed for a celebrity magazine might seem like an invasion of privacy too far, but it may, in fact, be the most normal thing the Royal Family has done in quite some time.