Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge are possibly the two most privacy-obsessed royal figures we’ve ever seen. For most royal figures, there’s a trade-off: being photographed in public, whether at public events or out in the public sphere, is okay, especially considering the taxpayers are funding your lifestyle. Not okay? Having paparazzi break into royal properties, etc. The Cambridges have always played around with that traditional understanding, and it’s well known that William’s press machine often bullies and threatens photographers and media outlets for publishing photos of or stories about his family in the public sphere. Early this morning, Kensington Palace sent out a lengthy letter excoriating the paparazzi and the UK press for the lengths they’re going to get photos of Prince George.
Kensington Palace has issued a letter on the security and ethical issues around unauthorised photos of children http://t.co/bCmIHoBtcl
— Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) August 14, 2015
Kensington Palace has issued one of its strongest warnings to date about photographing Prince George, detailing “disturbing” incidents where members of the paparazzi have gone to extreme lengths to photograph the young boy. The palace described a series of “increasingly dangerous” tactics used by members of the paparazzi in order to obtain images of the young prince. Just last week, a photographer was discovered in the boot of a rented car, where he was hiding out in an attempt to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in the vehicle, the palace reports.
The palace said in a statement: “Already concealed by darkened windows, he took the added step of hanging sheets inside the vehicle and created a hide stocked with food and drinks to get him through a full day of surveillance, waiting in hope to capture images of Prince George. Police discovered him lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his hide. It is of course upsetting that such tactics – reminiscent as they are of past surveillance by groups intent on doing more than capturing images – are being deployed to profit from the image of a two-year old boy. The worry is that it will not always be possible to quickly distinguish between someone taking photos and someone intending to do more immediate harm.”
This palace lists the following incidents which have happened in recent months:
• on multiple occasions used long range lenses to capture images of The Duchess playing with Prince George in a number of private parks;
• monitored the movements of Prince George and his nanny around London parks and monitored the movements of other household staff;
• photographed the children of private individuals visiting The Duke and Duchess’s home;
• pursued cars leaving family homes;
• used other children to draw Prince George into view around playgrounds;
• been found hiding on private property in fields and woodland locations around The Duke and Duchess’s home in Norfolk;
• obscured themselves in sand dunes on a rural beach to take photos of Prince George playing with his grandmother;
• placed locations near the Middleton family home in Berkshire under steady surveillance
While many of these incidents are clearly creepy, illegal and unseemly, there are some much bigger issues at play. The creepy and illegal incidents need to stop, of course. Let me just say that at the start. It’s disturbing to think of all of that attention being focused on George. Now, it does seem like KP is basically saying that George should only be photographed when William and Kate have decided that he should be photographed. Which… I don’t agree with that. If George is in the public sphere (a public park, a public beach, a Middleton-approved and staged photo op), then it’s fine. I also think that William and Kate are using George as a shield for their larger problems with the press, and they don’t want THEIR comings and goings and “private country life” analyzed too much (because they’ll look lazy).
There’s now a heated discussion amongst royal reporters, with Express’s Richard Palmer basically having a Twitter meltdown – go here to read some of his tweets.
Photos courtesy of Mario Testino, Fame/Flynet and WENN.
This is insane. I agree with them though. These people could be nutters. Paparazzi or not.
And I am not so keen on people saying well he’s in public let’s go and shoot and or follow them to get a shot either. There are security issues at play here and I don’t blame them for being upset about the whole thing.
That twitter breakdown is just dumb too. He’s acting all like what about freedom of the press. How about their freedom of movement. People hiding out in cars, hiding in bushes, etc.
Palmer really did not come off well in his twitter rant.
He didn’t. He lost it and people rightfully pointed out dude come on. This is not about freedom of the press. It’s about parents not wanting people stalking their kid and doing what some of these paparazzi are doing.
And then he tried to play it off by saying he was just trying to show both sides of the issue. Haha no you just had a temper tantrum on twitter and nobody agreed with you.
He’s been getting more and more ranty. To some degree justified too. The press keep getting promised stories and picture directly by KP/William and so they wait. They do as asked to get those stories and exclusives. Only to find the stories/exclusives are sold to foreign publications or released on social media. They’re jerking the press chain teasing them along ans going back on their word/promise. It’s growing tiresome. Ultimately, you can only tease them for so long and whatever backfire that comes will be a direct result of William’s poor choices made here. The Monarchy and press need eachother. And the word of a royal to the press should be honored. The reputation of anyone who revokes their promises is never a good one.
I’ve said this about all celebrities’ children: kids should not be paparazzi fodder, ever. And some people point out, absolutely accurately, that celebrities often use their kids when it suits them to get the pap coverage, but the thing is, those kids are even MORE vulnerable, with parents who will do that, so they are the ones who would benefit most of all from a pap ban on children. I don’t get why having thirsty, exploitative parents somehow makes the child less, rather than more, deserving of protection.
Celebrity gossip with adult stars is fun, but not very moral. Involving kids in it, especially when they age in single figures, is straightforwardly wrong. I don’t care who that child is, they deserve to grow up free from surveillance when out and about and just living their lives.
I agree. I feel like the lengths some paps go to get shots of kids is scary. I don’t care if they are in public we’ve seen time and time again that paps can be aggressive in public. Just look at Tori Spelling getting into a car crash outside her kids school because she was being chased. Ben having to wave paps off because they were visibly scaring Sera who was very young at the time. That pap that climbed over the walls at Hale Berry’s house multiple times. Sorry I don’t care how anyone feels about celebs or the royals, paps have proven to be downright threatening around children.
You’re using examples of celebrities who USE their children for good PR. Spelling’s entire career is now based on the public exploitation of her children on a reality show. People are calling W&K out for the same thing. If you’re watched their behavior long enough, you’ll see that they use their own children for good PR after they mess up.
Since when do we believe everything KP says in a press release? Its possible they are grossly exaggerating so, as Kaiser points out, to keep the paps away from Will and Kate. Wasn’t there consensus that some of those George pics were a Middleton set up? Its not like Will would admit it. In fact, it would be just like Will to send threatening letters for colluding with the Mids , its happened before.
Exactly, Red Snapper. This isn’t the first time that a press release from W&K has contained little fact or evidence. We said so, because we said so, so do what we tell you, because we said so.
Why would we give photographers photographing George a pass, but not the kids of celebs? Kids should be left alone. Period. When George hits age of majority, fire away.
Famous/celebrity/royal adults may not love the paps, but they are grown ups. Kids should be off limits. It could have real emotional consequences for kids to feel they are being stalked or can’t trust anyone, including other kids on the playground.
i agree with the royals too- this is a toddler, not public property. stop the madness DOESNT anyone remember what happened when the paps went unchecked with Diana?
Diana is a very bad example to use here, because she colluded with paps, teased them such that it created a feeding frenzy, AND refused help from the palace to contain them.
It is said that William’s last (phone) conversation with his mother was an argument in which he was telling her off about her teasing the paps and leading them on a merry dance – that summer, she’d approached one of the pap boats and promised them a BIG surprise which had turned the entire summer a pap feeding frenzy as they all descended on her to catch the big surprise.
William likes to pull the Diana card, but he should really come up with something else as far as the paps are concerned because Diana played with fire, refused to take precautions offered and it consumed her.
Where is the outrage about photographs of Mia Tindall, or Savannah and Isla Phillips? They are all regularly photographed, in public places, and the photos are published. I do not ever recall reading about their parents complaining. Mia is the child of two celebrity athletes. The Phillips girls are the children of private citizens. Are they photographed as much as PGTips, no but the point stands.
These are children of people who are not (openly) taxpayer-funded. They are very far down the line of succession. Yet their parents never complain about their photographs being published. But William, who is taxpayer funded, is basically demanding to make it illegal to photograph the future king whenever he is in public.
@La Juice, actually if my understanding of the Royals is correct, Prince George does belong to the State. Maybe LAK or someone else can clarify better?
Nota the cousins are photographed at major equestrian events, so very public places indeed. I don’t think there were complaints about images of Kate playing with George at something similar (Polo, was it?) a couple of months ago. It’s the stalkery aspects that are unsettling with this one, and I don’t think that applies to the cousins because the interest internationally just isn’t there, luckily for them.
I don’t think any child should ever have to contend with paparazzi attention while going about a private life like that. It’s not fair, and it’s not right. I loathe Halle Berry and think she is a lousy mother, but even a stopped clock tells the time twice a day.
So polo is an example of W&K deliberately trotting their kids out to be papped for good PR. There was an interesting discussion on boards about how the real story behind the photos wasn’t published. She was reprimanding him and trying unsuccessfully to get him to stop running away. Autumn Phillips ended up grabbing him up from the horse path right before the riders came through, while KM sat on a hill watching someone else parent. Papers spun it as “KM’s playing Monsters, Inc. with him”.
William wouldn’t stop even if this one pap stopped. He is pushing for no photos in public ever.
It doesn’t matter whether the interest is there or not about the cousins. They, esp. the Phillips girls, are private citizens. Being photographed. In public. For profit. And their parents aren’t protesting because “never complain, never explain” they understand it is part of what happens when you are related to the Queen.
K: as you point out, there is no legitimate interest in the children of the cousins, and yet their pictures are also taken and published by newspapers for the profit of those papers.
It’s important to remember that 2 of the cousins are completely private citizens as are their children. In effect they are as private as you or me irrespective of their chosen profession. Yet their private kids are being splashed in newspapers. For profit.
Further, whenever PGtips has been photographed at the polo, it has been at the express invitation of WK. It wasn’t a spontaneous act. Reporters are (were) informed ahead of time what time and place Kate and PGtips would arrive at the polo, and more interestingly, the reporters were told that Kate and William wouldn’t object to any photographs taken of PGtips. The result? Pap feeding frenzy at the Polo.
Jason’s followup statement indicates they’re demanding to limit photographers allowed at the public polo ground to 1-2 pre-selected photographers who are in good standing with W&K.
It’s just my view and it may not be a popular one but I feel that if the press were allowed to photograph Prince George when out in public, then there would be no need for this shady behaviour.
No photographer is going to be hiding in the bushes if they don’t have to be and photo’s will have less value if they’re not in such short supply. By making something such a rare commodity, surely they’re only serving to increase it’s value.
That is super creepy, though. It doesn’t sound particularly safe for the kid’s regular activities to be photographed, no matter how much security the kid has.
It seems to me that William is trying to control the conversation about his family. Nota says they are severely limiting photo’s to pre-selected photographers who I believe will carry their enhanced story line. William and Kate have to be on good terms with this person. This is a very limited view for the press, as well as our own hearts and minds. Being a big believer in free speech, I weep that William has so much control over the press.
Wolfie
William has what they allow him to have. He might force their position by offering what is desired to only those who carry what he wants, but they also agree to bend to his will for those tidbits.
It’s quite sad.
Mini Winston Churchill is adorable. He’s the only royal that interests me.
He really is a cute little rascal.
Yes, he could be in the little rascals! He’s like an old timey baby, if that makes sense.
LOL, Kiddo. Now I hear a Scott Joplin rag in my head. 🙂
Careful now. If you based any of those conclusions on photographs taken in public, Jason is going to come after you.
If someone were stalking my child, I’d feel the same way. Even here in the United States, no one is permitted to take a photograph of a child without the parent’s permission, nor can they publish it without a release. And our children are not as recognizable, or sought after, as George. These type of intrusions actually sound dangerous to me.
I don’t know that that is true. I’m pretty sure it’s legal to photograph anyone in a public place without explicit permission.
OMG! That stupid art photography class I took is actual going to come in handy! In the US, you can photograph anyone in a public space, unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy – that means a place set aside for privacy like a locker room or restroom. You can sell those images for art or editorial purposes. You can’t sell them for commercial purposes – like to be used in an ad.
+1
My bad! Of course, the First Amendment protects photographers in the United States in public. I was thinking of the release schools have parents sign to allow their child to be photographed, but schools are not a “public place.”
Still, let’s not make light of George’s security concerns. When my children were young and I took them to a park in NYC, photography students would always politely ask if they could take photos before shooting. I appreciated it very much, but I almost always said no, because I would not want someone with another agenda to see that my child frequented a certain park. Imagine your concerns if your child was one of the most famous children in the world!
That’s not true. My insane neighbor who,is a teacher BTW, used to take pics of my 14 year old fom his windows to try to,prove I was running a (nonexistent) business and now he ales pics of my tenants kids in the yard. The cops say there’s nothing we can do.
I agree with Will and Kate. George should only be photographed at official or sanctioned events, and not when he is “in the public sphere” like playgrounds or parks. If the latter is allowed, how would it deter the “creepy, illegal and unseemly incidents” like the ones outlined in the statement where paps stake out at hideaways and take long range shots?
And Will and Kate are lazy as hell, but let’s not conflate that with using the privacy of their children as a cover. They have a legitimate concern here.
Agree 100%. He is a child for crying out loud, of course his parents should get to decide when he is photographed or not. That just seems like common sense to me.
George didn’t choose to be born into this family, he should have some semblace of privacy as he grows up.
And while I get that W&K should be called out for their double standards in arranging pap shots of their own, that in itself in no way legitimises some random paparazzi stalking their children. Two wrongs do not make a right.
But the reason why this situation exists is because W&K have played those games with the press for a decade. Diana caused many of her problems with the paps and these two are following in her footsteps.
Notasugarhere, I understand that Will & Kate could have and should handle this better and be more consistent. Like Beth No.2 said, it’s fair to call them out on that point, however George shouldn’t be the one to suffer for their mistakes.
They aren’t mistakes, they are deliberate choices W&K keep making.
MrsB – I disagree. Parents should not get to decide if their kid can be photographed in a public space. Instead of me going into detail about democratic principles and use of public space, I’ll just say, please google ‘democratic principles and public space’.
If a parent thinks a pedo might be taking photos of their kid, there are laws in the U.S. (and undoubtedly in the UK) already in place to protect kids.
The end result of the Cambridge plan for prohibiting all photos of all kids in public space will benefit only W&K but no one else. In a nutshell, W & K are looking to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
I gotta agree with nota, here. I may be wrong, but maybe a lot of people still don’t fully understand the whole Diana thing. She actually wasn’t as great as people may think. Not even with all her charity stuff. Remember, she dumped a WHOLE LOT of charities after her divorce, and the ones she kept were, largely, for strategic purposes. Plus, she was very close with the press. It’s not like they hounded her and she didn’t want it, court it — and in several instances orchestrated it. Same goes for W&K.
But Diana is an adult, capable of taking responsibility for her actions. George is a toddler, and I don’t think the same principles apply. Like I said, it is fair to side-eye W&K for their double standards, but that in no way gives the paps a free pass to stalk the children and subject them to potential security risks.
I can even accept that W&K’s actions have some causality in resulting in pent-up demand for photos of the kids, but it is still possible to differentiate between the actions of the parents and the rights of the child. Just because George has lazy, hypocritical and manipulative parents does not make acceptable for the paps to be stalking him.
These are two people who have played games with the paps for a decade. They continue to USE their children for good PR. They do not get to have it both ways. And while they are in the UK, they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. These are examples of laws W&K have broken and there is photo evidence for each:
No reckless driving or driving while intoxicated (William multiple times)
No parking in parking bays or handicapped spaces (Kate Middleton multiple times)
No driving while using a cell phone (Kate Middleton multiple times)
No killing of endangered birds (William)
They are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. It is legal to photograph adults and children in public spaces in the UK, so it is legal to photograph them and the kids in public. It is about press control not security. Any time they take those children to a public park, it is a security risk. Ever heard of snipers?
Yes I am aware what the paps are doing is not illegal. However just because it is legal, does not mean it is acceptable or even beneficial. And I have explicitly pointed out, twice, the double standards of W&K so we are agreed on that point. What I do not agree with, however, is any notion that it is acceptable for paps to be stalking George just because his parents are playing the press game. Yes, he has manipulative parents, and no, it still doesn’t make the stalking of children acceptable… not even remotely so.
The sniper risk doesn’t negate my point though. We are all subject to some degree of risk wherever we are – risk of being in a traffic accident, risk of a plane crash, risk of catching a virulent virus. The presence of other risks does not legitimise pap stalking of children, or makes it alright to increase the risks that George already face. I would not conflate the two at all. If anything, the sniper risk makes the pap behaviour even worse, because it makes it harder for the RPOs to differentiate between creeps with a camera and those with a gun.
And just because his parents have broken laws, again, does not make it ok for paps to declare open season on children.
Bottomline is, it is not acceptable for paps to be stalking children. In fact, I struggle to think of ANY circumstance where it could be condoned.
beth/nota
It sounds like you’re both arguing 2 seperate points. For my understanding.
Beth.. Children stalking is bad (agreed) and George should be protected from this.
Nota… WK demand press and paps do not photograph PG at all, but they can freely stage pap walks when it suits them.
You’re both correct, but the arguments are very much seperate. And ultimately George is seeing a lense in the distance be it sanctioned or not he just sees a lense.
If WK was this ban they need to stop staging these candid photo ops. It blurs what should be a very clear line. Ether he’s off limits for all (unless public event like balcony) Or he’s not. No more polo playing, no more Carole and George being cute, nothing. It seems simple enough.
They are seeking to make it illegal for any photographer to photograph them ever in public. Not paparazzi, not stalkers. Any photographer legally standing in a public place, legally taking a picture in a public place, 100s of yards away. They are talking the example of one paparazzi and using it to tar and feather (and remove freedom of the press) from every photographer in the UK.
Thanks FLORC for pointing that out. In fact, I had wanted to ask nota what she particularly disagrees with in my comment, but decided against it as it could come across as confrontational. I had already stated – twice – that it is fair to call W&K out on their double standards so I honestly don’t see what is objectionable about my post? I don’t know if nota was disagreeing with me, or if she was just going on another tangent and expressing a separate point altogether – one that I had already affirmed in my earlier posts (about the double standards). I’d hope it is the latter.
Beth
Thank you. I questioned writing it as it could be seen sticking my face in.
The point KP appears to be making is no one should be photographing George. No matter where he is. Personal orprivate unless it’s an official events and it’s up to BP or another outranking WK to decide who’s there. In that case if WK are so against George being seen they can leave him with the nanny, but close by.
So, this move doesn’t protect George as much as it gives William control. Control to have photogs in his pocket. They will get the exclusives, but can only flatter. And control on where the photos go. Meaning William can sell them to whomever because he’s banned any outside methods.
It’s a very strategic move. It’s a play on William’s already practiced method of rewarding the press for being kind to him with photos of George. (which is true and backed up by William.)
End result, William and Kate benefit, but George still sees Cameras and people he’s not close with snapping his pictures when his parents want. It’s a power move.
You’re welcome FLORC. And yes, I agree the statement is about press control. Where I may differ is that I also believe it is motivated by a genuine concern – that of the paps stalking George. Most parents would be extremely uncomfortable and creeped out by the notion of strangers staking out at playgrounds snapping photos of children, and in George’s case – using other children to lure him to a desired spot, thereby putting other kids in the fray as well. So I believe the concern is legitimate, and William has strategically parlayed it into a means of controlling the press. As I mentioned earlier, he is manipulative.
To me, the statement is a bit of a muddied entity. It is not entirely malicious because I think there is a legitimate underlying concern, but neither is William entirely justified in taking the moral high ground. It is a grey area.
I also wish to make a distinction between unsolicited paps vs authorised paps. Obviously both are undesirable and deserve criticism. Though I would deem the former stalking and posing a security risk; less so the latter. I see the latter as a controlled environment, with the parents’ consent, with the RPOs able to identify the sanctioned paps and their ability to assess other potential dangers – be it snipers or pedophiles or whatnot – is not impaired, and with less risk of implicating other children nearby. So I do see some value in terms of better protecting the kids. To be clear, I do not support W&K staging pap shots of George, and as you said George would still see the cameras. But I do acknowledge that it is a less creepy situation than that of unsolicited paps.
@Beth No. 2
I think the children are mere ciphers. The Dolittles have proven themselves so lazy, self-absorbed and so lacking in fellow feeling, that I can’t imagine that they have much to do with their children unless it’s to use them or put in the necessary hours to look good.
They are wastrels of the first order and like 2 self-indulgent adolescents. Why would they suddenly be mega involved with their kids? I think the kids are useful and on that score Wills especially is happy to have them to score major points in his media grudge match.
Beth
My memory is foggy on this, but here it is. The lines for George’s protection have been laid and obeyd. They’ve asked for George’s privacy and the press backed off. Then there was a staged candid photo op (christmas/church/midds?) where the press assumed the ban was off. Pretty much because George was allowed to be papped in public and the pap was tipped off and given consent with no uproar from William for privacy.
Up to that point the ban was honored. Then it was honored again. A total ban by request. And then there was another tip off. Leaving the assumption with the press it was ok if WK benefitted directly from the pics and not for the benefit for George’s security/privacy. And another pap set up. William makes note of his outrage in specifics. So we know he doesn’t speak in generalities normally. He’s stated or had stated exactly the incident he’s outraged at. and some very much did not outrage him. Pretty much the ones with any Midd involved or Kate.
I get for a child’s protection. Allow only the photogs you want and trust. It’s also a power play.
@hmmm
Oh I certainly think they are “wastrels of the first order” (ha!). Mind, I think they have no qualms using their children for PR, but neither do I think they are as cavalier to be completely unconcerned with George and Charlotte’s safety.
@FLORC
I’m with you that William’s dealings with the press have been inconsistent and capricious. There are definitely double standards at play.
Now, it does seem like KP is basically saying that George should only be photographed when William and Kate have decided that he should be photographed. Which… I don’t agree with that.
Why not? Why shouldn’t they decide? The child is a minor, and is not some kind of public property. The tactics are all very disturbing and how can you maybe not think that one of these photographers could be pedophiles.
Pedophilia never occurred to me here.
Not to mention the other children’s privacy in the park George is in. I mean don’t those kids deserve not to have creepy photographers around while they play and yes how can you know if it’s a pedophile or journalist?
He’s not technically “some kinda public property,” but he does belong to the State, iirc. I study British history & I know in the past any monarch or future monarch(the heir) waa continually made to understand their body was no longer their own, it belonged to the State. This may no longer be the case in our modern society as it most famously was in say, Elizabeth I’s time in regards to her councillors advising her on a husband/not letting her run off & marry Leicester, etc
I kinda wandered off track; point is, George, as the future king does belong to the State & the people. He may not get to choose what family he’s born into, but that is HIS destiny.
If you read Jason’s followup statement that is exactly what they’re saying. He should never be photographed in public unless they approve it. IF a photographer follows this, THEN they *might* be handed a coveted pass to be one of 1-2 photographers allowed in to photograph him at polo. With the express permission of his parents.
How can William know (and care) so little about the laws of the nation, things like a free press and access to public spaces?
I wonder if he gets to be King if he’ll push hard and do deals to make these things law. He can’t ultimately win, but it would be interesting to see if he tries.
All I have to say is that some desperate freak hiding in a car trunk to get a picture of a kid is creepy as hell. Also, how stupid can you be? The Cambridges have a security team, and I’m sure you can’t see them all-what if one of the bodyguards saw a man in a trunk pointing something at them and didn’t take time to ascertain whether it was a camera or a gun?! Idiot.
While I agree the stalking has to stop – they only feed that fire with the Carole staged pap walks or Chuck/Harry polo staged paps shots. I agree they are using the kids to cover up for their behaviour, which is sick.
If they don’t want George or Charlotte papped then tell Grandma Middleton to stop tipping the paps off when she’s down the beach or at the Zoo with him. You can’t have your cake and eat it. They should make a point of saying that you will only get to see the kids at public events like trooping the colour, everything else is off limits and that includes the family.
Exactly. The Middleton photogs get called out regularly. Must make for some interesting “discussions” when Will chooses to visit. Also, they shouldn’t make such long droughts without a photocall for George. See the way the Swedish royals handle this with Princess Estelle.
+1
The way I read the letters, Kensington Palace is saying that Carole is NOT calling the paparazzi, and the two recent spreads with her (the beach, the country lane) were done without approval. Now, that is my interpretation of the letter, but I think I’m right. The question to me is whether KP is telling the truth or not in saying that, and further, if Carole is calling the paps, does KP even know about it? Is KP trying to obfuscate Carole’s role in this?
I think the kids should be left alone. It’s the law in the UK (no publishing photos without consent), and they are circumventing it by selling the photos internationally. Further, other kids are getting caught up. But I think KP needs to sweep out its own house first before looking at others.
I agree. Think this is a warning shot to granny midds… Isn’t it time for Mustique holiday? Guess pap staged photos of George at the airport arent gonna pay the rent for the villa this year. Of that keeps up, they may need to change their destination.
That was my first thought too……they would probably do better having a convo with Carole than sending out an angry letter to the press. Cause I have zero belief that those photos aren’t taken without someone being tipped off.
The heart bleeds.
1. Certainly makes a difference from the days when HM simply called the PCC (or it’s equivalent of the day) and media editors to a meeting at the palace and asked them to give her family space, and that was that. Harassment stopped.
2. The Cambridges keep changing the rules when they arrange for pap strolls of Kate/Nanny/Carole + baby and sell those pictures to foreign media thus creating a market for them, but then throw a hissy fit when the market demands more pictures. Stop teasing the paps and the media. Draw a line and stick to it. Don’t keep invading your own privacy thus blurring the line.
3. They have several thousands acres of land and royal parks that can give them all the privacy they want. All the other royals are parenting their children peacefully without pap interferance.
4. William has always been obsessed with privacy. It’s pathological. He will use whatever means necessary to create an ivory tower to imprison his family.
5. There is no law that prohibits photographing in public spaces no matter who you are. Granted their family is special interest, but in reality they aren’t above the law. It’s ridiculous to insist on a 2 tier system of laws so that you can play at being normal.
point 3
Yes, I can imagine properties such as Balmoral are pretty secluded. Not completely, mind you but enough that interference shouldn’t be a problem.
I seriously believe children (Royal or not), especially, shouldn’t be subjected to unwanted photographs but it would seem W&K continue to make and break their own rules.
Well summed.
Thank you LAK. It is too easy for people to fall into the “they are evil stalkers, children are in danger, stop immediately” side – which is exactly what W&K are counting on. They approve the photos of KM and PGTips exiting the plane in Mustique, but they’ll protest pictures taken far more easily in a public park in the UK? So you are allowed to stake out an airport on a tiny island for weeks, but being in a park in London is illegal?
This isn’t a simple issue, tangled up in the decade long use and abuse of the press and certain paps by William and the Middleton family. A family whose entire lifestyle is paid by the taxpayers in some way or another.
It isn’t illegal to photograph children in public, it is not illegal to photograph me in public. Bottom line, W&K do not get to have more privacy than everyone else.
If this was really a question of the children being in danger in public places, why trot them out to the farm park every day? Ergo, it is not about security it is about William’s obsession with privacy.
The question of security now in 2015 is tied to geopolitical circumstances on a global scale.
I know most of the contributors here have repeatedly stated W&K are pretty lazy, and I agree to some extent, though, as far as security, I can’t help but wonder if perhaps on some level, if they become too involved within certain agencies (I’m not talking UK hospices), they fear for their lives.
I imagine if you grew up being stalked or watching your mother being stocked by photographers terrorizing her until she was eventually killed (although I know a lot of factors went into that) you’d be obsessed with privacy too.
I think to place judgement on him for that when we have zero idea what his life was like or what it was like to be the backbone for his mother through all her craziness with the press and palace is terrible.
This is his family he knows his childhood, it’s normal to want better for your children then what you had.
You’re talking about a man who follows every trick his mother and father taught him, using the press and paps for good PR when he wants. Screaming at them when they don’t do what he wants.
William was said to be extremely upset with his mother at times for how open and engaging she was with the press. He’s felt this way long before his mother passed. He’s also had blanket protection his whole life and grew up in a bubble where he had personal control over their actions and possibly even freedoms (in his mind). If it would reflect poorly and it wasn’t what he wanted out the press would not print it. Or the majority would counter any bad news.
Living in that bubble creates (imo) an extremely warped perception.
And from just views out here William has no finesse with the press. He threatens and continues aggressively before any other routes are taken.
Even the BBC are doing some mild calling-out for hypocrisy today. I mean, the coverage is 80% “paps are the anti-Christ” and 20% “well, you know, they shut down the official route and had relationships with photographers outside the press-pass pack so what do they expect?” so let’s not get too excited.
Even so, if AUNTIE BEEB is even THINKING about hinting at something negative, then whatever Billy and Katie have been doing or saying about it all, we can guarantee it’s been a steaming pile of lying wank.
(And of course, I, like all other normal people, don’t think it’s acceptable to stalk toddlers, in public parks or anywhere else).
What’s “lying wank”, Sixer? HAHAHA
It’s a delightful expression to use on an American website, bluhare – because you guys think it’s funny more than you think it’s rude and obnoxious. With which opinion, I heartily concur. Snigger. (Mr Sixer uses “d!cksplash” instead, which I quite like too).
When the BEEB starts talking, that’s never good. They would never criticise the royals. Not even stinky Andrew.
I think their concerns are legitimate.
Was also disturbed and puzzled by this:
Police discovered him lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his hide.
Huh?
He was hiding in the trunk of the car and shooting pictures through a gap.
Very creepy. Also a tactic used for far more frightening activities.
That IS creepy. Reminds me of the DC snipers from a while back.
They mean his hiding place.
“In his hide” means his hiding place. The boot is the trunk.
I love LOVE the way British phrase things.
I was just going to say the same thing – trying to take a photo of him with a long range lens? Well, at least they’re not close or shouting in his face. But hiding yourself in the trunk of car like that? That is creepy and scary, and as someone pointed out above the photographer took a big risk – the security team could have easily assumed he had a weapon. As a Mom that would freak me the f*ck out.
Keep in mind that we only have KP’s word that this happened, and that it happened in this way.
Snapper, I can believe it. I bet that whoever it was did exactly that. They will lie in wait for hours to get a money shot. I remember LAK talking about the pap who got Sarah Ferguson naked with the guy on holiday in France. They dug a hole or something and waited for two days?
Bluhare it emerged later that it was Diana who alerted that pap about Fergie’s holiday plans. She had her own problems and threw Fergie under the bus to give herself some breathing room.
BTW, what happened to that guy hiding in his car? Nothing, right? Because he wasn’t breaking the law.
KP lies. This has been proven again and again. Their uncorroborated statements cannot be trusted.
No matter who alerted them the fact remains that they did what they did to get that shot. That was what I meant; the tactics are what they are.
Oooohhhh. Thank you. I was thinking “hide” as in “skin.” But I knew it couldn’t be that, so I was confused.
“Hide” is also a hunting term; hunters use hides as camouflaged places to lie in wait and stake out game. This gives an overall creepy vibe to that particular situation as well.
Ew, yes it does. Thank you.
I was thinking hide as in “tan your hide” which gave me the visual of him trying to shoot the photo from his bottom (!).
I completely agree, he should only be photographed with their consent. I can’t imagine going through a mass of doushebags trying to get pics of my son. Creepy much?
I would personally punch a pap photographer in the jaw if I noticed him/her taking pictures of my kid at my own estate. I’d also be a terrible princess. But yeah, it’s their kid and their right to choose when and when not lil George gets photographed for the thirsty, disrespectful press/paps who think this is totally cool.
It’s been mentioned before, the fact Charles and Diana were quite generous with interviews and access to William and Harry.
I can’t imagine William and Kate would ever allow a television documentary such as the Charles and Diana; in private, in public.”
I think the press, particularly the tabloids and the lengths they will go to, along with social media, makes this an entirely different animal. Don’t think it’s really fair to compare the way Will & Kate are dealing with their childrens’ privacy with past royals because it truly is so different now.
Yes, I understand, however Diana pre-wedding did experience some pretty horrid times such as the flat across from hers was rented by paps so they could basically monitor her 24/7.
The big difference now are tech changes with regard to sending the images all over the world in a matter of seconds and concerns re-social media.
Then look at other European royals and how they handle the press. They allow frequent photocalls including the kids so there is no desperation to get pap shots. The Middletons and William need to get on the same page with this so it’s fair to the British photographers. If Carole calls the paps and pics are sold to an American magazine, then it’s not fair treatment for the British photogs.
@deedee to hell with being fair to the British photogs these are their children. The middletons need to be grandparents and not famewhores no questions but the idea that they need to be fair to the press when it comes to their kids is bull to me. Kids first.
Citresse, I think the biggest difference is the internet and how much information can get out instantly, and the public’s appetite for it has increased. We are no longer satisfied with having to wait for the weekly/monthly magazine to come out. We need new pictures everyday!
Deedee, but the British royals are the most popular by far. There just isn’t a market for the other royal babies like there is for George. I do agree that W&K play unfair games with the press, but George is just a child and he didn’t choose to be born into this family. He shouldn’t have to suffer because people think his parents suck.
I think the Dolittles foment hysteria- “think of the children!”; there is no civilised middle ground with them. They can use that excuse for everything they don’t want uncovered. To think they have such power….it boggles the mind. Yep, that’s it- William blatantly wielding power- it’s good that some displays of power are being uncovered. Who does he think he is? How far will he go with anything? This little man.
You’re asking that W&K not have to take responsibility for their own actions because, oh, the children. They have access to massive acres of private park land at Kensington, Anmer, and Balmoral. Charles runs one of the largest farms in the UK. If they want to play in a park or at a farm, they have the freedom to do it IN COMPLETE PRIVACY. They choose to use public spaces, then demand that those public spaces become “private” while they are there.
But the thing is that there is nowhere near the worldwide interest in other European royals that there is in the British royals. It is probably because English is the language of the United States as well as other large media outlets like Australia and New Zealand – and is also the “lingua franca” of much of the world – the language people understand (at least a little) in addition to their own. That plus the remnants of Imperial glory that still somehow sticks with the British crown means that a picture of Prince George is worth tremendously more than say Princess Estelle of Sweden (adorable though she is!) or Prince Christian of Denmark.
MrsB
I, for one, certainly don’t want/need new photos of senior Royals every day. I would be happy with a few new photos (formal occasions not charity visits) on a quarterly basis.
My apologies- I should have written pre-engagement instead of pre-wedding re- Diana and security (paps monitoring her flat).
Once Diana accepted the proposal from Charles, she was provided a suite of rooms at Buckingham Palace. She then lived at Clarence House with the late Queen Mother. Though, I’m not sure if she actually preferred Clarence House or BP?
I know she liked the pool at BP.
My recollection is that Charles and Diana only did that documentary to shore up their reputations at a time when everyone thought their marriage was crumbling, he talked to plants and she was anorexic.
GoodNamesAllTaken
Their marriage had crumbled by July 1986. They had a secret agreement to keep separate lives hence no third baby.
Sometimes, looking back, I wish Charles had been more receptive to welcoming Harry and made more of an effort to romance Diana and spend more time with her; guiding her. If that had been the case, I believe Diana would have been willing to have a third baby. But it was really Charles who was quite needy and required older, more experienced individuals within his circle.
And all were true! 🙂
Oh, yes, I know everything had already gone bad. I saw the interview, and I wanted so, so badly to believe everything was fine. Citresse, I wish so many things had been different. I wish Diana had tried to stay calm and and not thrown temper tantrums, I wish Charles had done what you said, and I wish Camilla had tried to work out her own marriage. Silly, I know. I wonder if Charles regrets his behavior?
Honestly, I can’t get worked up about this letter. Yes, William is unreasonable with the media a lot, but I can’t hate on this. Going to such ridiculous and dangerous lengths is simply wrong, particularly to photograph a child who is not “doing” anything especially newsworthy.
But the letter isn’t clear. Are they objecting only to invasive techniques that allow George to be photographed in private homes, or are they objecting to public photography as well? Because those are two dramatically different things. I can side with them entirely when it comes to invading a private residence or building, but public photography is well-established as part of a free society and trying to crack down on it doesn’t make you look very good..
They are objecting to any photograph taken by anyone in any public place any way. They want a full-on photography ban. That’s the way I read it.
a) this is ridiculous, this is just a toddler, is unacceptable to be this thirsty about a dang baby
b) William and Kate seem to love it both ways, Good Press but when they court it but no stories about their legendary vacays pls, Privacy
c) Im kinda over Them Invoking the Blood Libel of Diana’s Death when it suits em
Aren’t there laws in CA now about photographing children without parental consent that Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner lobbied for? Perhaps Britain should consider something similar. I recall when they complained about someone photographing George in parks a while back. It was Niraj Tanna; wonder if he was the one hiding in the car?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any of those photos were published in the British press were they? They were all published abroad or online? If so, why are they warning the British press when they never even published them?
Bluhare
Yes there are. Though it’s kind of the same. Halle has arranged pap strolls with Nahla and then cried privacy invasion at the random ones. Much like how LAK is pointing out there needs to be a line drawn and you can’t bend the rules only when it suits you.
Children shouldn’t be stalked. The parents should also not arrange their privacy bubble to be broken when it suits them.
Very well put, FLORC.
Eh. This won’t matter in about 20-30 years. I’m convinced that the monarchy as we know it won’t exist in the UK. In large part because of Wills and Kate. If they would behave more like Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden – this wouldn’t be an issue. Also if they are out in public, I have no issues with him being photographed. He is not just any child, he is not the child of a Hollywood celebrity; he is the third in line for the throne.
If Will and Kate were smart they would be doing more of those US Weekly “Stars THEY are just like US” photo ops. Why not get pictures of George on the beach with Grandma Carole.
Ah, Patty if only your words would come true. I highly doubt the Brits will be getting rid of the monarchy. They abhor change. Will and Kate could basically be photographed sitting on their arses for a year straight and the Brits would still praise these twits.
Comparing George to other children, royal or otherwise, is ridiculous. The photographers are not interested in other royal children like they are George. There’s not quite the market for photos of lady Louise. So please let’s not pretend they’re the same. Also, William is pathological in regard to his privacy? Well I think I would be too if my mother had met the ends his did. People want him to stop using his mother as an excuse for everything and I guess I see their point to a point. But on privacy and protecting his family, he gets a pass from me. His mother was literally hounded to death by photographers, so I think it is justified or as least understandable.
His mother died because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and her driver, who was drunk, crashed the car. Diana also called the paps and used the media for her own purposes. And I am a fan, just seeing things as they are. William pulls the Diana card whenever he throws a tantrum.
Not literally. And the paps were invited by her numerous times and earlier that day. Details often get lost to support another narrative. Unfortunately the tale of Diana isn’t well known in truth by many. It’s like someone put out bullet points from a point of view and everyone absorbed it as absolute truth. With the facts and details I find her story very interesting. It’s such a disservice when people in history have their memories glorified. Part of their story is the ups and downs. Their ups wouldn’t be so inspiring without the downs. To show their humanity and errors. Beauty imo is in the Imperfections.
And George has been used in public to promote them. His privacy is secondary on numerous occasions.
I’m not saying he should have no privacy. Not at all. I’m saying there are systems in place to give George, Charlotte and his parents privacy. It’s up to the Cambridges to follow through on those and not apply them only when they want to.
I am not glorifying Diana. I’ve read plenty about her, enough to know that she did her share of game-playing. And yes her driver was impaired, but it doesn’t negate the fact that photographers on motorcycles chased her vehicle. We can agree to disagree on Diana. I am guessing losing one’s mum at 15 in the circumstances she died has set William’s opinion of the press, at least a little.
Also, I see a lot of comments about W&K or the middletons calling the papers to cover George when it suits them. This is a popular narrative as well. W&K using the press. How do we know for sure they do this? I’m not being snarky here; I actually want to know how ppl know for sure William is alerting the paps when it suits him.
Ms. Turtle
William hated the press long before the death of his mother. He doesn’t like the limelight, therefore in that regard, he’s not King suitable. An extroverted ego centric type personality yet restrained (conservative) enough to keep the Royal mystique is required.
Ms. Turtle – Evidence for W or K calling paps is that they threaten to sue some paps but not others. For example, they took legal action against a pap who was out of sight using a long lens to take photos of George in a public park with his nanny. But they did not even threaten another pap who was out of sight taking long lens photos of Kate and George when they changed planes en route to holiday in Mustique.
I am honestly interested in how do you account for the Cambridge legal team’s opposite response to very similar situations?
Minnfinn, I don’t account for it. I can’t, obviously. I am a casual royal observer, not nearly as versed in their legal proceedings as many on this site. I don’t pretend to know that they DO or DO NOT call the press to exploit their child. It seems many commenters are 100% sure they do. I don’t know, that’s why I asked.
On a related note, I lived in Europe for a few years and my very blonde daughter was photographed more than a few times by Asian tourists. I would gently ask them not to and some would comply but some did not. In one instance, the woman repeatedly tried to photograph her and even when I stood in her way, went around me. I’m not famous, nor is my kid. And it was upsetting. So I guess I have a compassion for George. He is famous, he is in line to the throne. But he is a child and if I were his parents, I’d do anything I could to preserve his innocence. It will be shattered soon enough.
Ms. Turtle
William has made note he rewards the paps with George shots. And it’s no secret certain shots were staged with pap calls.
Ultimately no one here is promoting child stalking. The issue brought up boils simply down to this. A total ban on photos of the Cambridges children unless they allow it. That means where ever they go it’s a private location with extreme restrictions on press freedoms simply by their presence. It’s extreme to say the least. Instead they can stage these shots. The children grow up still seeing lenses around corners. Only these are allowed by the parents.
William has tried this a few times. Before the court has tossed it out because he was attempted to restrict press freedoms simply because he didn’t have complete control. It was a not so veiled attempt.
Minnfinn, the situations are not actually similar, and it should be obvious why. Those photos of George and his nanny were taken in a UK park, by a UK photographer. The photos changing planes on the way to Mustique were taken in Saint Lucia by….who knows? What jurisdiction did W&K have to pursue legal action? I don’t know what kind of anti-pap laws Saint Lucia has on the books, but I think it’s entirely likely that W&K sought advice as to whether they could pursue legal action against a random Saint Lucian pap, and were told that there was nothing that could be done.
Ms Turtle/Blueberrydot: Mustique with PGtips is one such pap allowed photo (lots of outraged UK media chatter that it was allowed when UK media had held off on stalking/publishing photos of him), but WK also enforce a photo ban on Mustique except when they need good PR. Not just a pap photo ban, but also the other holiday makers. Every time they go to Mustique, a photo ban is instituted with legal threats. Then lo and behold, a close up is shot and sold to foreign press + Hello Magazine. On those occasions, despite the legal threats, William doesn’t complain.
And William isn’t shy about complaining. when Kate/ Carole/Nanny are papped with the babies in various parts of Britain, and those pictures sold to foreign press + Hello, and William doesn’t complain or even threaten, it is interpreted that he is happy to allow that sort of intrusive pap stroll.
There have been over multiple instances where the babies + Kate/Carole/Nanny have been papped in Britain with no complaints from William. Heck, with the polo pics, press receive a note from the palace ahead of time that photos will be allowed and what time KG will appear at the polo.
Every single time pap photos of the babies, and sometimes WK, appear in the media and WK don’t complain, it’s accepted that they are approved. The majority of pap photos are of them in Britain, sold to foreign media. It really shouldn’t make a difference where the photos appear since the act of getting them is the same for the babies.
What’s really annoying is that the arranged pap strolls occur when WK have bad publicity or something stinky about them is about to be revealed.
There are also examples of this behavior when the kids aren’t present. W&K walking on a public beach in Wales acting lovey-dovey, photos taken of them looking straight into the cameras. Photos published. William screams about privacy.
Kate Middleton walks on the same public beach with her sister, when her sister was promoting her failed book? Photos taken, published, and no complaints about invasion of privacy.
Ms. Tuttle 12:55pm
Here is the more complete story about the two pap photos I mentioned. This article about the Cambridges capricious whim when it comes to threatening versus ignoring pap photos of them is dated Feb 2014.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10615637/Duchess-of-Cambridge-will-not-take-action-over-paparazzi-pictures-of-Prince-George.html
blueberrydot – The Cambridges decided not to sue the person who papped them changing planes and the palace gave the reason why to the Telegraph.
“We would of course prefer that the pictures hadn’t been published, but in this instance there was no harassment and no pursuit. The pictures were all taken at an airport and the Duchess didn’t know she was being photographed.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10615637/Duchess-of-Cambridge-will-not-take-action-over-paparazzi-pictures-of-Prince-George.html
And in this link, the pap that got photo credits is identified as Xclusive Pix/OIC, owned by photographer Max Cisotti. So not having the pap’s name could not be among the reasons they chose not to litigate. They are on the record stating chose not to litigate because ‘there was no harassment or pursuit” of Kate when the photos were taken.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/04/duchess-of-cambridge-news-photography
It seems to me that her death was caused by the very bad judgement of a drunk driver.
wolfie
We don’t have the entire story. Sorry to beat a dead horse (the story) esp as the anniversary of Diana’s death approaches, but something happened before they entered the tunnel, and it caused Trevor to put on his seatbelt. A responsible bodyguard would have ordered the car stopped.
All the cctv cameras were off and it’s another clue something was wrong. Anyway, I do believe the driver Henri had been drinking and it contributed to the accident, however there are pieces of the puzzle missing which renders the picture incomplete.
Wolfe, when chased by press hungry paps. If they weren’t being chased maybe Diana would be alive today despite the alcohol content in the drivers blood.
In my mind, I do not see royals picking up speed in a car to shake off the paps. That was the driver, Henri Paul’s, fateful decision. Kez Wingfield, another bodyguard who went in a separate Mercedes, said that Diana had been living with the press for twenty years, she knew protection, she knew how to do things. Poignantly he add: I never went fast with her. She always used to scream,” Don’t run over anybody, don’t hit anybody”. That no one was wearing seat belts was also an unhappy tragedy. Why would we expect the press to not play their part? – it’s their paying job, and the royals play game with them.
Wolfie: I just finished reading a book that claimed the opposite. Apparently, Diana actually had a penchant for driving crazy around London to avoid the paps. It happened quite a bit, and she rather got a thrill out of it, supposedly. She would speed and run lights — the whole nine. One time, someone was with her when it happened (I wish I could remember who), and they were terrified when Diana finished her little dare devil driving display, and Diana flippantly said, “Oh, nothings going to happen.” The person indicated that there was actually no need for Diana to drive as crazy as she did, but she — Diana — seemed to want to amp up the drama of it all.
ladyg; you may be right about Diana playing chase with the press. However, her RPO’s would have found this very foolish. Apparently, Henri Paul made this error in judgment, as well as an error with his hand-eye coordination when trying to pass; instead he clipped a white car, over corrected, and crashed due to high speed in a tunnel. I believe that Diana did away with her royal protection officers, and was unable to protect herself very well; RPO’s would have prevented a drinking driver. It’s important that we do not drink and drive, because it interferes with our judgement, and we must buckle up because it can save our life!
They should say nobody is allowed to take pictures of George and Charlotte and that’s it, unless they are at an official event, period. Then they can release their own picture on instagram if they want. This way the public gets to see them but nobody is stalking them.
You can’t do that, I don’t care who you are. If they are in a PUBLIC place, then they can be photographed, just like you and I can be. Why should the laws all be changed for this so-called adult having another hissy fit.
If William doesn’t like it, he can remove himself from the line of succession.
I agree with them. I can’t imagine how scary the paps must be to young children like that. Yes, they have private areas of their own, but their children shouldn’t grow up able to live and move through the public that they supposedly represent? How even more out of touch would they be then if they stuck to their little rich bubble? Such tactics around children is unhealthy and despicable, and they shouldn’t have the right to do those things.
I remember one of William’s first photo ops. He was just a toddler and was encouraged to touch the cameras as his daddy was pointing out how it worked. Does George know enough to be afraid at this point? The royals must have some power to rely upon, when they believe that they can change laws with a letter. I do not believe that the commercial value of these photos will stop, unless they are more friendly with the folks who want to see royal life, which is funded by their public. However, if they take William and George off the royal roster, interest would wane considerably. William seems to think pretty highly of himself.
Sparkly – The Cambridge goal of suppressing photos in public space is a means to creating an even better insulating rich bubble.
If it wasn’t involving a toddler, I’d agree. Adults should be fair game, but kids should be left alone.
How do you figure? I didn’t have people randomly following me and taking my picture as a child? And I don’t see it happening to a lot of normal non famous children of any exonomic status.
This feels like how it was around the nanny shots in a public park and the KP privacy issue.
William tried to restrict freedom on the press from taking a shot of George with his nanny. The pap was beyond a safe distance away. Far enough and heavily monitored by the RPO’s. Also, the nanny was in a public space. A space used by the public. If any safety was threatened the RPO’s would jump in. If Privacy and security were really such an issue the nanny would not be allowed to take George to such a public park. They (as LAK pointed out) have acres and acres and acres of private parks that are quite lovely and safe. Enough to never get bored of walking around the same area.
As a result William tried to restrict the freedoms of the press. Same with KP. They wanted that apartment over the private Diana’s former placce. It overlooked a public path and they wanted to shut it down so the public wouldn’t be there to possibly look into their apt. To look in though would be insanely difficult from the angles and lighting, but they wanted it done all the same.
Set rules, stick to them, enforce them, don’t break them. Simple enough i’d think.
Mark my words. If they get away with this, the next step will be it is illegal to photograph W&K in public – if they’re with the kids. They’ll start hauling those kids everywhere they usually don’t, just to make it all “illegal”.
I don’t doubt that Nota. Which is why this is a threat and not taken to court. William knows that his argument can only be won in the press he pulls the strongs of. Not the courts. Meanwhile this is another attack on the press… When will they open that draw of the dirt on William?
We wondered why he wasn’t complaining about those sets of photos. Now we know why. He was waiting to build up a handful, the hurl lies about being constantly stalked and using those as proof.
Great points. William is inconsistent and it is backfiring on him.
He needs to sit down with his mother-in-law and tell her to cease and desist.
The reality of the situation is that this family will only find privacy on the royal estates. End. of. discussion.
These are their children and they are allowed to take them in public with the expectation of not being photographed. There is a difference between official royal events and taking them to a public park.
Sorry but these kids might be royals but they are kids and deserve privacy, safety and respect. Just because I think a celebrity/royal kid is cute doesn’t mean I have the right to know about their lives. It is creepy they are followed, photographed and pictures sold.
William and Kate are right this isn’t a freedom of the press issue this is a child’s safety and rights issue.
It is legal to photograph children in public places in the UK. W&K do not get to have more privacy rights than the rest of us.
If it was a safety issue, they wouldn’t be taking their kids to the same public play areas all the time where anyone could access them.
I don’t care if it’s legal it’s wrong and you shouldn’t just randomly take pictures of people’s children that aren’t yours. I wouldn’t want someone taking a picture of my child or for my child to be photographed because they are in the same park as a celebrity baby. It’s gross, creepy and I question why people need to see these kids in their lives so much it’s just gross to me.
As another person pointed out how can anyone tell if this is a journalist or a pedophile?
Think what you want about William and Kate but if it was your child would you want him/her photographed without your consent?
Whether or not someone should do it, it is legal. You didn’t pay attention to my point. They don’t get to have more privacy than I do. Do I want my children photographed by strangers in public places, no. But it is LEGAL. If I don’t want them photographed in public, I don’t take them out when there are lots of strangers around. Don’t want your private photos stolen? Then figure out the privacy controls on your social media accounts and read the fine print.
W&K have access to acres of private parkland and private farms. They choose to take the children out in public. In public they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. ie. it is legal to photograph kids in public places.
No one wants to take photos of your children. If you did have crowds of paparazzi trying to photograph your children, then I’d be interested in your argument here. They are fundamentally asking for George to be able to go into public without paparazzi trailing him, a privilege I am personally very happy my children have.
Everyone has the freedom to leave the area if they are disturbed by the behavior of others, including photographers. I would if I were there and it was a side show because someone was trying to get photos of someone else.
I agree that William and Kate should be able to control access to their child and who photographs him. They are well within their rights. But let’s not emotionalize this issue with pedophilia because that’s not what this is about. It’s really about money and the right to privacy.
I also agree that they need to be consistent. If pap shots are off limits, then ALL pap shots are off limits, not just shots by a photographer they don’t like — unless that person is doing something totally illegal to get the shot. I have a feeling that’s what’s going on here.
@nash you think this child should never be allowed to play with other children because he has grounds and his parents want his safety and privacy respected? That is assine. I get that is legal, notice they aren’t enforcing laws they are saying stop it we don’t like it, they pointed out illegal behavior that needs to stop and demanded the press be respectful and only photograph at official events. They aren’t legally enforcing it, so no laws are being broken but I do feel that since it’s not your child’s safety or privacy at risk you are being rather flippant.
Just because something is legal doesn’t mean one shouldn’t be respectful of parents wishes.
Bluhare
You’ve nailed it. I just want to go back to my comments and type “what bluhare said” now 😀
K I beg to differ. There are people out there taking random photos of children in public, and NOT for kindly purposes. Everyone’s children are at risk, in a public place, of becoming fodder for any number of things including pedophilia.
W&K are demanding that public places should become private when they are there. They are demanding more privacy than the rest of us are allowed to have.
So let me see if I have this straight because the Cambridges’ ever changing views and actions on this particular subject changes with their popularity. William/Ma Midds’ sanctioned/sold pictures are permitted. Check. Rebecca’s boyfriend, who’s also a pap, is good for christening pics that shone the Cambridges in an elitist and Stepford light. Check. Tanna can get exclusives about Kate and Midds, but let’s not tell William. Check. Alleged incident with dude hiding in the boot of the car is bad and creepy, which I totally agree with. Okay, I think I’ve got it.
Yep!
If your talking about Rebecca Deacon – she’s allegedly involved with their press secretary whose name i don’t know.
It’s natasha who is dating a photographer.
Oh, wah wah wah.
It’s fine and dandy when you are using the media to your advantage – pacifying the British public with pictures of the kids to distract from the distinct lack of work either of these pompous spoiled layabouts do.
Can’t have it both ways.
In other news, in Great Britain our NHS is on it’s knees – yet we’re still bankrolling these leeches. Urgh.
Somebody has a lot of time on their hands.
The Dolittles want to have their cake and eat it, too. Keep your kids out of public places like parks etc., if it bugs you so much. How on earth did the royals manage before the Dolittles began to screech about privacy?
The Dolittles don’t want to be caught doing little, IMO. Especially The Duke of Dolittle. Smoke and mirrors.
A lot of time on their hands indeed. And is this a smokescreen for bad info about to come out re: the house of Windsor?
A very good point, MinnFinn. What are they trying to deflect? Isn’t this the time for a Mustique “vacay”? BTW, how’s that ambulance job working out? Suddenly, there’s no news.
I read the full letter. Cry me a river! I abhor this attempt at manipulating the public with fear-mongering for their own kids’ safety. They have a new agenda which of course is woven into a narrative based in manipulating the plebs into believing ‘the Cambridges ARE just like me!’
Their new goal (surprise!!) only benefits the Cambridges, does not benefit the average person but harms the average person when it comes to using public space.
W & K want you plebs to get a law passed that requires parental permission to photograph any kid in public and “semi-public” spaces because **your** kids are at risk without such a law. And also you plebs really should “starve” to their demise all media that publish unauthorized pics of George because unfettered media puts your own kids at risk.
True free speech and free press requires that everyone put up with some stuff we dislike. Passing a law that requires parental permission to photograph your kid in public will benefit the Cambridges only. No one else will benefit from such a law and on top of it such a law will harm the average person when it comes to use of public space.
Bravo!
Perfect. Yep, they are fomenting hysteria.
What a manipulative letter! Go Jason.
I agree with them. That’s scary. I think it would still happen even if they did more public photo ops with him. Everyone wants an exusive.
If all of this is true, I agree it’s wrong and it should stop. I do have a problem though, with Kate’s A-team threatening or intimidating non-pap members of the public when they suspect said member of the public is using their cell phone to take photos. What if they are at the park with their own kid and want to take a picture of their child? It’s a little much for Kate’s team to try to police non-threatening actions such as this. What next?
It’s more William’s For years Kate has been friendly with the paps. William has always taken this stance.
See my post about the Wales beach photos above as an example.
There is a precedent for this in that tourists in Mustique weren’t allowed to keep their cameras and phones. And they weren’t allowed to travel freely between islands without the bodyguard’s permission.
Deedee, I’ve read that it happens in the UK too. Anyone with a phone is scrutinized and that phone is “fair game” if one of the bodyguards suspects photo-taking. Sounds pretty militant and I’ve read some back and forth about this on CB — some people were skeptical that they could wield so much power, but others – mainly veteran, reliable posters said it was fact.
Happened when they were in Switzerland too, where the RPOs had no authority. Took cell phones away from people on the slopes and deleted photos.
That is outrageous- All of it.
I’d love to see them try to take my phone, which has all my worldy info on it. Not happening! They ate jerks and bullies. This really annoys me.
To W&K:
Stop playing games with the UK media and with your children’s images.
Stop giving pics to the foreign market while disallowing them in the UK market to UK readers and viewers who pay for your living expenses and to whom you tell that you’re going to take it as a gift just for existing, but to whom you feel you don’t owe anything back.
Stop sending out to the press the private photos you and your hired photogs take of the kids. Either you want the media to publish photos of the kids only at official events or you don’t. Stop breaking your own rules or just give up on those rules.
Stop letting Carole take them out to where she knows there will be paps. Stop letting the Middletons use their media connections to take photos of Will, Kate, & the kids.
And too bad. You chose the titles and the taxpayer’s money for you and your kids. That means your family chose to be ‘celebrities.’ You could become title-less like Zara and Peter any day you want.
Weren’t the cell phones and cameras of vacationers on Mustique confiscated while Kate and Will vacationed there? Here’s another example of how their “privacy rights” are imposing on others. Imagine not being able to take photos of your expensive vacation because it coincided with their visit.
What she said.
I’m not sure W&K and/or their children have the option to be title-less until William is faced with becoming King ie Charles died or abdicated. William is the son of the heir to the throne.
I think whether the British Monarchy dies or not, William and his family keep certain titles.
William could go to QEII right now and say…I want out and they could begin the process of turning him into William Cambridge-Middleton or whatever. He stays because he can thumb his nose at the Firm while living the high life off of Charles’ wealth.
Ah, excellent KP PR. Whip up the masses into a frenzy of “save the child(ren)” hysteria.
You know which kids generate more interest than the royals? Yes, the Brange pack. Have they every issued a letter bemoaning their terrible lack of privacy?
Rather than getting outraged at the terrible horrible press and paps, you know how you can stop this? Stop buying any publication that uses pap photos, turn off any entertainment show that pays them, stop clicking any link that uses non-sanctioned photos, and stay off gossip websites.
Personally I am not going to do any of those things, but I’m not feeling particularly self-righteous about PG Tips and WillKate privacy, either.
Agree, Suze! This letter felt very manipulative. Would I be upset if people were taking photos of my kids? Yes, of course! But then I don’t have all the resources of the RPOs to protect them, or thousands of acres of private land. And, they will always be a target due to their HRH status, not because somebody is taking a photo.
If someone was taking photos of my kids, of course I would be worried, because I am not a celebrity or a royal; that is a suspicious interest. But, of course people want pix of celebrities/royals! That’s why the paps follow them. It’s like comparing chalk and cheese and buying into the idea that the royals are ‘just like us’ which is what these two losers want us to believe. They are not. They never will be. There will always be interest in overprivileged, filthy rich public figures.
And the fact is that the royal kiddies have not been harmed or harrassed by said photos/photographers, so I just don’t get the concern.
hmmm
If those kids are in that much danger putting a ban on pics will stop little to nothing. The problem and major issue lies in their security. If I was an RPO assigned to WK I would be livid all these privacy concerns directly point fault at security issues. When in reality many are allowed because they were sanctioned.
My totally unsolicited two cents: They’re right to have a problem with such creepy, intrusive tactics; HOWEVER, based on the fact that they were fine with the press publishing those “totally candid” photos of Kate playing with George at a polo event, they don’t mind intrusions into George’s privacy as long as they show Mummy and Daddy in a flattering light and promote the image the Cambridges want to promote. Mummy looking hands-on, involved and “normal” = Good; George photographed being cared for by a nanny while “I should have fewer royal duties because I want to stay home and be a full-time mom caring for my own children” Mummy is chilling out by the pool = Bad.
+1
I think they have a right to their privacy and approval on what photos should be appropriate is up to them. If they choose to do a photo op with their son I don’t see that as pr for themselves. That’s ridiculous to even suggest.
Considering the British Tax Payer is paying roughly 40 mio Pounds for the Royal Family either directly or by allowing the Prince of Wales to take the money out of the Duchy of Wales … I think the public is entitled to regular snaps of Prince George. In the end he will be king on day therefore his upbringing is of public interest. Even stricter European privacy laws would see it like that. As long as there were regular controlled press + pics meetings with Prince George.
Let’s face it: the Cambridges are lazy as f**k and whenever the public opinion turns against them they trot out pics of their cute child/children. They certainly have a very questionable way of using their children.
Latest estimate is the royal family costs $600 million US annually.
The wedding alone brought in 23 million. Just think how much people benefit by there being a royal family. Plenty of tourists go there to see the Tower of London Windsor castle and buckingham palace. I did because they drew my interest. Plus think of the jobs that are created security included because of them. They represent tradition family values etc. The English benefit greatly because of their existence. I don’t get the nastiness towards them. Not only that but Kate has transitioned so well from a regular girl to a royal.
Not going to address the laughable family values note nor the hilarious bit about Middleton being a good royal.
Please see the Wall Street Journal, How Much Did Royal Wedding Cost Britain? as one example of how much revenue was LOST because of the 2011 wedding.
Please see the figures from the official tourism agency of the UK where it is proven that none of the Top 20 draws in the UK are related to royals. The tourism argument has been debunked multiple times, multiple places.
I can see value in a referee Head of State, who is there to keep politicians from tearing the country apart. That referee does NOT need to cost $600 million annually.
Ski Bunny
Kate has yet to become a royal imo. Her transition has been highly restrictive at the very least. That can be said for William as well since he’s noted he’s not sure what that means. To be full time in a recent interview and various other interviews in his adulthood.
And tourist have been noted to not go for sitting royals. They go for history. For once occupied areas. That many royals still occupy and keep massive amount off tourism it restricts profits.
The numbers support vacated royals bring in more money than sitting regarding tourism.
And while the wedding did draw in tourists It wasn’t enough to cover much. On top of the cost to have the wedding. Regarding jobs. The jobs are low pay, heavy work, and not as many as you’d think.
Numbers are forever a battle. 1 side restricts the infomation and honest accounting. The other guesstimates best they can. Both have agendas and when pushing a bias numbers get “fudged”.
Last, the wedding was noted as being the biggest bump in tourism related costs (could mean visits to souvenirs) in a long time and the bump didn’t last.
It was compared to the Olympics. The burden of cost comes on the nation hosting. Yes they will sell things and have tourist income, but it will hardly ever be enough to cover the debt of the country for just the event.
Nota
When you have to start pulling money for your own upkeep from goverment/tax/public programs in place to help your disabled or poverty stricten citizens you’ve crossed a major line and are no longer earning your keep.
Years and years of getting pulic funds to fix BP. Then things don’t get fixed, but rather spent as their private funds… Shenanigans!
To those people who say George should not be taken into public places if his parents are not happy for him to be photographed :-
A few months after Charles & Diana married, the Queen called the press to Buckingham Palace and asked them to lay-off Diana, citing the fact that she had even been photographed going into a sweet shop. One of the reporters said that Diana should get staff to go in for her sweets and the Queen said this was the most snobbish comment she had ever heard. I think this applies to some of what is being said here about George. I say fair enough him being photographed at a public event but not otherwise.
It is also becoming increasingly difficult to photograph ordinary British children. Before some school events now, permission slips are sent out to parents asking if it is alright to photograph their child and if one refuses no photography by anybody. I have reported to the police people with no seeming connection with children watching them in parks and I would do the same if anybody was photographing a child. I would go ballistic if it was my child. Are parents on here telling us they would not object?
It may not “just” be a pap though or a phaedophile. It could be a sniper. I will tell you what is going to happen. One of the royal bodyguards is going to legitimately shoot a pap photographer thinking it could be an assassin. Not even the likes of Balmoral is completely safe from photographers and if you ask me it is a creepy way to earn a living. I wonder about these people.
George is a two year old child. He is not a lump of meat. Some humanity should be shown by everybody. If the Middletons are alerting the press though before George goes on some outings this also is sick. I do think though that William thinks he is too good for the British public. He is the one who is going to lose the throne. Not his father.
@ Caroline
To compare paparazzi and parents to pedophiles and claim that were legitimate and acceptable takes everything a bit too far, don’t you think?
Britain had been known for being paradise for pedophiles for decades when other countries had much sharper laws already. So now the Brits are overexercising their child protection policies. It seems to be based on typical anglosaxon bias with sexuality. It will calm down in time to a more reasonable level and not everybody who walks past a public school glancing over the fence will be investigated for pedophilia any more.
Prince George is a future king and therefore the public has the right to know more about him than about ordinary children. So yes, it is absolutely fair to photograph him during ordinary outings as long as the paps are at some distance. It is important to know things about a future king which people don’t need to know about little John and little Jane Average. Personally I would like to know if Prince George does things that ordinary children do like going to a public park or eating ice cream in ice cream parlours or go see a theatre play or a movie. These kinds of simple cultural endeavours need to be valued by leaders and rulers else those leaders and rulers will spoil these cultural endeavours for the rest of us.
So yes, Prince George should be photographed when out and about. I agree that the paps should be at a healthy distance of several meters. I agree that there is no need to publish pictures of a prince scratching his derriere. But otherwise yes, people have a right to know what their rulers are like.
Btw. each and every european privacy law would consider it just like I explained it as legitimate public interest in politicians does trumph privacy in this case. Prince George is a child who will grow up with less privacy than other children because he will be king on day. His parents are at fault for this as they don’t decline the throne. If William wants to become king then he has to accept a certain amount of press following his every step and his family’s every step.
Btw. everybody applying for any kind of politican’s job is in the same position. They have their life scrutinised by the press. Obama had his life scrutinised, too, just his children won’t inherit his office one day therefore they are a bit safer from the press than Prince George.
In the end William is embarrassed to be publicly called out for his lazy and workshy ways and his endless holidays. So he uses his children as a shield to fence off the press by trying to create public pity for those poor poor but cute children being hunted by the press. That move is so cowardly.
In the midst of Dolittle hysteria I want to ask- how has this harmed the baby Dolittles?
I know! It’s laughable. Neither George nor Charlotte has suffered one bit.
Given the kind of non-stop media William grew up with, I can’t say I blame him. Especially after his mother’s death.
William didn’t have non-stop media. He got a blanket ban that extended well into his adult years. His disdain for the press existed long before his mother’s death. And he was not happy with her open invitation of them into her life. How she spoke with them for PR or biographies.
This is listed in comments above is greater detail as well as accepted as fact in reliable reports supported by actual interviews and supported timelines.
He plays the press and has been quoted saying as much.
The Guardian shed some light on some if the back room deals between the Palace and press and got an extra quote from Jason Knauf —
He told the Guardian: “The Duke and Duchess simply expect publishers to do the right thing when it comes to protecting their children. They are happy to provide official photos, but it is not part of a deal. We don’t buy into the argument that giving out official photos stops the paparazzi problem.
“Gentleman’s agreements are a thing of the past. They don’t work when you have overseas publications ready to print anything they like.”
About the deals with photographers —
In return, they are given access to a steady stream of images that have been sanctioned by the royal couple.
These come from three main sources: official photographs taken by the royals themselves that are released several times a year and distributed free of charge to the international media, such as after Prince George’s christening; photographs taken of the children at official royal events by pre-approved “pool” photographers, usually from agencies such as Getty Images or Reuters, which are then distributed to all media; and images shot by trusted freelance photographers who are deemed to “play by the rules”, usually at polo matches or other informal events once or twice a year.
How superior and condescending of the Dolittles.
They pulled a similar trick around the Maldives vacation or the NZ/AU tour. They invited certain reporters and photographers in but they were all sworn to secrecy about the event. Tanna was openly not invited and the others teased him on twitter about it. These few were allowed to see Golden Child II up close.
Clear message was, do exactly what we say and you’ll get treats. If you don’t follow orders, you get nothing. This was either to shut reporters up about the Maldives vacation, or to stop them from complaining about PGTips’s first public appearance being outside the UK.
Using Your Child for Good PR 101.
Funny that Jason doesn’t mention the arranged photos of Kate/Carole/Nanny + PGtips photos that are sold to foreign press + hello magazine.
The UK press publishes only the ‘official’ sanctioned ones and doesn’t publish the unofficially sanctioned ones sold to foreign press + Hello Magazine.
I’m way late to the conversation but in truth I wish the British press would just do a blackout of anything (good, bad & ugly) regarding W & K. No, their children shouldn’t be stalked and W & K are entitled to some level of privacy but in some ways (a lot of ways) they are owned by the British public & the people of the Commonwealth (which includes a free press). Hence, their rights to full privacy are already comprised.
It’s always funny to me how after a picture with Carole appears there is always some sort of blustering, threatening statement issued by KP on the Cambridges behalf.
This. It would be wise for all parties involved if all coverage of the Cambridges were put on ice for an indefinite period until a more cordial rapport between them and the media has been established.
The only reason these two don’t want pics being taken is because it would clearly document how little time the parents actually spend with one or both of the kids. It is all security blokes, Carole M or a paid nanny. Wills and Kate have palmed off the child rearing to others so they can go shopping, “work”, work out with a trainer or get their hair done. And if it was public knowledge how little time they actually are spending with the kids, well that does not support their private family life in the country spending everyone else’s money narrative. I mean, neither Will or Kate are willing to work at anything and commit to it. Do you really see them actually being hand on parents who are the ones raising the kids at least 80% of the time?? It’s not like they are taking on regular royal duties.
Not just how little time they spend with the kids but with each other as well. Wonder if Kate back to living at Middleton Manor full-time again? (Which means even more funds going to additional RPOs) and/or if William has already quit his part-time co-pilot gig with EAAA and is back to living at the hunting lodge(?)? Lovely waste of money these 2 are. And I can totally see them (once again) whining about paps violating George’s privacy to cover up something else.
Anyone who thinks Kate is a hands-on mother (or capable of doing anything herself, period) is only fooling themselves. Nanny Maria and her controlling Ma (who sets the children’s schedules, runs Anmer, etc) prove otherwise.
Kate is hands on. Mostly. There have been moments where you see Kate holding George’s hand. Nanny close, but Kate is doing the mothering. And the famous polo match. Pics caught Kate being a good mom to George. He hit another kid with a toy car. Kate took chased hm down as he was trying to run to William (likely knowing he was in trouble), but Kate blocked him. Kate trying to catch George was explained as “playing monster”. She caught him, took him aside to the cars and told him that was wrong and why (assuming wording). That is being hands on. That wasn’t the nanny.
I’ll give a lot of deserved criticism to Kate. And maybe she does leave much to Maria. Let’s just not act like she’s not his mom and a mother to him.
FLORC, that just proves that she is good at playing for the cameras. Georgie is not unfamiliar with her but that’s not saying much.
Given how the Dolittles conduct other aspects of their lives (working at being adolescent wastrels and liars), to think that they suddenly had an epiphany when the children were born is a huge psychological reach. If they have no work ethic, I can’t see them buckling down to the task of parenting. Kate even let slip that Daddy wasn’t around Georgie much for the first months of his life.
The evidence in their behaviour on the whole suggests they are not remotely hands on, and basically use their children for their own ends as the little ciphers they are to them.
I think Kate is hands on to a point and she knew camera’s would be there that day – she was playing to them. These 2 are all about image control – having someone else discipline George other than a parent would have seen them ripped by the press. Am not saying that she doesn’t do that in private but given how much time she spends on personal training, her hair, shopping, redecorating etc.. she’s likely not around him for large parts of the day, probably playing with him at set times once the nanny/Carole has given him breakfast/lunch/after nap time etc… The whining is to cover up how much time they are spending away from home/family (both are as bad as each other) – they don’t want the truth to come out, destroying the ‘normal family’ narrative they are pushing.
I’m not saying they are hands off parents because they are not – its just am not buying what they are selling, that they are a normal family – they are not.
The press take down of these 2 is going to be epic- like them they will be storing up things and release all at once.
This is something we can only assume on imo.
Regarding this I can only say Kate has extensive staff and if not busy with anything other than leisure stuff (working out/shopping). She has staff for everything else. She could spend so much time with her kids, but we’ve seen more of Carole and George.
I still think Kate is a decent mom. Although, she has yet to really grow up herself and I think qualities or lacking such contributed to George running into the horse path. That ties into the massive help she has. She has never had to watch George. There’s always someone else watching him.
Still, he’s familiar with her and she does appear to love him.
There’s a lot i’ll shade, but for her capacity she’s a good mom and I believe she loves her children.
I might be having a charitable moment from my fever, but i’m still holding out she’ll turn it all around. Slimmer hopes, but still there.
Wonder if she will show up at the VJ celebrations this weekend – he probably but am sure she’s too busy with her vanity and running the staff who run her household for her. Am sure there will be ‘approved’ pap shots of the kids next week when their is criticism of them (or her) not turning up to anything this weekend.
Not that I saw. Her Maj, Phil, Edward and Sophie were at St Martins-in-the-Field (my cousin has sung there several times!) for the service at the end of the veterans parade, and Chuck and Camilla were at Horseguards (? think Horseguards but switched onto the news after the start of the item) to see them set off.
No Billy. No Katie.
William is working 1/2 a rota to make time for royal duties, but I think since he started four weeks ago, he’s only been spotted off duty with his friends at Newmarket races and tagging along to watch sailing with Kate.
Again, that’s (the absence of W&K) just unacceptable.
But W&K can’t go out for royal duties. George and Charlotte will forget what they look like if they do. And W&K will forget how to be parents. William is busy joyriding in a copter, uh i mean, saving people, and Kate will disintegrate if she does any work, because that’s how women’s bodies are – they’re fragile.
And the DM just reported they’ve confirmed a trip to Mustique in November. All of them.
They or he could have showed face at one of the events, even if he went with his father and step mother – poor form Willy. I guess I shouldn’t be disappointed at the no show as they only show face if they have to – and this wasn’t a had too. But as future King he should show respect to the veterans that he will one day represent (when he becomes PoW he’ll take on some of his father duties as head of several large veteran organisations).
Chuck, Harry and TQ know that this is important but Willy always was a bit of a toy soldier who by all accounts was a RAF officer when he felt like it.
I totally understand that they want to hide their kids, but this boy is british property and no celeb kid. Yes that’s s*tty for him and his parents but they knew this before his birth.
The Cambridges not only hide and avoid work they also hide this child for most of the year and the ‘subjects’ want to see him grown up. That’s how people connect with royals in a monarchy. So every picture is worth big money. Neither the paps nor the magazines will stop as long as people don’t get updates on how he looks every month. It will be the same with poor little Diana2.
These kids will have a tough life when they start school and everyone there has a smartphone.
I don’t blame the couple at all for their thinking. The general public today is not how it was even ten years ago. There is so much more negativity regarding everybody and everything they do. Maybe parents are just trying to shield their children from some of that. Maybe they just simply want as much of a normal family life as they can get. They will get condemned by one group or another no matter what they do.
They live as wealthy, privileged one percenters and do no work in return. She is a pseudo SAHM who spends most of her time ordering the nanny around in between salon treatments. The majority of their life is lived in the kind of extreme privacy and privilege money buys. And it is somebody else’s money buying it.
This existence includes free palaces, multiple nannies, staff, and $4 million allowance from the public purse via Daddy. Comparing them and their children to “normal” doesn’t make sense. If they want normal and private, they have acres of private space to use.
A “touch of normal” doesn’t include demanding that public spaces be private spaces whenever they are in them. They are free to walk away at any time and go live in a country with a legal photography ban (ie. Monaco). Otherwise, like the Tindall and Philips kids, their children can be legally photographed in public places.
Nota
I’ve come to find the damned if you do/don’t argument a last resort. If boils down to opinion. And you can’t argue facts against opinions. If it’s anything below praise it’s “against”. And segways smoothly into the “false choice” tactic of debates.
I’ve stopped bothering explaining the counter points. Ultimately, even conostructve criticism is an attack on those 2 people.
Facts fall short because it would only be an argument against them with nothing constructive because in the end they are always making the correct and justfied choice.
George’s parents need to take a chill pill. He is not impacted by his face in the news but he is impacted by the uptight and overly emotional fallout of his parent’s negative attitudes. The public will always be interested in the child who lives in the lap of luxury paid for out of Jo Average’s pocket. Maybe ‘Jo’ can’t afford tennis lessons or foreign holidays for his/her only child. The curiosity is only natural – to see what you are paying for. If W & K had a grain of intelligence, they’d release 6 casual snaps of their kids online every month. The public would be happy and unsanctioned photos would devalue and decrease. Sadly, being royal doesn’t decrease stupidity. And it is plain stupid to think they can make the interest in their pampered soft lives go away.
This is getting annoying. None of my responses or posts are showing up now.
SB, The article you linked is an opinion piece by a writer who makes his living writing biographies. Of royals. Who quotes the inaccurate figure of 51p vs. the real figure of over $600 million a year. Look for the article entitled Bees contribute more to British economy than royal family, also in the Telegraph.
These are facts, not opinions, not gossip. Facts. Facts about the billions in lost revenue due to the wedding. Official tourism figures that prove royals don’t bring in tourism revenue. Facts about HM trying to use a program intended for poor elderly Britons to pay the bills at Buckingham Palace. Facts about money dedicated for BP upkeep being illegally diverted. Facts in places like The Telegraph, The Guardian, the official tourism department of the UK.
You do not know the hearts of every poster here. Many people support the monarchy but cannot support the actions of W&K.
Many people on here are not supporting paparazzi. They are supporting regular photographers legally allowed to photograph people of any age on public property in the UK. They are supporting a free press. The future unelected head of state of the UK is trying to shut down press freedom especially in public places. That is what people are protesting.
A. Men, NOTA. I am also shocked that the queen callously tries to divert funds from the poor elderly. I don’t like the queen very much anymore.
That’s ironic since HM is elderly herself but obviously has no care or concern about that segment of society. Only by accident of birth does she get the best of everything that keeps her in luxury with top-notch accommodations and medical care at her age.
And William has to learn the art of quid pro quo with the press because if he doesn’t wash their back, they won’t continually wash his. I’m sure the media is holding back on a lot of scandalous stuff and one of these days, all will come out if pushed too far. His overbearing ways will ensure that day will eventually come.
He is their child, they get to call the shots.
Not in public places when their demands violate the law and freedom of the press.
Do you think peons like you and I could demand that people erase their photos if we suspect there’s a snap of us or our child? No. You and I don’t get to call the shots. But I guess their child is more special than yours and mine before the law.
They fancy themselves above the law. That’s what grates.
Can someone please smack some reality into William? Like at the fact his beloved mother-in-law took and then sold photos of George and Kate at the farm? There is no denying it either – the person taking the photos closely (like a step or two behind much of the time) followed them around that farm for a very lengthy period of time and none of the RPOs stepped in to take the camera (as happens to peasants when Kate goes on her shopping spree) which means they were someone they knew – someone with Kate. And it was a nice camera – crisp pics – so they can’t say someone snuck a camera phone in. Even the recent ones of her on the shore with George were clearly staged – she was even gawking and smirking at the pap & made sure to lead George around like a show pony so they got good shots. Not saying the paps aren’t trying to get shots but Ma’s behavior isn’t helping at all – nor is William’s tantrums and refusal to share pics of his children more than once or twice a year. OF COURSE the paps are going to try and get them. (Especially when they see the Oz media getting away with printing “exclusive” pap shots and William doesn’t complain or make a peep over them.)
IMO, Sweden does it right: little Estelle does engagements a few times a year (which has clearly helped tremendously in her getting used to her future role – George doesn’t have that advantage) and they share private snaps a few times a year along with it. All in exchange for privacy the rest of the year – which the media happily gives them.
Honestly, if William demands privacy then he needs to do us all a favor and hand over this title, etc and either move to Mustique for good – or keep George in one of his several private parks. Private or public citizen: you don’t get privacy once you leave your home. The CCTV cameras will tell you that. Sorry not sorry.
I begin to doubt there is anyone who can smack some sense into William.
Marie and Joachim of Denmark did something interesting the other day. It was their son Henrik’s first day of school. Instead of posing at the school, they invited reporters to their home to photograph the family there. That way, the press gets their photos and the other families and kids at the school weren’t inconvenienced.
Nota
I love the other tactics Royals use. Yes, there are less known or cared for to sell articles, but are still royals ans still deal with the same issues if on a lesser scale.
There’s much WK could do to lessen the desire for George pics. Or even to flood the market so much no one wants a pic of the prince. And it would not impact George at all. Much more will there be an impact from outside photogs WK choose for George. I still believe Estelle is the Gold Standard For how to show the citizen a royal child while not exposing the child to them in an overwhelming way. And easing her into duties.
WK would be praised high and low for this and it would only help George.
There’s really no logical counter to this for an heir imo. Even keeping non-royal children sheltered from the world isn’t a good idea.
I liked how Victoria and Daniel handled Estelle’s first day of preschool; they let the media come and take pics of her arriving, let Estelle do a little interview and then let them take pics of her entering the building. And, as promised, the paps left her alone during her time there.
All it takes it is a little respect on from both parties. Since William clearly has no respect for the media, is it really any wonder they have little respect for him?
The thing I fear about George is that by being kept so hidden will create issues in the future. Estelle has the advantage of being brought up part away in the spotlight and part way out of it; she gets a childhood while being prepped for her future role. And the great positive is that she has a tremendous confidence in front of the camera and noisy crowds – the girl is going to ease right into her role without any bumps or trouble at all. Bravo to Victoria and Daniel!
But George on the other hand… I don’t think it’s going to be pretty when he gets older and can no longer be hidden away. Not pretty at all. Hermit life to being thrown in a shark tank… nope. Not pretty.