Are we concerned that Prince Archie or Princess Lili will be photographed by paparazzi and the photos could be published in the British press? On the long list of things I’m concerned about regarding the Sussex Return, that one is pretty far down the list. I know there’s a lot of interest in Prince Harry and Meghan’s redheaded children, and I know the British press is salivating at the thought of publishing any glimpse of Archie and Lili. But I’m more concerned that details about the Sussexes’ new British life will be published – their address, the kids’ schools, details about their private security arrangements. Like, the press is already really focused on all of that stuff. There seems to be an acknowledgement that if any paper publishes a paparazzi photo of Archie or Lili, the Sussexes will sue. So the question is: will any paper even try? According to the Mail’s Richard Eden, no.
This week, Richard Eden, Diary editor and royal expert, answers the reader question: Harry and Meghan have expressed concerns about their children being photographed. If their children are enrolled in school in Britain, won’t it be much more difficult to prevent that from happening? Or could this be another attempt by Harry to strengthen his case for increased security for his family?
Funnily enough, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have less reason to worry about their children being photographed in Britain than they did in the USA.
British newspapers abide by the Editors’ Code of Conduct, regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso).
Clause 6 of its code states that ‘all pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion’. British papers wouldn’t run pictures of Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, on their way to and from school, for example.
A different matter would be if Prince Harry and Meghan took their children to a public event such as Trooping the Colour or to Sandringham at Christmas. Members of the extended Royal Family of all ages are photographed at these events and it wouldn’t make sense for Archie and Lili to be taken by their parents unless they could also be pictured.
Basically, the kids are only considered “fair game” under certain circumstances like state functions or public family events (Christmas at Sandringham). The idea of Meghan and Harry bringing their kids out for the Christmas morning church walk is making my skin crawl, but who knows if that will happen. But sure, the British tabloids and broadsheets pinkie-swear promise that they will never, ever publish pics of the kids at school or on the school run. Who knows! Also: California also has pretty strict paparazzi laws nowadays, which is why there are no pics of Archie and Lili at their old schools/pre-K.
Photos courtesy of Meghan’s Instagram.
I’d wonder more if a member of the public somehow gets a cell phone photo of the kids and posts on SM. That seems like a likelier scenario idk.
Right? Plus the family will do public things. The kids aren’t babies any more. They will go to parks and restaurants and whatnot.
There seems to be no real difference regarding protections of the children while at school and anyone in public taking a photo can happen anywhere, not just in the UK. A lawsuit can also be issued towards anyone publishing unauthorized photos of their children, regardless of them being media or not. As far as them taking them to parks or restaurants, that very same thing could happen anywhere else and again lawsuits can be filed regardless of where they are at. The Sussex children aren’t the only royal children who aren’t photographed, so I don’t think Eden’s being accurate. I can’t say for certain how many children Beatrice has but I do know for certain that we have never once seen one photo of her children and the media can’t pretend as if it is by accident and not intentional on their part that not a single photo has been taken or shared with the public in five or six years. The absence of any photos of Beatrice’s children tells me that the UK media are willing to respect the privacy certain royals want for their children.
I think it has more to do with the level of interest. Plenty of POSHies have worn Nazi uniforms and and engaged in drunken nakedness. But it’s Harry’s photos that were publicized. To me, the UK does not at all feel like a safe environment for their family (and yes I know the naked photos happened in Vegas) but they clearly know what they’re doing.
I think within the next 12 months I feel that we will see pictures of the children’s faces, this is because Meghan herself has slowly been revealing more of their faces.
@nerd there are pap photos of Sienna, Beatrice’s daughter, out there. If you google you’ll see them. She’s mostly left alone and, I think, a number were first published (not taken) overseas and then hit social media.
The same could be said about the Wales children and we never see images of them in public places. Is it that people are so used to seeing them that they don’t care? Or because their security threatens the photo-takers?
I’d think that people, however mercenary, would be wary of publicising images of the children – it could come back to bite them in the butt, so to speak.
Do the Wales children go to public parks and restaurants though? And yes in all their highly curated activities they have intense security. But let’s see what happens when they’re older teens.
Mighty Molly according to the papers the children have been to restaurants with their parents in Windsor, gone to birthday parties at certain venues, gone to parks and participated in outdoor sports, yet not a single photo has been seen in any of these articles. As I said above, Beatrice has several children that we have never seen photos of and there is no way that her children are complete hermits who never leave the house with their parents. He mentioned the family gatherings for Trooping and Christmas, where Beatrice and her family are always at, yet never a single photo of any of her younger children. So the media seem to pick and choose who they think needs to share images and access of their children with them and the public.
Given what happened to the guy who posted a phone snap of Kate on the mountain, I’m guessing the palace bullies anyone who takes an unauthorized photo. I don’t think they’d do the same for H & M.
We’ve seen a few of the Wales kids over the years, but not many. I remember one of Kate and George at some truck stop with William’s old nanny, and one of George at a museum with Kate (it seemed like she was reprimanding him, lol). And wasn’t there one of Kate with all three kids at some toy store a couple of years ago? I’m sure there are a few other examples, but it does seem extremely rare. Who knows what it will be like for Archie and Lili, though.
I seem to recall a photo of the entire Wales family sitting at an outdoor table at a pub.
That one at the outdoor pub was set up by William and Kate because it ended up in the papers and there is no way that gets printed if they don’t consent to it.
Agree @Nic919. That happened after H&M appeared doing something American, I believe.
The WanK’s photo was a setup. By them. It wasn’t a random picture.
They can also do that in California.
We’ve already established that California has stricter laws than Britain about publishing photos of children. That’s why we’re discussing what might be different in their lives with this move.
Hoping the kids parents at the schools they are attending don’t release any photos either.
And this is why they are mad that Meghan and the kids saw Charles and they didn’t know about it until it was done and dusted. They want photos so badly.
I was searching YouTube for video clips of British talk shows and news about the Sussex’s return and where they plan to live and the reporter being questioned said they had strict instructions not to release the details as she went on to describe the home she is positive they purchased that cost well over 10 million pounds.. so she basically gave away all the information anyone with a little “detective” savvy would need could to find out the exact location. So imo it’s only a matter of time before it’s common knowledge and put out on social media or in a tabloid somewhere.
The sale might not be public record yet, but I easily found Ellen & Portia’s recently sold Cotswold estate. Wow. That indoor poor. 😮
In the US they could buy a house through a trust and that would shield their identities. I wonder if the same is true in the UK.
Oh, absolutely! But the very fact of a sale will be public record. I wasn’t able to find a sale in that price range in the last month. Which could mean the sale is not yet public record.
Maybe they sold it to H&M
But they’re hardly likely to have moved into a house which they purchased within the last month. They would already have purchased the house, then spent time decorating and furnishing it to their taste before moving in. It’s stressful enough moving children and pets and getting the children settled into their new school(s) without having to be setting up a new home, especially one that huge. That does not happen in a month. Plus UK house sales take a long time in many cases. I think it’s likely that they purchased the house months ago, if they did purchase one.
I saw that same clip – I think its interesting that the papers and reporters are, for right now, abiding by the Sussexes warning not to post that kind of information. Of course I think it will generally get out via social media and the like, but its still interesting to me. There is a lot of money to be made by posting a picture of Archie and Lili going to school, so the papers must understand that the damages they would pay would negate that money and that its not worth the risk.
but even in that clip – she wasn’t sure that was the house they purchased. So the RRs don’t even know exactly, although they may have an idea.
My favorite part was when she admitted it wasn’t a cottage on the Althorp estate and it wasnt some rundown farmhouse and they were instead looking at rather luxurious homes…..because they are not, in fact, broke.
I hope Tom M. Does not try to get any photos through his friend from the DM.
I feel bad for the kids, being suddenly uprooted from everything they’ve ever known, taken to a whole new country, new house, new schools, not knowing anyone and having to make new friends. I had to move like that when I was same age as Archie, very traumatic. Hopefully these kids are not shy introverts like I was and will find it an adventure where they make new friends easily.
At least its not a whole new language to learn.
I’m still trying to figure out the WHY to this move…I guess time will tell.
@Chaine … I suspect that is why their parents brought them to the UK in July.
Mi padre era militar, y toda la vida tuvimos que mudarnos constantemente por su trabajo, y sinceramente es algo que a mi como niña y después adolescente nunca me gustó, uno no mantiene mucho contactos con esas amistades que uno hizo de niño, en esas circunstacias, recuerdo que siempre envidiaba a mis amigos que tenían sus amistades de toda la vida, desde la época de jardín de infantes.
It happens to kids all the time. I left a war zone and was eventually sent to an English speaking country, I didn’t speak English. I never saw my family again. These kids are fine. Don’t make them victims. They’re little kids who adapt. I lost my family , never got them back. At 5 and 7 year old are not traumatised. Gotta be coddled to believe that crap
I’m glad you are safe now.
I do actually think this move is better now than if the kids are younger and not in their preteen middle school years. Those can be rough and messy so if they were ever going to make this move, this age is not the worst.
I totally disagree young children can definitely be traumatised. Some people are traumatised and don’t know it.
I would think the younger they are the better a move would be. Of course they have some friends they have formed in California but children are so resilient and free spirited that making new friends is so much easier at their age. I also believe that even though the media won’t admit it, Harry and Meghan have lots of friends and connections in the UK and their children probably have some long distance friends that they finally get to spend real time with now. I live in a town that is so big that there are more than a handful of elementary, middle and high schools and the zoning is changed often enough that children who went to school together in elementary school are no longer going to the same school anymore. Of course any change is hard, but it is also a learning and growing experience for children also. I would also say that from the little we have seen of the Sussex children, they are definitely extroverts like their parents.
Totalmente de acuerdo
I truly believe the British government asked Harry to come back, and in exchange, he and Megjan and the kids received full security and some press restrictions but no one will admit it publicly so there isnt any taxpayer backlash. The government knows Harry is a positive asset, and he went to the Ukraine twice with government officials. No way Meghan would go back with kids without full security and press protections for the kids in place.
Ask them back for what? The Palace would have to endorse that move and we know that the Palace has got the Foreign Office to write to Foreign countries telling them not to engage with Harry and Meghan.
The govt is betting on the mere presence of the Sussexes being the push that is needed to get the Wales to step up. Sorry, I’m joking here but that will end up being a side effect, just saying. And no they won’t work themselves to the bone but they will do more than they have done. Do I think that’s the actual reason, no.
Please. These people didn’t step up when Charles was diagnosed with cancer, they won’t step up now. And sure, Kate was diagnosed with cancer at about the same time (or was she?) and she still hasn’t returned to her pre-cancer work levels, which were pretty abysmal to start with.
That wouldn’t surprise me. (security) As for the FO, Harry has been to a few countries and received security and a warm welcome at all of them.
I think he was asked back so that if something happened to William, Harry, not Andrew would be regent for George. Highly unlikely to happen that Charles and William would die in the next 6 years but someone needs to make contingency plans and just the discussion when William becomes king that Andrew is next in line to the throne as regent until George turns 18 is enough to weaken the monarchy so I think they asked Harry to come back. NOT anyone in the royal family, but someone in the government perhaps.
Andrew would have to be bypassed no matter what and removed from line of Succession. Charles has not made a move to see that Andrew has no possibility of being Regent. Parliament would have to act on the matter in any case. Even if Harry did not come back, Andrew would never be allowed, and Beatrice. would be Regent
Harry was already before Andrew. He’s legally still considered domiciled in the uk so he never lost his place. He would’ve had to give up his citizenship to lose his position as regent.
I agree this move has backing from high up.
Idk. The current British tabloid media greatly reminds me of the US tabloid media circa late 90’s/early 2000’s. Looking back, it was horribly intrusive and out of control. In fairness to the Brits here, I realize that the DM is trash. But man, it just screams Star magazine and Perez Hilton. Granted, we do still have TMZ. Oddly enough, I trust what they release. How sad is that? I just don’t think this is a mentally healthy move for this family. I’m sure Harry will be happy to be back home, but I don’t think they’ll find any peace.
The British tabloid media was just as nasty if not worse back then as the US tabloid media. I used to follow British entertainment during that era and was shocked at how much their press got away with doing to people.
Something to be cheerful about: Consider that this whole elaborate move was not leaked at all. Security and planners for this have some ninja next level skills.
Schools were contacted, housing arranged, home buttoned up for departure, packers and movers enlisted, plane rented. Not one single leak anywhere. Everyone was surprised. That says a great deal about whatever teams and forces they have aligned around them for their protection. It suggests that they are less vulnerable than we all might think.
And then a week ago it leaked so they had to confirm. And they issued nothing to clarify it. So that in itself is concerning. The RR’s even confirmed that it leaked.
I have no doubt they think they have put everything in place and I am sure they have professionals advising them. But all it takes is one of these RR’s burner accounts in the Cotswolds to screw it all up now that they are there. The idea that the minute they informed the big players in the UK that this would be happening that it came out before they could arrive is a little concerning.
Tbh, I wouldn’t put the leak past someone like Clive Alderton or his minions.
Clive may have announced his departure, but he’s not gone yet. He’s planning to leave in May.
Why announce you’re leaving, and then hang around that long? I think he still wanted a hand in palace affairs to throw his little wrench in and make the Sussexes’ return as challenging as possible.
It only came out after the King was told. After that, all bets are off. I’m sure Harry and Meghan anticipated that.
To be fair we don’t even know when they arrived in the UK. We are going by what the UK media tells us as if it’s facts. For all we know they could have been in the UK since before the leak? The day of the leak? Or who knows when? All we have are speculations and no proof of anything, which to me is ideal. No one needs to know any of this because they are private citizens.
I felt pleasantly surprised that the Mail is agreeing to IPSO agreement especially as they allow criticism of the children on their comments pages. They need to put a stop to that straight away, the children should be innocent even if people hate the parents. There is no logic in criticising the children
They’re persisting with this fantasy that Harry and Meghan are going to be at Sandringham for Christmas and at Trooping. Harry and Meghan are not working royals so it’s doubtful that they’re going to be at Trooping. I said yesterday that the British press won’t photograph the children. Their narrative is the British press protects all Royal’s privacy unlike the US, despite the fact that the British has sent paparazzi to Montecito to photograph the Sussexes.
Are they considered fair game outside of Britain, mind you if they took photos of the children there they would break California law, so they are probably targeting the parents.
i think the EU has stricter privacy laws. Remember how William and Kate got those ski photos taken down last year.
Overseas is largely where photos of Beatrice’s daughter Sienna have appeared.
By the way, if you haven’t yet seen Ralph Lauren’s trailer on YT for Fall/Holiday 2026, one might be forgiven for wondering if he was *cough* ‘making an homage’ to someone’s naycha videos…😆
Ralph loves Meg
There are rules in the UK school system about taking pictures of minors without their parents consent. I am very sure parents will not be taking pictures of Lili and Archie as they will likely be sued
In english private schools you are not even allowed to take pictures of your own kids on the grounds/school events, in case other kids get caught on camera.
Sports day used to be a press thing (flashback to Diana racing in the mums’ race), that’s not allowed any more.
Those schools know they will lose their clientele if anything leaks
I guarantee that BM can’t publish photos of minor children of famous without consent or unless like the Beckham’s they are parading them about on red carpet events which they won’t. Social media is problematic but they will be at a private school where security will be enforced and maintained. Meghan ‘s Instagram post will also be over scrutinized and I loved seeing them in their gorgeous Cali back garden but she will have to be ultra careful what she posts of their new home now which is a shame but inevitable.
Why? It’s her home & if she wants to post photos of her backyard she can. Has she ever had somebody else’s kid in her IG posts from California? No, she has not. She knows what she’s doing
I think she means more than people will analyze every detail and figure out where the house is located exactly and things like that.
They need to be VERY careful. A Mail on Sunday editor was recently on British TV being highly evasive about the Sussexes’ new home. Critics and derangers claimed they were broke and moving into an old barn, but according to this editor, that’s complete nonsense. They’ve actually secured a beautiful, grand estate. She refused to reveal the location, citing a fierce warning from Harry and Meghan. Now, we’ll see if the press actually adheres to the rules of engagement when it comes to their privacy and photographing the kids.
See the Threads link to the video 👇
https://www.threads.com/share/BAVBjoIMnn/
@Amy: Since H&M left, Britain has looked petty, racist, and boring. A beloved British prince living on American soil is not a good look. True, in the past when H&M first left, foreign governments were told not to protect them because the palace was hoping to trap them back. However that strategy has not worked, H&M have done several mini tours and vacations around the world and had security. I believe Charles has softened his stance and has huge influence in the palace and the foreign office. This move back has been in place for at least a year.
To be fair the UK press is usually pretty careful about releasing private pictures.
If they attend a public events there might be photos, but otherwise no.
The Wales children are rarely seen ‘off duty’, there sometimes are pics online but they are never officially published
So where’s the line? Are they fair game if they venture out to the movies as a family? Or to a local bookstore?
Paul Weller: Mail Online loses appeal against privacy pay out – BBC News https://share.google/myYXvB2SLaVTxqKns
Minor children of famous have right to privacy in UK . Very reassuring that Mail got their fingers burnt on this case and lost the case and then an appeal and were then refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Thanks for this explanation!
The press won’t but the public will. I saw a social media post from the account of someone who lives in the area where he deliberately named a detailed geographical location and the school. He was alarmingly flippant “everyone knows” 🤷♀️.
“Everyone knows” is irrelevant because knowing doesn’t mean anything. They have known where they have lived for the past six years and even known where they went to school, yet they suffered the consequences of publishing photos. The same would happen with the media or public in the UK. A private person sharing such information would have less protections than the media does and a significant difference in how much they can afford to pay in damages for invading children’s privacy by posting photos without their parents consent.
Regular people dont post their children’s and grandchildrens faces on social media or reveal details about their schools ..as we all know there are stalkers and weirdos everywhere . The Windsor lot exhibit theirs at formal events and posted photo shoots but not a single paparazzi pic has landed anywhere of their hallowed school runs or after school activities. So why is it even a question where the Sussex kids are concerned ..especially when mad racist fans of the Wanks are all set to hunt them down.
First off, Ispo is a joke.
The British media hates the Sussex so they would definitely print pictures of those children . Willy and kitty kids however are off limits unless at those public functions he mentions. What Richard doesn’t say and I am sure it’s the exact reason why they will use when they take the pictures to justify it ,is that if the kids are at the supermarket or the park then those are public places that are not their school so all the kids are fair game. I will continue to pray for those children safety because they are innocent and deserve to have a childhood like any other w.
No @QuiteContrary law is clearly there to protect privacy of minor children.In Weller v Associated Newspapers, the courts established that children of celebrities have a reasonable expectation of privacy when doing normal family activities in public.Key Legal PointsChildren’s Privacy: The court ruled that a child’s right to a private life (Article 8) is more important than a media company’s freedom of expression (Article 10).Fame Does Not Matter: Famous parents do not strip privacy rights away from their children. Children of stars get the same protections as any other child.Public Places: Even though photos are taken on a public street, family outings are still private. Media outlets cannot publish unblurred faces of celebrity children without parental consent.
Paul Weller successful sued the publisher of Mail on Sunday after they printed in pixilated photos of his three young children while they were out shopping with their parents!! Case was heard in 2012 so ANL know better than to repeat this error.
The pictures were published after a paparazzo followed Weller and the children on a shopping trip through the streets of Santa Monica, California, taking photos without their consent despite being asked to stop.
Associated Newspapers argued that they were entirely innocuous and inoffensive images taken in public places and that the Wellers had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a significant degree.
Weller gave evidence that he did not volunteer information about his family when he spoke to the press to promote his records but was a candid person who would answer a question if asked.
He said: “My preference would be just to talk about my music but I can also see that would be a very dull interview. It’s just chit-chat. There’s a big difference between that and someone following you around and taking photos of babies. That’s a distinction that needs to be made.”
The singer said he was never happy about his children being in the papers but he could not make a court case of it every time it happened.
“They overstepped the line with the photos in LA, where they are full frontal pictures of the babies … I don’t think the children should be brought into it, not until they are old enough to make their own decisions.”
He said it was incorrect that Dylan, who was in one shoot for Teen Vogue when she was 14, was a model and she had been “entirely intimidated” by the paparazzo who took the photos without consent.
“Even when I asked him to leave, and I thought he had left, I came out and he is still taking photos of a very frightened 16-year-old holding her baby brother. What kind of person is that anyway?”
He said he was relaxed about his 27-year-old wife Hannah putting pictures of the twins on her Twitter account, which had 3,570 followers, as long as their faces were not shown.
Mrs Weller told the court: “The image of their face should be controlled by their parents and not on a national website. It is part of my job as a mother to control who sees that information.”
Paul and Hannah Weller said in a statement:
“We are absolutely delighted with the positive outcome of our privacy case against ANL, as we are with the fact that in a detailed and very carefully reasoned judgment, the court has upheld our complaint that unpixellated photographs taken of our children whilst out enjoying some quality time with their family should not be published without consent. That is why we brought this action on their behalf.
“The only reason for publishing the photographs was because they are the children of someone well-known. That is no proper justification at all, whether they were taken in England or in California, nor is the newspaper’s argument that their commercial business model would somehow be affected if they were not allowed to do so.
“This is an important step in the protection of children’s rights, and this decision should be welcomed by those who value them, regardless of whether they are so-called ‘famous’ or not. Unfortunately, the Mail Online’s press release demonstrates that they are no more a respecter of such rights (or the people who pursue them) than they are of the court’s judgment.
“It is our opinion that this protection should be automatically offered by law and should not have to be sought by families in a similar predicament. This was a distressing situation for our family and we are happy that this case has concluded and that justice has been done. ”
Ruling that there was a misuse of private information and a breach of the Data Protection Act, the judge awarded £5,000 to Dylan and £2,500 each to John Paul and Bowie.
Also in this case ANL lawyers unsuccessfully argued that mother had posted photos of her children on her Instagram page however, she like Meghan does now, obscured their faces. ANL lost this case and will get sued if they stupidly repeated this error with the Sussex children!!
I don’t think the UK media will post anything showing the kids especially their faces. But what might happen is that someone posts photos of them on social media and it spreads that way.
I don’t see parents of their classmates being the issue. It would be more someone from the general public.
But they really do want to say where they will live. That’s going to be hinted at non stop.
Why does every statement made by the BM about the Sussex family sound like a threat for some reason?
‘Unnecessary intrusion’ seems like wishy-washy language that could be challenged in court, should it come to that. I don’t think these people (British paparazzi) play by the rules & they’ll see no reason to start now.