The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 12-31-2012, 02:45 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,324
Very interesting article and I'm glad the Cambridges and their team didn't ban the pictures. Seems like the press was just being careful.
__________________

__________________
  #922  
Old 12-31-2012, 02:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 705
That article is very threatening tone.
__________________

__________________
  #923  
Old 12-31-2012, 02:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
From the article
Quote:
The short answer is that my own newspaper and others (but not all media organisations) decided not to print them because St James's Palace had sent out a short note announcing that Prince William and his pregnant wife would be spending Christmas Day with the Middleton family and asking that their privacy be respected.
Newspaper editors interpreted that note, which insisted there would be no photo opportunity of the couple, to mean they felt they had a right to privacy even when they were attending church.
In fact, a St James's Palace spokesman told me today: "We never banned those photographs at all. In fact, those media organisations who bothered to ask us were told it was entirely up to them whether they published."
Pretty straightforward
I don't understand why newspapers, which are entirely free to publish anything they want make a conscious editorial decision not to publish photos and then afterwards complain about it.
__________________
  #924  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:02 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,324
I don't know, I guess when the press have to walk on egg shells with the royal family, it kinda puts them on edge. I personally saw nothing wrong with the media publishing the pictures and it was nice to see the future King & Queen going to church on Christmas Day.
__________________
  #925  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
But at the end of the day, the editors at the Express and many other papers decided not to publish the photos. Richard Palmer does not agree with the decision and thats fine.
But Mr Palmer should write a blog blasting his editors for the decision, and not try to turn it around on the Royals.
__________________
  #926  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:29 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,324
Well, it seems like it's a tricky situation.
__________________
  #927  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:38 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkittybaby View Post
I had HG when I was pregnant and as a result I didn't have a "proper" baby bump until the second trimester. It doen's mean anything is wrong with the baby as I ended up giving birth to healthy daughters
I remember I dreamed with food, particularly chocolate cake and watermelon (don't ask me why) and when I smelled the food I was sick...

I do think she's feeling better too although she still looks to thin
I have a friend who is 7 months pregnant and she still doesn't have a proper baby bump.
__________________
  #928  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
Nor did I. I had to tell people I was pregnant at 32 weeks (tall and thin like Kate). At that point, I stood down from riding and it basically popped over night
__________________
  #929  
Old 12-31-2012, 06:47 PM
ghost_night554's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,777
My mom had no bump what's so ever when she was pregnant with me till around 6 months. She said one day she just woke up and there it was. It was never a gradual thing it just popped.
__________________
  #930  
Old 12-31-2012, 07:18 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
But at the end of the day, the editors at the Express and many other papers decided not to publish the photos. Richard Palmer does not agree with the decision and thats fine.
But Mr Palmer should write a blog blasting his editors for the decision, and not try to turn it around on the Royals.
I had to laugh at this bit..."In the current climate, after the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking and other alleged misdemeanours by sections of the British press, newspaper proprietors and editors are extremely reluctant to get into a high-profile dispute with the Royal Family."

As if the press from owners and editors on down had not treated public figures as objects to be sought and destroyed (because smears sell far better than positive press) by illegal means (misdemeanours or not). The press knows they have eaten their own young by stepping illegally over the privacy line - and now they have to pay the piper to recover the public's approval. It has so little to do with Royalty - this just makes me angry to see this kind of obfuscation.
__________________
  #931  
Old 12-31-2012, 07:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
^^^^ Many members of the press have gone to jail in Britain over their criminal activities. The press was given many opportunities to shape up but they didn't and the general public no longer trust the British press.
__________________
  #932  
Old 12-31-2012, 08:45 PM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to say that the 'Mini Cheddars' that Kate was buying are little crackers with a cheddar cheese flavouring. The crackers are small, about the size of a US quarter or 10p piece in the UK. They're very moreish, and it can be difficult to stop eating them when you start a packet.

Exactly what someone with nausea would be advised to eat. You can see them here:

Mini Cheddars. | Contains Scenes Of Mild Peril.
Oh...So they're the British version of Goldfish Crackers then? Because that description more than fits me and my addic...I mean...great love of (Yeah, that sounds better) Goldfish Crackers.

__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
  #933  
Old 12-31-2012, 08:53 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
Oh...So they're the British version of Goldfish Crackers then? Because that description more than fits me and my addic...I mean...great love of (Yeah, that sounds better) Goldfish Crackers.

Or Cheeze-Its (Cheez-It® Baked Snack Crackers) and Goldfish cheddar can be found here: Pepperidge Farm® - Goldfish® Crackers in Cartons.

For whatever reason, they tend to make our cheddar junk food very radioactive ORANGE in the US. The color sticks to your fingers.

Anyway - good for the Duchess to have found her food that does not return.
__________________
  #934  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post

I had to laugh at this bit..."In the current climate, after the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking and other alleged misdemeanours by sections of the British press, newspaper proprietors and editors are extremely reluctant to get into a high-profile dispute with the Royal Family."

As if the press from owners and editors on down had not treated public figures as objects to be sought and destroyed (because smears sell far better than positive press) by illegal means (misdemeanours or not). The press knows they have eaten their own young by stepping illegally over the privacy line - and now they have to pay the piper to recover the public's approval. It has so little to do with Royalty - this just makes me angry to see this kind of obfuscation.
Agreed! Very astute analysis; Britain is going thru a lot of press stuff that has very little to do with the BRF.
__________________
  #935  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:57 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,861
Of course the palace didnt ban the pictures because there is no basis on what they would have been able to do so. The pictures are not illegal so its pointless to go for a ban. As a consequence, they do it through the backdoor, asking for privacy meaning its a nicely wrapped up warning. I am sure those newsoutlets in Britain who wouldn't comply wouldn't be forgotten by the palace when it comes to special occasions and special favours which would be given to those who did comply in the first place and not those who did not.

There will come the time when William wont be protected by Clarence House and the eternal respect his granny commands when it comes to handling the media and this nicely enforced deal-making will its boundaries.
__________________
  #936  
Old 01-01-2013, 03:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post

Of course the palace didnt ban the pictures because there is no basis on what they would have been able to do so. The pictures are not illegal so its pointless to go for a ban. As a consequence, they do it through the backdoor, asking for privacy meaning its a nicely wrapped up warning. I am sure those newsoutlets in Britain who wouldn't comply wouldn't be forgotten by the palace when it comes to special occasions and special favours which would be given to those who did comply in the first place and not those who did not.

There will come the time when William wont be protected by Clarence House and the eternal respect his granny commands when it comes to handling the media and this nicely enforced deal-making will its boundaries.
The problem with your reasoning is that the relationship between palace and press is a symbiotic one, and, at least for now, the press's does not have the best rep in the UK. Make no mistake, the press want to be on the good side of the palace, and the palace wants to be on the good side of the press.
__________________
  #937  
Old 01-01-2013, 04:06 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
The problem with your reasoning is that the relationship between palace and press is a symbiotic one, and, at least for now, the press's does not have the best rep in the UK. Make no mistake, the press want to be on the good side of the palace, and the palace wants to be on the good side of the press.
This is exactly why we've been seeing William taking a stand on what he'll allow or not allow and what displeases him even to the point of getting the legal eagles on the attack after the invasion of privacy in France. The more he draws his line in the sand now, the more the press realizes that in the future, to have a good working relationship with the Cambridges, they're going to have to heed his wishes.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
  #938  
Old 01-01-2013, 04:16 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,324
True, the Cambridges won't take the media abuse and they are making sure the media knows that crossing the line just won't do. Now that they are establishing a family for themselves and their main residence is Kensington Palace, I really don't blame them.
__________________
  #939  
Old 01-01-2013, 06:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
Of course the palace didnt ban the pictures because there is no basis on what they would have been able to do so. The pictures are not illegal so its pointless to go for a ban. As a consequence, they do it through the backdoor, asking for privacy meaning its a nicely wrapped up warning. I am sure those newsoutlets in Britain who wouldn't comply wouldn't be forgotten by the palace when it comes to special occasions and special favours which would be given to those who did comply in the first place and not those who did not.

There will come the time when William wont be protected by Clarence House and the eternal respect his granny commands when it comes to handling the media and this nicely enforced deal-making will its boundaries.
You're exactly right, the requests for privacy DO carry nicely wrapped warnings, or at least implicit reminders that the royal family is not without options, rights and power when it comes to dealing with the press. I also have very little doubt that this warning has been made explicit in private meetings between members of the press and people representing the Cambridges. The British press is also aware that it has shot itself in its collective foot and its position going forward - both in relation to the BRF and in general - is going to be weak compared to its glory days of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

The ball is in the media's court now. If they continue to keep themselves under control for the most part then they will have a civil and profitable relationship with the Cambridges and their team. If they can't do that then, IMO, the Cambridges are signalling their willingness to do things the hard way.
__________________
  #940  
Old 01-01-2013, 06:44 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
All the old assumptions about the relationship between the royals and the press are now null and void. With the rampant law-breaking of the press over recent years, the media landscape in the UK is utterly changed. Even the BBC, whom we used to trust so much that it was nicknamed 'Auntie', has been fundamentally weakened in terms of public perception due to recent revelations.

The monarchy has probably not been in such a strong position in many decades. Over recent years in the UK we've seen almost all our public institutions revealed to be corrupt, totally untrustworthy, or involved in illegal activity on an almost endemic basis. Politicians, police, the press, churches, the list goes on and on. The only institution to have actually improved its position in the eyes of the public in that time? The royal family.

The royals have an opportunity to shape their relationship with the press that's unlikely to come around again too soon. It seems William is taking the bull by the horns.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess of Cambridge current events 2: 1 February 2012 - 5 January 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1545 01-05-2013 07:37 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 3: April 2 - September 10 2012 ghost_night554 Current Events Archive 923 09-13-2012 05:07 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]