Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events 4: September 2012-February 2013

[Duke-of-Earl]

Similarly, I would also like to roll my eyes at Daily Mail's stance. I am quite willing to bet that they are one of those newspapers that were advised to keep away from the royal couple. But it seems that given the chance, they are quite happy to break the promise and publish the pictures, which in fact is what they happily did.

Exactly Hollie. The DM knew in advance this was going to be a private Christmas for the couple but the second a photo appeared the DM puts it up on their website

Look if there is no delineation between the couple's public life and private life, then its going to become a bizarre world fairly quickly

There is a free press in Britain and if they want to follow this couple around or publish photos of them out running errands or leaving church on Sunday, the press can but just don't expect more than the obligatory photo op with the new Royal baby and no interviews either.

 

[tommy100]

To be honest I think realistically William and Kate are going to get photographed on Christmas day so perhaps they need to accept that and find the best way to accommodate it. Obviously at Sandringham that is taken care of when the royals all go to church. Perhaps if they want to be at the middletons on Christmas day in the future arranging for the media to be allowed in one place and take a few photos might be the best option. Then it can be controlled, the media get pictures for us to see and any taking pictures anywhere else, say at church, would have to have an very good reason for doing so. Maybe a few minutes of pictures of the cambridges walking down the middletons driveway into a car on their way to church.
I know it might sound harsh but I don't think a future king and queen can expect not to be photographed if they step out of the house on Christmas day.

 

[rosana]

I don´t understand why everybody is assuming William complained about the pictures, but anybody is free to think what they want. I don´t think he did. Why would he? If he was upset for the pics then he should complain to the Middletons good friend Narij Tanna. All the pictures that apeared first have the mark of his agency and were taken by one of his collaborators.

https://twitter.com/therealjesal

I supposed they were later sold to sites like DM, since thre are no different pictures anywhere. I would bet there was only one photographer there.

 

[grevinnan]

It makes perfect sense that the Duke and Duchess should spend Christmas with the Duchess' family considering her health issues relating to her pregnancy. She may not want to eat what and when other people are eating, if she can stand the smell/looks of any food at all. She may need to be resting for periods each day. I would assume the Queen is very protective of the Duchess health and would welcome any situation where she can be as comfortable as possible.

 

[agami.pearl]

Church is public place and reporters had to know that Middletons will be there. Kate is now member of the most important family in GB so it's normal that they're followed by the paps, she get husband and the title but she lost lots of privacy, she's not first and not last in royal world. I hope that Will won't sue media like he likes, it will be only harder if they'll try to fight with media, Diana lost, they will too.

 

[Lemon Lyman]

Mmmm we use to live in that area and the church at Englefield is not the local church for the Middletons it is a good 15 minute drive from Buckleberry. Englefield village is tiny and the majority of it belonged to the Englefield Estate (google it -it's a stunning place) which the local mp owns. I have a feeling the Middletons might be friends of his and used this church to keep out of the limelight. It really isn't an obvious choice which means they were probably followed there.

 

[hkittybaby]

Victoria Arbiter‏@victoriaarbiter
I appreciate a request for privacy but to ask the British press not to print pix of Will & Kate outside church seems a little over the top

 

[Lumutqueen]

Victoria Arbiter‏@victoriaarbiter
I appreciate a request for privacy but to ask the British press not to print pix of Will & Kate outside church seems a little over the top

I quite agree! They do know who they are don't they?

 

[angieuk]

A baffling request to keep Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's public appearance private | Mail Online

I asked myself the question last week --- why do I care about this boring 31 year old woman. And the answer was --- I don't.

New Year - Find something better for myself to do!

 

[MARG]

I quite agree! They do know who they are don't they?

I thought that William had been displaying a pretty well rounded maturity since the engagement. But this Christmas behaviour is just plain childish. If he wanted to stay private he should have stayed "in private' instead of venturing into the real world, to a real village, to go to a real church, with real parishioners, attending a real Christmas Day Service and then expect every man and his dog to do a very bad impression of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and pretend he wasn't there.

How utterly bizarre!

 

[soapstar]

I asked myself the question last week --- why do I care about this boring 31 year old woman. And the answer was --- I don't.

New Year - Find something better for myself to do!

That's probably a good idea. If someone/something bores you, why waste time on them.

To be honest I think realistically William and Kate are going to get photographed on Christmas day so perhaps they need to accept that and find the best way to accommodate it. Obviously at Sandringham that is taken care of when the royals all go to church. Perhaps if they want to be at the middletons on Christmas day in the future arranging for the media to be allowed in one place and take a few photos might be the best option. Then it can be controlled, the media get pictures for us to see and any taking pictures anywhere else, say at church, would have to have an very good reason for doing so. Maybe a few minutes of pictures of the cambridges walking down the middletons driveway into a car on their way to church.
I know it might sound harsh but I don't think a future king and queen can expect not to be photographed if they step out of the house on Christmas day.

This would be a good arrangement. They would be able to control the photos, while still enjoying a bit of privacy during Christmas with the Middletons.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Are you aware, that according to basic human rights, you own the right of your picture, voice etc.?; Is it because of the Paris Hiltons and Kadashians of this world, because they love every opportunity to be photographed, that it has become common opinion to think, everybody is public property?

The royals are doing a job - on job it is fare game to take fotos; when they are private it is NOT.

That's the difference between celebs, wannabees and royals or other prominent people like politicians, artists etc.

 

[princess jones]

Well, they must be aware of the fact they were in a public place and the media probably would be there, trying to take some pictures. If they wanted something private they should have stayed at home! It's pretty obviously they media would do everything to photograph them moreover know she's pregnant and decided to spend christmas with her family.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I thought that William had been displaying a pretty well rounded maturity since the engagement. But this Christmas behaviour is just plain childish. If he wanted to stay private he should have stayed "in private' instead of venturing into the real world, to a real village, to go to a real church, with real parishioners, attending a real Christmas Day Service and then expect every man and his dog to do a very bad impression of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and pretend he wasn't there.

How utterly bizarre!

Just so I'm clear, your opinion is no one in the royal family has any right to privacy unless they're inside their home?

Because my view of it is, just because someone is in public (church, the grocery store, etc) doesn't make it a 'public appearance.'

There is freedom of the press in Britain and the press can publish whatever they like, the Palace made a request and the press complied but they didn't have to

If the press in Britain don't want to have boundaries with the Royal Family, that's their prerogative but its also the prerogative of the Royal Family to limit access of its key members to just official photo ops and that goes for the new royal baby that's on the way

 

[CanRoyal]

Mmmm we use to live in that area and the church at Englefield is not the local church for the Middletons it is a good 15 minute drive from Buckleberry. Englefield village is tiny and the majority of it belonged to the Englefield Estate (google it -it's a stunning place) which the local mp owns. I have a feeling the Middletons might be friends of his and used this church to keep out of the limelight. It really isn't an obvious choice which means they were probably followed there.

You're not the first person that has commented on this fact, so apparently some effort was made to attend a Christmas Day service at a church that was not located in Bucklebury. So yes, likely they were followed from the Middleton residence.

Christmas Day church service is important not only to HM, but to the BRF. The Queen has sworn to be 'defender of the faith'; at Sandringham the Royals go to church twice on Christmas Day; together William and Kate wrote a prayer for their wedding and so forth.

Therefore to suggest that William & Kate not attend a church service on Christmas Day, merely so that their photos are not taken is unreasonable. William and Kate are entitled to worship; they asked in advance for privacy; they made an effort to go to a church that the Middletons do not normally go to; and apparently Kate made an effort to attend church when she was not feeling well.

The tradition of going to Sandringham for Christmas is very likely to change when Charles becomes King. Not sure how some of the Royals will feel, but it is likely that Andrew and his daughters (in light of the fact that Charles apparently plans to streamline the BRF and marginalize them further, even disenfranchise them from the Royal family) will not be so happy to attend Sandringham for Christmas Day when Charles is King.

Furthermore, if Charles lives as long as HM has done so far, William would likely be at least in his 50's, if and when he becomes King. So there are many years between now and when William might become King in which Christmas traditions in the BRF will change beyond all recognition of what we know about today.

 

[cinrit]

If the media takes the stance that any time any of the Royals are outside of their own home (or anyone's home, I suppose) or their own front lawn, they're fair game to be photographed ... why, before we knew it, they would be photographing them from over a half-mile away with long-range telephoto lenses.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

The Palace notified much of the press that the Cambridges' Christmas was going to be private and no photo ops were available. The Daily Mail knew this and wasn't expecting anything.

Now just because William and Catherine attended a church service Christmas Day doesn't mean all of a sudden its a 'public appearance' , at least not by the majority of the British people.

Most people in Britain think the press is far too intrusive when it comes to the lives of public figures and William and Catherine have the court of public opinion on their side

 

[csw]

Are you aware, that according to basic human rights, you own the right of your picture, voice etc.?; Is it because of the Paris Hiltons and Kadashians of this world, because they love every opportunity to be photographed, that it has become common opinion to think, everybody is public property?
.

I know this is off topic but you post reminds me of my regret that there is a huge difference in the privacy laws in Europe v the US. I wish our laws were closer to yours. We don't have the right to our image when in public nor do we have the right to control info about ourselves outside of finances, health, education, and believe it or not, video rentals.

 

[hkittybaby]

they might be exaggereting a little bit, but we have to recognize they deserve some privacy

 

[Dman]

I'm one of the first people to agree on the royal family's privacy. I think despite them being royal, they are entitled to some privacy and the media should respect it. So I would understand the complaint if the photographers took intrusive pictures of the Cambridges and Middletons at their home on Christmas or any other day.

From what I understand, the Cambridges and Middleton family privacy wasn't violated but was respected. The DM article said the police cleared the way so the photographers could get good pictures, so I'm guess the royal couple and Middleton family knew their pictures would at least be taken outside the church. I just think they at least expected that to happen.

Even the royal family's privacy is being respected. No pictures are being produced of them on the Sandringham estate. The only pictures of them that is produced is them attending church on Christmas. I think the Cambridges should've known their pictures would be taken at church and shouldn've complained about it.

They didn't complain about the pictures that was taken of Catherine and her family when they attended church in 2010. This was after the engagement.

No doubt William & Catherine privacy should be respected and I think the media and us all have to respect that no matter what. I just think complaining about these little church pictures (which was taken out in public) is a little too much. I just think they should have known their pictures would be taken outside the church. Pictures of them on the Middleton estate walking the dogs or anything else would've been crossing the intrusion line.

I'm actually glad we got pictures of them attending church as a family. May not have been a lot of pictures but the little that we saw was nice.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

What makes attending church on Christmas Day any different from grocery shopping on Sunday afternoon?

The press agreed a long time ago to give W&C space when on private time. Christmas Day was private time, they weren't carrying out public duties and told the press in advance.

Again, using the press' own standard of leaving W&C alone on their private time, what makes Christmas Day different?

 

[Avicenna]

Church is public place ... QUOTE]

Is it? On the official website it says: Although situated within Englefield Estate it is a public place of worship.

Found here:
Englefield: St Mark, Englefield - Berkshire | Diocese of Oxford

IMHO even though it is a public place of worship, it comes with the restrictions that it is otherwise located on a private property. Which means no pictures.

On a sidenote: I found it interesting that the security officers obviously helped the photographer by moving their car(s). Has someone forgotten to inform them about the no-picture-policy? I only hope that these officers won't be reprimanded for their behaviour.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I can understand the family's desire to be out of the public eye (via press coverage). When Harry and William were small, Diana and Charles had cut a deal with the press that kept the boys form being hounded - and let them have slightly more normal childhoods.
The intent with Catherine is probably much the same. She is pregnant for the first time, has had to be hospitalized in her first trimester, is carrying the third in line to the throne and I am sure she is feeling a lot of pressure, illness and not some small degree of fear about things. Beyond that, I would not want photogs hovering and waiting to capture the moment when I was violently taken with nausea, while in public. Because we all know that that is the picture they all want to get.
That said, the DM opinion piece is correct, that in this age of cell phones with cameras and social media, that it makes little difference if the press is not there - in public spaces SOMEONE will catch the opportunity, take pics and post them to Twitter, Facebook or wherever.
So I completely understand the DM's frustration at the naive view that stopping the press will stop the pictures.
And I can't believe that I am agreeing with the DM - because, it is the DM.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Its not about stopping all pictures. Its about having boundaries. Does the press publish photos of Prime Minister Cameron and his wife leaving church on Christmas Day? No, because there was no public interest and even though the PM is a public figure, he also deserves privacy.

If people want the royals to turn into a reality show, then that's what they'll get but I hope the Cambridges release just 1 photo of their baby and no official photo ops until the princess/ss is 18 years old.

 

[Lumutqueen]

If they're out in public, they will be photographed, I think they're fair game. Behind the walls of a home, of a holiday place etc, they can have their privacy.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

If the Daily Mail thinks it has the moral high ground, then don't take down the photos, pretty simple.

If the press believes its their constitutional right to photograph members of the Royal Family any time it wants except behind close doors, then do it but don't take down the photos and then complain about it.

Britain has a free press and the royals don't control it but obviously the DM knew it broke its own agreement and took down the photos

 

[Mirabel]

If they're out in public, they will be photographed, I think they're fair game. Behind the walls of a home, of a holiday place etc, they can have their privacy.

I agree.
Otherwise, what happens is that the reporters who are respectful and do as they're asked will lose out to the ones who ignore any and all requests for privacy.

The RF is aware of this, and making a deal with the media is probably the best way to go.

The next time the papers are asked to refrain from publishing any photos, they'll probably ignore the request and go right ahead, knowing that others are going to publish no matter what.

 

[Hollie]

On a sidenote: I found it interesting that the security officers obviously helped the photographer by moving their car(s). Has someone forgotten to inform them about the no-picture-policy? I only hope that these officers won't be reprimanded for their behaviour.

Yes, I found this very interesting too. But it has generally been established from Harry's and Kate's scandals that PPOs do not deal with photographers or people holding cameras, so I guess they will not get into trouble over this matter. What surprises me is the fact that the police set up a press area near the church. Seems like there has been a breakdown of communications between WK's office, the PPOs and the local police.

 

[cepe]

If the Daily Mail thinks it has the moral high ground, then don't take down the photos, pretty simple.

If the press believes its their constitutional right to photograph members of the Royal Family any time it wants except behind close doors, then do it but don't take down the photos and then complain about it.

Britain has a free press and the royals don't control it but obviously the DM knew it broke its own agreement and took down the photos

I agree. Yesterday when the DM printed the pictures, no other main stream media outlet did that, not even the Daily Telegraph which lifts royal stories from the DM all the time. So the only paper that had to drop the pix was the DM so they are the only paper who now have to cover their tracks by shifting the blame back onto the royals. This is the DM at its most manipulative, cynical best. Don't fall for it.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I think its interesting that the Daily Mail and the other tabloids in Britain agree that photos of Catherine out shopping in Kensington or grocery shopping in Wales, or walking her dog in the park are not public interest stories and don't publish articles or photos because of this but then turns around and says that attending a Christmas Day church service is a vital news story and publish photos of the event because it thinks its news

If the standard is going to be any photos taken of Catherine are free game, then be prepared for the Daily Mail to have its entire front page plastered everyday with photos of Catherine in every edition, with such riveting reportage as Catherine being photographed buying shampoo or picking up after her dog in the park.

Stories right up the Daily Mail's alley it seems