The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1321  
Old 10-03-2014, 01:29 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
The rise of the Internet and digital photography has opened new markets for paparazzi. Just think when William was little, you take a picture , then you have to develop it to see if its any good and you offer to a newspaper if they want to buy it. Now, that's all done electronically, pictures can be sent all over the world in minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

  #1322  
Old 10-03-2014, 01:37 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
This issue is a complex one. A toddler shouldn't be hounded by photographers, but I can't help feeling William is seeking special treatment.
The issue of privacy isn't something only William is concerned about. The others royals are starting to put their foot down too. Earlier this year, Harry complained to the PCC about some photos that were published of him and Cressida. They were taken at a public place and published by the Mirror (I believe). Harry complained that the photos invaded his privacy and the paper had to take down the photos and issue an apology.

Prince Andrew also recently complained about photos taken of him (on a public beach). He felt the photos intruded on his privacy and the Sun ended up removing the photos from their site.
__________________

  #1323  
Old 10-03-2014, 01:38 AM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 768
People who stalk and follow children in the parks are typically pedophile and or kidnappers. The paparazzi are like the creepy men at the park. I cannot believe the journalists are defending him. Than again, they make money from certain members of the BRF being stalk and harass
  #1324  
Old 10-03-2014, 01:40 AM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 768
WA and Maxima has an expectation of privacy for their children and sued the media if they are photograph without permission as they should. That is not special treatment, that is good parenting.
  #1325  
Old 10-03-2014, 01:49 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,381
Just because a person is a public person I think its ridiculous that they should not expect any privacy when they are in a public place but not performing an official act.

So basically, if William and Catherine want to take their son for a walk (or if the nanny is performing the function) because the park is public, it should be okay to take a picture of their son because they are in a public park. And the reasonable solution is, if they don't want to be photographed they should walk their son in a private park and not a public one?

Is that it?

Call me crazy but that it just ridiculous.
__________________
.

  #1326  
Old 10-03-2014, 02:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 699
I suspect the monarchy will survive without weekly front page photos of a toddling Prince George enjoying walks in the park with his nanny, mom or dad. After all, it survived without invasive photos of Princes William and Harry while they where in school. They didn't complain when Prince George was pictured watching his dad play polo. This sounds like they have taken action against a particular stalking photographer who needs to be stopped - much as you see celebrities occasionally getting restraining orders against persistent stalkers/obsessed fans.
Seems to me the solution is to enable the person who's privacy has been invaded by the photo to collect damages equal to three times what the photographer sold the photos for from the photographer and a certain % of the profits earned by the publication that used the photo. Remove the financial rewards and the problem would disappear IMO.
Although I do kind of admire France's criminal consequences for publication of invasive photos.
  #1327  
Old 10-03-2014, 02:16 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Just because a person is a public person I think its ridiculous that they should not expect any privacy when they are in a public place but not performing an official act.

So basically, if William and Catherine want to take their son for a walk (or if the nanny is performing the function) because the park is public, it should be okay to take a picture of their son because they are in a public park. And the reasonable solution is, if they don't want to be photographed they should walk their son in a private park and not a public one?

Is that it?

Call me crazy but that it just ridiculous.
Basically, yes. As ridiculous as it may be to you, that is what I believe. But as I now know, Kensington Park and Hyde Park are not truly public parks. They are Royal Parks, and professional photographers need a licence to take news photographs in them.

As for William and Kate, these are people who expect everyone else to bow to them and call them "Your Royal Highness" and "Sir" or "Ma'am" and to defer to them. The whole country, and a large part of the world, watched William & Kate's wedding. They draw attention to themselves. Their continued existence on their pedestal requires public attention.

This family believes it is so special that they are entitled to be hereditary heads of state, just because of accident of birth. William's grandmother believes she has the approval of God to have the job she has! These people want to be treated as special in some ways but won't accept that a special level of interest necessarily follows their specialness when they go out and about and mix with ordinary members of the public. When ordinary people see something special they want to photograph it.

As for the notion that they should only be photographed when performing official duties but left alone and treated the same way as everyone when not on duty, do you really think they do not expect to be treated as special when they are off duty? I bet they wouldn't be too pleased if everyone to whom they had occasion to speak took to addressing them as William and Kate everywhere except at functions that are listed in the Court Circular. No, I think they want to be treated as special all the time, and to have special rules made for them. They need to maintain distance between themselves and the hoi polloi; they need barriers, whether physical or merely social. So they cannot go everywhere they might want to go without expecting to be treated differently. They can't have it all their own way.

Now as for these Royal Parks, they do have a degree of control and the right to attach conditions to the licences issued to news photographers. They have that option and they should do that if they don't want to be photographed. But in my opinion they should not have special laws to protect their specialness in truly public places. If they want to venture into the truly public domain, they must accept the consequences.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1328  
Old 10-03-2014, 04:08 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
I suspect the monarchy will survive without weekly front page photos of a toddling Prince George enjoying walks in the park with his nanny, mom or dad. After all, it survived without invasive photos of Princes William and Harry while they where in school. They didn't complain when Prince George was pictured watching his dad play polo. This sounds like they have taken action against a particular stalking photographer who needs to be stopped - much as you see celebrities occasionally getting restraining orders against persistent stalkers/obsessed fans.
Seems to me the solution is to enable the person who's privacy has been invaded by the photo to collect damages equal to three times what the photographer sold the photos for from the photographer and a certain % of the profits earned by the publication that used the photo. Remove the financial rewards and the problem would disappear IMO.
Although I do kind of admire France's criminal consequences for publication of invasive photos.
Yeah, one of the paps is someone they've had issues with in the past. Back in 2010, Kate threatened to sue him for harassment and breach of privacy.

While I acknowledge that there are times when William, Kate (and other royals) have to expect their pictures will be taken, I don't think a child should have to deal with that. These paps shouldn't be stalking and following children.
  #1329  
Old 10-03-2014, 06:21 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,756
I thought the problem isn't really about the pictures so much but that the photographers, including Niraj Tanna, are following George and his nanny on a regular bases and that it's becoming a security risk. It seems like the photographers know every detail of Prince George's daily routine and his parents and palace officials are worried about that.

The media should have known that William & Catherine and the palace will not play around when it comes to the security of Prince George and their unborn child. I don't even know why these photographers decided to go there.

Although I do think William & Catherine could probably take a leaf out of their young royal counterparts (Victoria & Daniel and Frederik & Mary) in providing pictures of Prince George like they do for their children.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
  #1330  
Old 10-03-2014, 06:41 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
General News and Information for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
....

As for William and Kate, these are people who expect everyone else to bow to them and call them "Your Royal Highness" and "Sir" or "Ma'am" and to defer to them. The whole country, and a large part of the world, watched William & Kate's wedding. They draw attention to themselves. Their continued existence on their pedestal requires public attention.

This family believes it is so special that they are entitled to be hereditary heads of state, just because of accident of birth. William's grandmother believes she has the approval of God to have the job she has! These people want to be treated as special in some ways but won't accept that a special level of interest necessarily follows their specialness when they go out and about and mix with ordinary members of the public. When ordinary people see something special they want to photograph it.

As for the notion that they should only be photographed when performing official duties but left alone and treated the same way as everyone when not on duty, do you really think they do not expect to be treated as special when they are off duty? I bet they wouldn't be too pleased if everyone to whom they had occasion to speak took to addressing them as William and Kate everywhere except at functions that are listed in the Court Circular. No, I think they want to be treated as special all the time, and to have special rules made for them. They need to maintain distance between themselves and the hoi polloi; they need barriers, whether physical or merely social. So they cannot go everywhere they might want to go without expecting to be treated differently. They can't have it all their own way... .
William and Kate have said numerous times that they are okay being called by names while out on engagement and no expects people to bow or curtsey to them. The royal website doesn't even say that is required. However, we are not talking about William or Kate but George who is a 14 month old who doesn't know he is a prince or a future king. He probably doesn't even know how to use a toilet yet. It isn't ordinary people taking photos that is the problem but professional photographers taking pictures of a toddler walking with or pushed in a stroller by a nanny and selling the photos for money routinely .

Also lets not forget that the RPOs with George are there for a reason.

William and Kate aren't asking for the police to clear out the parks so George doesn't have to see the common riffraff. It is the opposite, they want George to be able to go outside and do stuff that every other little kid does and not have spread all over the world.

People wonder why W&K are moving to Amner. It's private land. Also the people are going to be like the folks in Anglesey and Buckleberry who respected their privacy and didn't document and tweet out their every movement in public.

I live in the US, almost every time a buy groceries there is a photo on a British royal on a magazine or tabloid. I have never seen People magazine with a photo of Princess Estelle or one the Danish little ones or the Spanish, Dutch or any other non British royal family on the cover. I have seen it with George. The demand is much more worldwide and greater than for pictures of the children of the royal families. If KP released a daily George shot, they probably still take paparazzi photos of him.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #1331  
Old 10-03-2014, 08:15 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 177
William is doing the right thing.
All children are entitled to privacy. I don't think it is acceptable for photos to be published, particularly these days when cameras are so powerful and coverage is world wide in seconds. Millions of people don't need to see George every week.
William and Catherine are the ones who best know when and where it is in George's best interest to be photographed. They need to be cautious because all shots will be published, republished and scrutinised. That type of intrusion is not good for any child.
The Dutch Royals are fortunate in their laws.
It would be a great idea if any person taking photos in the Royal parks were not allowed to have photos of children published.
  #1332  
Old 10-03-2014, 08:51 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,534
The real issue is not the taking of the pictures. The lawyers have said it is about the harassment/stalking of George and his Nanny. That is a criminal offence. The legislation is complex but put simply, harassment is in the eye of the beholder. So if you feel threatened or worried then you can do something about it. William isnt asking for special treatment as this law applies to and for everyone.

This paparazzo was warned off by an RPO, so it will be interesting to see if he tries again.

As for some of the British press defending the pap, this IMO is an interesting position to take as none of the British press published the pictures (as far as I am aware) So they knew a line had been crossed.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1333  
Old 10-03-2014, 08:54 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
...William and Kate aren't asking for the police to clear out the parks so George doesn't have to see the common riffraff. It is the opposite, they want George to be able to go outside and do stuff that every other little kid does and not have spread all over the world.
Why does George need to be strolled in public or semi-public places? Aren't there enough private gardens around? If I had access to private parks, that's where I would be.
  #1334  
Old 10-03-2014, 09:24 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
So George while in London can only go to private garden area of Apt 1a since KP is located in a huge royal park or he has to be driven across central London to BP to play in the back garden of BP which is constantly surrounded by tourist most days? Forget about playing at the huge playground or memorial foundation named for his grandmother which outside KP in the royal park.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #1335  
Old 10-03-2014, 10:02 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Why does George need to be strolled in public or semi-public places? Aren't there enough private gardens around? If I had access to private parks, that's where I would be.
George is just as entitled as you are to strolling in the public parks - just as he is entitled to not be hassled by the Press as he goes about doing what he does.
  #1336  
Old 10-03-2014, 10:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I know! He's a cute kid but how many photos do people really need to see of him? But if the magazines and other media didn't pay large amounts of money for the photos, the photographers wouldn't bother. And why do they pay a lot of money for the photos? Because people buy more magazines if they contain photos of George. Why doesn't William plead to the public to avoid buying magazines with unofficial photos of George in them? Because royals want the public to be interested in them, and the public wouldn't take well to being told that they shouldn't buy something they want to buy. The RF needs all the publicity it can get.

This issue is a complex one. A toddler shouldn't be hounded by photographers, but I can't help feeling William is seeking special treatment. As long as the photographers are complying with the laws that apply to everyone I think it is a necessary evil. If George is taken into a public park he is going to be photographed, if not by professional photographers then by people with camera phones or tourists with personal cameras. But if the photographers have been breaking the law then they should be prosecuted under the law, but special laws should not be made for the royals and other celebrities.

What is a person's expectation of privacy when walking in a public park? Does William think that no professional photographer should photograph his child/children in a public park, regardless of how far away they are from their quarry? If it goes to court, the litigation will be worth following.
Your post seems to imply that the royals want the monarchy to continue more than the public does. Perhaps that is true but it is likely that the royals will not want to continue as long as the costs of royalty, in terms of lack of privacy and constant criticism, continues to climb.

In particular, William has always seemed to struggle with his role as member of the royal family. I think both William and Catherine would be just as happy, if not happier, to have a normal life. William is independently wealthy and could afford his own comfortable home somewhere in the country. He certainly seems more interested in flying than making public appearances.

Despite the negativity of the Daily Mail comments, all polls indicate that the monarchy is very popular in Britain. If the British people want it to continue, they are going to have to stop soliciting organizations that sell these photographs or put strong privacy protections for the royal family in place. If they don't, sooner or later, members of the royal family will decide that living in old palaces and having people bow or curtsy is not worth the hassle.

Everyone deserves some time off. But it is even more important that every child have a safe, happy childhood.
  #1337  
Old 10-03-2014, 10:10 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,381
I am simply amazed that people think that just because George is royal,he is not entitled to enjoy a walk in a public park. And that if he wants privacy, he needs to be walked on the royal grounds where no one else (i.e. the photographers) can see him.

And count me in with the group that thinks there should be special laws for royals and celebrities...even public figures should be given the opportunity have private moments out side the realm of their homes. Its a shame that such laws need be made. Even animals in the zoo are allowed a time when they are not on display. But that is the problem with the social media world that we live in now.....everyone thinks they need to share even the basic facts of their life with everyone. As if everyone cares. And everyone thinks they have a right to know what famous people do 24/7.

Just gobsmacked really!
__________________
.

  #1338  
Old 10-03-2014, 10:34 AM
Elly C's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Why does George need to be strolled in public or semi-public places? Aren't there enough private gardens around? If I had access to private parks, that's where I would be.
I think this is missing the real issue which is, - should any young child be constantly harassed by photographers? I'm sure you 'd agree that children need protecting from such behaviour whoever and wherever they are.
  #1339  
Old 10-03-2014, 10:42 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,014
I totally think that the right move was made to warn off the photographer that seemed to be stalking George.

Not only do I think this is a privacy issue but there is definitely another concern lurking in the background but not being stated out loud or in print. Prince George is a very high profile little guy and who is to say that a stalking photographer is what he seems to be. This recent action sends out a message loud and clear that the protection and security around George is very tight and he isn't in any way fair game to some nefarious plan.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
  #1340  
Old 10-03-2014, 11:58 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elly C View Post
I think this is missing the real issue which is, - should any young child be constantly harassed by photographers? I'm sure you 'd agree that children need protecting from such behaviour whoever and wherever they are.
Yes, I do personally agree that children need protecting from such behavior. I also believe that if there are alternatives for fresh air and sunshine or acclimation to other season's weather for children in the spotlight, then public places are not the best choices. George does not know where he is being strolled and won't for a couple of years.

I don't understand why they keep putting him in peril when there are alternatives. He is not a "regular" child, has never been and never will be. Either they (his parents) want him stalked or they don't want him stalked. If not, keep him out of the public eye...no one is beyond the horrors of what can happen. Photographs should be the least of their worries at this point.

I am only thinking of George and his safety in this post. If it is so bad that William has to sue, were I in his shoes, I would eliminate the possibility. However, I do agree with the warning given to the offending party and go a bit further by W/K requesting a Restraining Order on the guy.

The sad part of this is the old adage "you can't have it both ways."
__________________

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
General News for the Cambridge Family Part 2: January 2015 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 1560 01-16-2017 12:22 PM




Popular Tags
70th birthday celebrations of king carl xvi gustaf aristocracy ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit british baby names catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll felipe vi greece kate middleton king abdullah and queen rania king abdullah ii king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles princess charlene daytime fashion princess marie princess marie events princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima dresses queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania dresses queen rania fashion replica september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats women deliver conference


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises