General News for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge 1: January 2013-December 2014


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone can tweet anything. Kate wasn't seen 3 or 4 times last week.

Why wouldn't she be seen 3 or 4 times in a week? Most people get out once a day or so, errands, etc, or just to get some fresh air.
 
Surely Kate takes George out in his stroller in the summer weather without it all being left to the nanny? Once, twice a week?
 
:previous: Well, that's quite likely because she was spotted walking with her son and a bodyguard...

But the sightings I was referring to were about her buying clothes and shopping...:flowers:
 
Please note that several posts have been deleted. At this time, I would like to remind you of the following TRF rules:
  • Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.

If you have any additional questions, please contact any member of the TRF moderation team.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
VIDEO: Norwich MP Chloe Smith nominates the Duke of Cambridge and Network Rail bosses for the ice bucket challenge - Politics - Eastern Daily Press
The Norwich North MP took part in the latest charity trend “The Ice Bucket Challenge” this morning, after she was nominated by EDP and Norwich Evening News assistant editor and digital editor David Powles.
Posting a picture on the social media website Twitter, she said: “My #IceBucketChallenge thanks to @David_Powles for nomination. I nominate @11Gossy, Prince William at @EastAngliAirAmb and @networkrail.”
England forward Theo Walcott has also nominated William. HRH and Theo work together with Football Remembers.

Prince William kicks off Football Remembers
 
Emily Andrews @byEmilyAndrews · 3h
Kate, William & George are also expected at Balmoral next week, along with Harry. Hope the sun shines up there!
 
There's a line really, and those pictures cross it.

Agree entirely. Im getting tired of people thinking that its ok to publish pabs/public pix of a 14 month child. he is not a public figure.
 
In the UK taking unauthorised pictures of any child can lead to police investigation and publishing them can also lead to prosecution.

Posters need to be aware of that.
 
And then people wonder why William choses not to be a full time royal.

I have always said his desire to prolong being a full time royal is to protect Kate and his children. These pics of George and his nanny are proving this point.
 
:previous: No doubt their royal highness's privacy should be respected but I don't think it has anything to do with them being full-time members of the royal family. The pictures would happen regardless.
 
Agree entirely. Im getting tired of people thinking that its ok to publish pabs/public pix of a 14 month child. he is not a public figure.

I don't know where the photos have been taken, in a public place or at private gardens. If the latter, its a violation of privacy. None of the british outlets are printing these photos, its on the net only.

Even though there is a possible violation of privacy at that children have special protection, I strongly disagree that Prince George is not a public figure.
 
:previous: The fact that neither of his parents were present seems to indicate that these photos were indeed taken without permission. We all know the range of a telephoto lens these days, as illustrated with Catherine sunbathing topless on private property "secure in the knowledge they were private".
 
Agree entirely. Im getting tired of people thinking that its ok to publish pabs/public pix of a 14 month child. he is not a public figure.

Legally speaking (at least in the U.S.), a "public figure" as a rule of thumb is anyone famous, whether or not they chose to be famous. This would include George, Blue Ivy Carter, North West, and any other famous baby. Their rights to privacy in a given situation, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Is there a British definition to "public figure?"

I am under the impression that in Europe, the press can't take photos of a minor without the parent's permission. In the U.S., I believe this is different - if they can be seen from a public place, you can publish the photo (I think). I think Infanta Cristina learned this to her dismay when the family moved to Washington (before the Noos scandal was in the picture). I could be wrong about this -these are my general impressions on the subject.

Was this photo taken by paps or a member of the public, such as Instagram, etc? I am wondering if the privacy laws have kept up with the advent of social media, etc - where the public in effect has become a part of the press.

Is anybody aware of this, I am curious?
 
Minors have special rights, I belive it's illegal to take pictures without the parents' consent. When the parents (who are public figures) are with the kid (who is a public figure) in a public place you can take pictures, even without consent (IMO).

These pictures look 'illigal' to me meaning W&K could sue. But it won't stop such pictures and the opportunities for paps will only increase the older George gets, hiding away a toddler is not that difficult. W&K&G have their right to privacy but it will be breached again and again and again, at least outside the UK. It's your right to sue but it will cost you a lot of time, energy and money and will make you bitter (if William can me any more bitter about this topic). So maybe at some point they just let go as long as the british mags don't take part in the distribution.
 
Legally speaking (at least in the U.S.), a "public figure" as a rule of thumb is anyone famous, whether or not they chose to be famous. This would include George, Blue Ivy Carter, North West, and any other famous baby. Their rights to privacy in a given situation, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Is there a British definition to "public figure?"



I am under the impression that in Europe, the press can't take photos of a minor without the parent's permission. In the U.S., I believe this is different - if they can be seen from a public place, you can publish the photo (I think). I think Infanta Cristina learned this to her dismay when the family moved to Washington (before the Noos scandal was in the picture). I could be wrong about this -these are my general impressions on the subject.



Was this photo taken by paps or a member of the public, such as Instagram, etc? I am wondering if the privacy laws have kept up with the advent of social media, etc - where the public in effect has become a part of the press.



Is anybody aware of this, I am curious?


In the US, several outlets, including People magazine, E! and Entertainment Tonight have started declining publishing paparazzi photos of celebrities' children.

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20790683,00.html

At least two actors-Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell-started complaining publicly about the intrusion of cameras into their baby's life and security.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4698061

At the end of the day, unless kids are at a public event with their parents, they should not be photographed. There is an ethical and human line that such behavior causes.
 
I know here in California, a new law was passed concerning the paps and children of celebs.

New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times

I read the article - paps are not allowed to take "harassing" photos - I wonder how "harassment" is defined. It agree that famous children need privacy, which the often don't have (I've seen MANY photos of Jennifer Garner taking her kids to the playground, I can see why she supported the bill) - but I get the feeling from the article that the press is going to challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and because of that definition the press might be right that laws already in existence proscribe the conduct. It might be one of those laws that has no effect, no matter how well intentioned. Let's see.

It will also be interesting to see how the laws of privacy keep up with social media, and will all the things on the internet. Just did a google search on my son, who is a minor - I was a little shocked that he has an online presence, just from school newsletters, etc. What is my point here - the modern world has destroyed the privacy of all of us - I am not sure what the parents of famous babies, such as George, can do. It seems to be a losing battle. Not that he does not have a right to a private life - but I'm not sure what privacy he will get in reality. It is this disturbing trend that makes me think royalty will die out - not because the public wants them out - but the royals themselves won't be able to take any more.
 
From what I gather, it's photos taken without the parents consent. Basically it cuts down on paps stalking children (celebs and politicians).

Under a new state law, a photographer can be sent to prison for trying to take a photo of a celebrity’s son or daughter without permission — either by following the child or lying in wait — and causing the child to suffer “substantial emotional distress.”

Halle Berry has talked a lot about how paps wait outside her daughters school so they can get photos. She said it's gotten to the point where her daughter is scared to go to school.

I don't know how it will be enforced, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. Photographers hanging out at schools, parks, etc. so that they can take photos of celebrity children, is beyond creepy.

There is also an anti-paparazzi bill on the books. That one was passed in 2009 and it makes it easier for celebs to sue media outlets if they use photos that invade their privacy. So any photos on private property or with a long lens, etc.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how privacy and social media work. The famous used to only have to worry about the professional photographers, but now everyone has a camera and a platform.
 
Last edited:
George is an adorable little one but I don't think he is "very blonde". To me he is more strawberry blonde, and I can picture him turning into a redhead like Harry once he grows up. I remember reading that the red hair comes from Diana's family (from the first Duchess of Marlborough?), so it is likely that George could be ginger. There was also red hair in the Tudor family (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were both redheads, and I remember reading that Mary I was auburn, which IIRC is kind of like red hair but more brown) however the RF is only distantly related to them.

Regarding the photos, I do think it is bad that they were published especially since it was without permission. On the other hand, I feel that there are far worse paparazzi photos than these, à la Catherine's topless and her BILD unfortunate wardrobe malfunction photos - those totally crossed the line for me. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these photos of George and his Nanny aren't bad, they are.) I do agree with soapstar that the way the paparazzi hang around schools and parks etc. just to get a glimpse of celebrity children is a little creepy.

I also like Duke of Marmalade think that George is a public figure, but less so than his parents as he is a young child. IMO all royals are public figures, but as I've said, some less so than others, ie. children and parents/adult royals.
 
George is an adorable little one but I don't think he is "very blonde". To me he is more strawberry blonde, and I can picture him turning into a redhead like Harry once he grows up. I remember reading that the red hair comes from Diana's family (from the first Duchess of Marlborough?), so it is likely that George could be ginger. There was also red hair in the Tudor family (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were both redheads, and I remember reading that Mary I was auburn, which IIRC is kind of like red hair but more brown) however the RF is only distantly related to them.

Regarding the photos, I do think it is bad that they were published especially since it was without permission. On the other hand, I feel that there are far worse paparazzi photos than these, à la Catherine's topless and her BILD unfortunate wardrobe malfunction photos - those totally crossed the line for me. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these photos of George and his Nanny aren't bad, they are.) I do agree with soapstar that the way the paparazzi hang around schools and parks etc. just to get a glimpse of celebrity children is a little creepy.

I also like Duke of Marmalade think that George is a public figure, but less so than his parents as he is a young child. IMO all royals are public figures, but as I've said, some less so than others, ie. children and parents/adult royals.

re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
 
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.

I understand that. It is just my opinion. I feel that all royals are public figures, children or not as they are and particularly in Prince George's case quite famous, and also photographed a lot. (I couldn't find the correct words to describe what I wanted to say so forgive me if this sentence was a little difficult to understand.) It's worth noting that I also mentioned in my post that I think royal children are not as "public" figures as their parents as they perform less engagements (although not if they are the Crown Prince of Morocco as he performs lots of public engagements at just ten years old) than them.

That is all. Also, I got the impression that you were shouting or frustrated/angry at me given the fact that you wrote "child" and "at all" in capital letters.
 
Last edited:
:previous: not personal to you so apologies if thats how it came across. But I am frustrated that a child is seen as public property. It is so wrong. we dont get this with the children of the Prime Minister or other members of the royal family. I do feel strongly about this to the extent that I don't agree with some European RFs who display their children to the media on a regular basis.

these children will have years of being in the public eye, and I think their early years should be as 'normal' as possible. No one has to agree, its just my point of view
 
George had no say in who he was born to. The Daily Mail will blur out the faces of Cameron's kids if they are out with him.

George out on public tour duty with his parents-okay for photos. Long lens into the back garden of Govt House in Australia on day off from tour - photos not needed.

With the technology today you could put a camera on a drone and fly it outsides KP's windows.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom