Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News 2: May 2015 - May 2016

[Pranter]

Yep...all they are going to do is to cause the parents to pull them back even more.


LaRae

 

[Mirabel]

But there's nothing that can be done!

No matter what the RF says, the paps are relentless.
And let's face it, there is an appetite for these pictures, else they wouldn't be taken.

I really think the RF should just give in and go along with it, because it's going to be around for a looonnnggg time!

 

[hernameispekka]

But there's nothing that can be done!

No matter what the RF says, the paps are relentless.
And let's face it, there is an appetite for these pictures, else they wouldn't be taken.

I really think the RF should just give in and go along with it, because it's going to be around for a looonnnggg time!

But I've seen that alot of blogs etc in the royal fandom are refusing to restribute these pictures in the same way as the british magazines and most foreign magazines. If bloggers start putting up a similar "code" the market for the pictures get smaller and not as lucrative.

 

[acdc1]

The paparazzi are despicable! I feel so sorry for William, Catherine, George, and Charlotte.

George and Charlotte are going to be in the public eye their entire lives. Their school days, university days, friendships, romantic relationships, weddings, the births of their children, personal downfalls (we all have them- royals are no exception!), even their illnesses and deaths, will all take place in front of a very nosy public. It's a shame that they don't really have the ability to simply be children, and to enjoy doing the fun, everyday activities that other children do without being hounded by the paparazzi.

I love seeing pictures of these two as much as the next person, but I would much rather they be from events where William and Kate don't mind them being photographed: photos released by the couple, at public events like the polo match or church services, etc.

 

[Tiggersk8]

But there's nothing that can be done!

No matter what the RF says, the paps are relentless.
And let's face it, there is an appetite for these pictures, else they wouldn't be taken.

I really think the RF should just give in and go along with it, because it's going to be around for a looonnnggg time!

You are talking about the Children of a Man who literally saw his Mother hounded to her Death by these pond scum. He will never give in and nor should he.

These are Children for God's sake. Did that Press Release listing the methods these pieces of pond scum have sunk to from last month not sink in? Personally, these are not Press, but Stalkers.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Daria_S]

But there's nothing that can be done!

No matter what the RF says, the paps are relentless.
And let's face it, there is an appetite for these pictures, else they wouldn't be taken.

I really think the RF should just give in and go along with it, because it's going to be around for a looonnnggg time!

Really, you expect the British Royals (William and Catherine to be exact) to just put their hands up, and adapt an attitude of 'well, maybe if we give in, then they'll stop'? I'm sorry, but children's lives are in danger because of these vultures, so no way in Hades should William, and Catherine just 'give in, and go along with it'. I don't expect them to, and I bet they won't go quietly either.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It was a silly photo. The children were not placed in any danger and were probably not even aware that they were being photographed.

Britain-and the world-is full of families with children facing real danger...abuse, not enough to eat, exploitation. If unauthorized photographs are the worst thing the Cambridge children will ever have to deal with they are very blessed indeed.

...

Sorry, I cannot and will not be gnashing my teeth and losing sleep over the Cambridges and their problems with photographers.

 

[grevinnan]

You are talking about the Children of a Man who literally saw his Mother hounded to her Death by these pond scum. He will never give in and nor should he.

These are Children for God's sake. Did that Press Release listing the methods these pieces of pond scum have sunk to from last month not sink in? Personally, these are not Press, but Stalkers and their Protection Officers should deal w/them accordingly. After all, they were given fair warning.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

The pictures were posted in this thread. We are part of the problem. Case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

[camelot23ca]

I'm not looking even though, to be honest, I'd love to see what Charlotte looks like now.
... I also doubt they thought their letter would cut paparazzi photos of the children down to zero. Hopefully it has decreased some of the more egregious behaviours the paparazzi were engaging in.

 

[miss whirley]

You might be on to something. I agree with you.

It was a silly photo. The children were not placed in any danger and were probably not even aware that they were being photographed.

Britain-and the world-are full of families with children facing real danger...abuse, not enough to eat, exploitation. If unauthorized photographs are the worst thing the Cambridge children will ever have to deal with they are very blessed indeed.

...

Sorry, I cannot and will not be gnashing my teeth and losing sleep over the Cambridges and their problems with photographers.

The Cambridge children are in real danger. They are one of the main terrorist targets. Their safety is a matter of national security. They aren't normal celebrity children.If their protection officers are spending all their time scouting for paparazzi who are using subterfuge, then they are spreading themselves too thin. The safety risks against the children go up exponentially.

If a would be lunatic assassin - like the Ginger Extremist- runs up to the children, and their officers pause thinking it's only an over zealous paparazzi then disaster will strike. But hey, on the plus side, I'm sure there will be a paparazzi in the bushes nearby to capture the carnage.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

miss whirley, if what you say is true then William and Kate are obliged, as their parents, to keep their terrorist targeted children to the safety and security of the vast Royal estates. Anmer Hall is secluded and secure, and the delightful treehouse built at Highgrove by the PoW for his children and grandchildren was recently featured in a magazine.

It's unfortunate, but if the kids are in the type of danger you describe it's the best alternative...a no-brainer.

 

[royal rob]

I did think walking to the church with the children for the christening was a risk I wouldn't take

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Indeed royal rob. There were crowds of onlookers on either side of George and his sister during the walk to St. Mary Magdalene that day.

Which makes all the sturm und drang about the imminent danger to the children by photogs sneaking unauthorized photos of them all the more confusing.

 

[miss whirley]

Indeed royal rob. There were crowds of onlookers on either side of George and his sister during the walk to St. Mary Magdalene that day.

Which makes all the sturm und drang about the imminent danger to the children by photogs sneaking unauthorized photos of them all the more confusing.

There was dozens of police officers there that day watching the crowds. On a normal day it's the Cambridge children and one or two protection officers. Hence, my comment about the paparazzi spreading the protection too thin.

Your solution is to keep the children locked indoors. They can't even go out to play because according to the letter, paparazzi have been trespassing onto private property to get full view of Amner. They've also been using helicopters to fly over Sandringham to take pictures too, hence Williams attempt at a low-flying aircraft ban over the estate.

Instead of putting the victims under house arrest I proposed going after the perpetrators who are endangering them. If that means some pepper balls and some restraining orders then so be it.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Paps taking unauthorized photos are not exactly "endangering" the children.

They are violating their privacy and annoying their parents.

Some perspective is in order here, imo.

 

[miss whirley]

Paps taking unauthorized photos are not exactly "endangering" the children.

They are violating their privacy and annoying their parents.

Some perspective is in order here, imo.

See my post #983 and your responding post #984.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

miss whirley, the only solution for any high profile politico, Royal or celebrity who do not want their children photographed without permission is to keep them indoors. Period.

Because in the 21st century you cannot order the press to do your bidding unless you live in some totalitarian autocracy where you wield 100% control. You can ask them to do the right thing, as is what happened in the wake of the death of the Princess of Wales when the paps were asked to leave William and Harry in peace.

The press had been shamed into doing so because of their culpability in the death of the boys' mother. Public opinion was on the side of the Royals.

Fast forward some 17 odd years. Times have changed, attitudes have hardened. For whatever reasons the press is not in the mood to do the Cambridges's bidding regarding their kids.

Sooo...the Cambridges have a couple of options here. They can accept that paps are a fact of life in the world of celebrities(make no mistake, the Cambridges ARE celebrities). They can make it clear that if their children are in any danger from aggressive paps...i.e. paps that are posing a clear, physical danger to the kids in the manner I described above, they are going to be dealt with by the kid's RPOs.

Or they can confine their children to their secured homes. But murder and mayhem are not an option simply because their privacy is violated...it just doesn't work that way.

No children on the planet are in as much danger as the children of the President of the U.S. Their abduction and/or murder would be the ultimate feather in the cap of any assassin or terrorist. But to my knowledge neither the president, the First Lady or the Secret Service has threatened action against any press. They know and accept that paps are part of the deal.

 

[miss whirley]

We will never agree. I'm on the side of the children and the police. You're on the side of the paparazzi and the "free" press.

Also, the Obama daughters don't have the pap market that the Cambridge children do. Maybe if the girls were younger. The Commonwealth might also be a factor in this.

Security in the United States in much stricter than in the UK as we see whenever a Royal visits our country. The Secret Service would never let the paps have the free rein that the protection officers currently give them. I'm proposing they take a page out of the Secret Service book. I think it would give the BRF a lot more peace of mind. Not to mention it could save their lives...

Also, you're sorely mistaken if you think pap helicopters would be allowed to fly over The White House or Camp David. Those helicopters would be shot down and they wouldn't use pepper balls either.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Paps taking unauthorized photos are not exactly "endangering" the children.

They are violating their privacy and annoying their parents.
Some perspective is in order here, imo.

Exactly, and it will not stop. The more the kids grow up, the less you can keep them indoors and the paps will take pictures of the public figures they are in public places. If questionable or endangering tactics are involved, it is the parents' right to take legal action. But very often that's not the case and it comes down to the annoying factor you have to live with.

There are celebrities who absolutely do not want their children pictured and it is respected by the media (eg Michael Schumacher).

But royalty is different. They are supposed to have a bond with the public. So once you start … using pepper spray or stop walking to a church than you can as well stop the whole circus of monarchy.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

No...I am on the side of balance, perspective and reality miss whirley. I would never want to be famous for all the tea in China, because I am passionate about my privacy. BUT...I'd be realist enough to understand the "rules" if I ever did become famous. I would set REALISTIC boundaries and get on with it.

The fact that the paps may or not be as interested in the Obama girls is beside the point. They were all of 8 and 11 years old when their father was elected and the interest in them was intense. Their parents calmly asked for privacy, but when the odd unauthorized photo of one of them did turn up there were no threats and dramatics because their parents know better. But the fact is that they were and are valuable targets to any potential bad guys even now...just as much as the Cambridge children are.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Here is the problem:

Unless somebody can point to a British statute on stalking or any other crime, it would seem that what the paps are doing is legal. Stalking is generally defined as following someone for the purpose of intimidation and/or harassment (at least here in the U.S.). The loophole is is that these kids are not being followed for purposes of intimidation or harassment - they're being followed to get the money shot. So there's not much recourse, unless they are trespassing, or trying to lure George around, etc. If so, go after them within the bounds of the law.

Otherwise, the RPO is faced with an all or nothing situation - he either is entitled to use deadly force is he believes the kids are in danger, or if he does not believe this to be so all he can do is politely ask the pap to leave. Or follow other legal recourse (if there is any)

Now if an RPO reasonably believes one of the kids is in imminent danger of bodily harm, he is justified in taking out the pap. That's clear.

 

[miss whirley]

Here is the problem:

Unless somebody can point to a British statute on stalking or any other crime, it would seem that what the paps are doing is legal.

I'm not sure on this. According to that buffoon Ken Wharfe, the current crew of protection officers could do a lot more to protect the royals from paparazzi. He has said they should be using more force too. Either the law is with the royals and the protection crew isn't enforcing it, or Mr. Wharfe liked to bend the rules back in his day. Neither scenario would surprise me. He's proudly shown pictures of his paparazzi confrontations, including snatching cameras, and one looked to be some sort of headlock incident. If the officers are allowed to use reasonable force on paparazzi then they should do it!

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but the paps who harassed and stalked Diana and her young sons when they were out, are a bit different to a photographer taking an odd one or two pictures of a toddler and baby. I think we can all agree that the sort of madness suffered by Diana in the 1990's was very different to the atmosphere that prevails today.

 

[miss whirley]

Yes, but the paps who harassed and stalked Diana and her young sons when they were out, are a bit different to a photographer taking an odd one or two pictures of a toddler and baby. I think we can all agree that the sort of madness suffered by Diana in the 1990's was very different to the atmosphere that prevails today.

I don't agree. There's been more pap pictures of young George than there ever was of young William. And the tactics highlighted in the Kensington letter are just as dirty as anything the royals put up with in the 90's. I agree with Wharfe( I feel dirty saying this) the present protection officers are too laissez-faire.

 

[Rudolph]

Well British papers won't use the paparazzi pics. There is no statutory privacy law and no stand-alone cause of action for “invasion of privacy” under English law.

There is a developing body of privacy law though that incorporates the law of confidence, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Equally, there is no specific concept of “image rights” under English law. A person’s proprietary rights in a photograph or image of themselves under English law might be protected by some of the statutory or common law causes of action I just mentioned.

The day is coming when it will be flat-out illegal to take photos of toddlers without the permission of parents. Its just the way the law is developing.

The Cambridges haven't threatened anyone. They have asked the press to take into account how the paps obtain these sorts of photos.

And public opinion is on the side of the royals. I can't think of anyone who advocates the stalking of a toddler.

 

[Rudolph]

None of this is new with the royals. It was the Queen herself who really put her foot down in 2009

The Queen has authorised a crackdown on the paparazzi amid her growing anger at intrusions into the private lives of members of the Royal family and their friends.

The new get-tough approach has the full support of the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry and other senior members of the Royal family, who are now prepared to take legal action against what they see as the "intrusive and unacceptable behaviour" of photographers.

The Queen and Prince Charles have instructed Gerrard Tyrrell, a senior lawyer specialising in privacy and media law, to mastermind the new privacy strategy.

The Queen gets tough on paparazzi in royal privacy row - Telegraph

 

[Roslyn]

I would hate to live in a society in which it is illegal to take photographs of someone or something in a public place, or where bodyguards have the right to assault photographers and damage their equipment merely because they were taking photographs. This is, of course, subject to the proviso that photographers are not so close to the children they were harassing them. I'm betting the children didn't even know that photographer was there.

The Cambridge children are photographed because there is a market for photos of them. They are celebrities whether their father likes it or not, and they are also Royal. That toddler, George, will be King of England one day. Public interest in him and his sister and parents goes with the territory and it will increase, not abate. The whole family lives in a fish bowl. I don't envy them, but I hope the day does not come when it is illegal to take a photograph of the children or any other member of the family if they are in a public place.

I believe that no-one - Royal or ordinary celebrity or otherwise - should have to put up with being harrassed by people interfering with them going about their daily business by calling out to them to get their attention and ask questions, and thrusting microphones in their faces, and impeding their path by jumping in front of them taking photographs, especially with flashes, and I believe that laws should be put in place to prevent this sort of peskiness. However I do not believe that special laws should apply to the RF. No-one should have to put up with that sort of behaviour.

The Royals are in danger from kidnappers or people with rifles or other weapons, not from cameras. When they venture out in public they should have protection officers watching out for people who might pose a kidnapping threat, but you can't protect people from snipers when a fatal shot can be fired from well over a kilometre/half a mile away.

Do we know who took that photo of the children and Maria? It looked fairly grainy and it might have been taken from a considerable distance, and/or by an amateur photographer with a good telephoto lens.

 

[miss whirley]

I realize that Charles and William will lose some countries during their reigns but it will be depressing if only England remains for George. I'm holding out for Wales and Canada to stick around, too.

Anyways, as for the rest of your post. I would love a balance too. But right now everything is in the paparazzi's favor, and nothing is being done for the royal children. George is under siege. He's had it worse than any royal child in his father's generation, his grandfather's generation, his great-grandmother's generation. He's been dehumanized into a prey animal. Some of us care, others on here think "oh well, he's rich. Why should I care that he has less human rights than other children. After all, he's wearing a cashmere sweater!".

 

[Rudolph]

And really folks, the letter from Kensington Palace is pretty mild and not at all 'menacing'. It does not single out legitimate press but paparazzi

I suggest people go back and read it. It clearly says the palace will continue to take legal action where necessary but its open to dialogue and discussion and wants to have a good working relationship with the press.

A letter from Kensington Palace

 

[JessRulz]

A number of posts have been deleted as their contents contained suggestions the moderating team feel highly inappropriate and not in the spirt of The Royal Forums.

Advocating serious physical violence towards other human beings is not, and will not, be accepted here. If such comments occur again - the moderating team strongly hopes they do not - the posters involved may find their posting privileges suspended for a period of time.

Questions are to be directed to the moderating team via PM.

JessRulz
TRF Administrator