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

[Marty91charmed]

IMO the point is that the palace has mixed two different matters on the letter. Doing so, it has created mixed feeling and some sort of confusion among the royal watchers and people in general. The palace shouldn't have had overlapped the privacy that the Cambridges want for their child vs the security threat the tactics of some paparazzis cause. To put it plain and simple: the letter should have stressed the wrongdoing of the covert ways of such actions not the paparazzis pictures themselves. Since I think I am not explaining my view very well, i would like to post a link to a blogger's take about that, (it is a fashion blog about Kate, but sometimes the owner writes well-written and wise posts about controversies or daily incidents surronding the Cambridges) which it gives a full and detailed vision about the KP misunderstanding.

Royal Pap Shots: Terrorism Issue, Not Privacy

 

[Rudolph]

Prime Minister David Cameron has waded into the row over paparazzi pictures of Prince George saying the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge deserve “some privacy and some space” to bring up their children.

The Prime Minister’s intervention came after Kensington Palace sent a warning yesterday urging photographers to stop harassing the young prince.

The Prime Minister said he had “every sympathy” with Duke and Duchess of Cambridge after it was claimed that some photographers were going to “extreme lengths” to get pictures of their two-year-old son.

Cameron backs royals over paparazzi photo row | The Times

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Can we get a discussion about what the forum's policy will be for this kind of pictures? I know that when the beach photos were out the mobile app of the Royal forums automatically loaded links and the pictures were shown in the thread without being clicked. Most people are probably using a mobile device instead of a pc to view this forum. Probably a lot of us now knowing the lengths being used would like to refrain from increasing the demand for this types of pictures.

I believe this is a technical issue since laptop/pc users still can decide whether to click on the link or not.

In my opinion it is impossible to find out for users if pictures were taken under 'questionable circumstances' or not. I don't see why there should be made an exception for the Cambridges as this is an issue for every royal family out there. We saw pictures of Estelle in the South of France and the Danish children in Palma this summer, how do we know if in these cases the photographers were not hiding somewhere with high resolution lenses, in the Palma case Mary was not with her children so how do we know that she was ok that a picture was taken? Why don't we have outrage on this forum about these pictures, only because the respective royal houses did not issue a warning?

Just imagine that photographers do the same job on Mustique with William & Kate & kids on holiday than they did in the South of France with Victoria & Daniel & Estelle - can anyone imagine the uproar and complaints that William will issue? I don't think there should be double standards for royal families just because one accepts paparazzi and the other one doesn't.

I am all against 'questionable tactics' but other than that, imo royal families have to accept that there will be paparazzi pictures in public places, especially when its about the future head of state. As I said before, its a downside of an otherwise super-priviledged life.

Obviously William has had some traumatic events in his life and therefore is unable to find a balance between privacy - that they do have - and public interest, this will not end well as the children get older and will be out and about more and more.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Cameron backs royals over paparazzi photo row | The Times

David Cameron backs Prince William and Kate Middleton on paparazzi complaints | Daily Mail Online

I'd have thought that Cameron has more pressing issues on his agenda that need immediate attention than the Cambridges' claim for privacy.

 

[hernameispekka]

I believe this is a technical issue since laptop/pc users still can decide whether to click on the link or not.

In my opinion it is impossible to find out for users if pictures were taken under 'questionable circumstances' or not. I don't see why there should be made an exception for the Cambridges as this is an issue for every royal family out there. We saw pictures of Estelle in the South of France and the Danish children in Palma this summer, how do we know if in these cases the photographers were not hiding somewhere with high resolution lenses, in the Palma case Mary was not with her children so how do we know that she was ok that a picture was taken? Why don't we have outrage on this forum about these pictures, only because the respective royal houses did not issue a warning?

Just imagine that photographers do the same job on Mustique with William & Kate & kids on holiday than they did in the South of France with Victoria & Daniel & Estelle - can anyone imagine the uproar and complaints that William will issue? I don't think there should be double standards for royal families just because one accepts paparazzi and the other one doesn't.

I am all against 'questionable tactics' but other than that, imo royal families have to accept that there will be paparazzi pictures in public places, especially when its about the future head of state. As I said before, its a downside of an otherwise super-priviledged life.

Obviously William has had some traumatic events in his life and therefore is unable to find a balance between privacy - that they do have - and public interest, this will not end well as the children get older and will be out and about more and more.

I kind of understand you. I think the reason they complained is because of the security threat has become way to real. I think that was the main reason for the release, especially since it was followed by a comment from the police. It is a very high threat level there right now and I took the letter to (at least in part) mean that paparazzi are taking resources away from the protaction (at the same time, they put themself at risk at being misstaken for a terrorist) and that this is getting really dangerous. People in cars, following their cars and household staff etc is a whole other level than regular pap pics. It is (if not fully) borderline stalking, which is dangerous since the RPOs can't know if they are paps or staking out for a terror attack. I think that is why this line was included. "The Duke and Duchess are of course very fortunate to have private homes where photographers cannot capture images of their children. But they feel strongly that both Prince George and Princess Charlotte should not grow up exclusively behind palace gates and in walled gardens."

 

[Frelinghighness]

This is a very clear security issue, imo. If a photographer can lie in wait hidden to "shoot" a picture, why not a gun?
Are the protection officiers armed? How would the police/protection know if the person who is hidden is not armed and "only" a photographer?

 

[hernameispekka]

This is a very clear security issue, imo. If a photographer can lie in wait hidden to "shoot" a picture, why not a gun?
Are the protection officiers armed? How would the police/protection know if the person who is hidden is not armed and "only" a photographer?

Exactly!!! And yes, they are armed.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This is a very clear security issue, imo. If a photographer can lie in wait hidden to "shoot" a picture, why not a gun?
Are the protection officiers armed? How would the police/protection know if the person who is hidden is not armed and "only" a photographer?

IMO if its a security thread, why does it only become obvious when concerning George? Its not that he's going outside (eg with Nanny or Granny) without protection.

Anybody could hide in the trunk of their car with a sniper rifle instead of a camera and aim at any member of the royal family when they are passing by. The security is always there, and either they are effective in that moment or not, I just don't understand why there is a difference when George is concered. It applies to William, Kate, Harry, the York sisters etc etc as well.

IMO they are using the security thread to get rid of the paparazzis, thats all.

 

[hernameispekka]

IMO if its a security thread, why does it only become obvious when concerning George? Its not that he's going outside (eg with Nanny or Granny) without protection.

Anybody could hide in the trunk of their car with a sniper rifle instead of a camera and aim at any member of the royal family when they are passing by. The security is always there, and either they are effective in that moment or not, I just don't understand why there is a difference when George is concered. It applies to William, Kate, Harry, the York sisters etc etc as well.

IMO they are using the security thread to get rid of the paparazzis, thats all.

The issue is that George is the one having cameras pointed at him from a trunk. The other royals if you see a man in the trunk with something pointed it's a 90% chance of it being a weapon of some sort and they act accordingly. With George it becomes muddled and they risk waiting to long to stop an attack or attack a pap.


And yes, I think they take this oppurtunity to lessen paps after all, but I think the security thing is the main thing.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The pictures of some children are more coveted than others.

The same publications that will blur photographs of some children will publish paparazzi pictures of other children.

Some publications will blur a photograph of a child one week and the next week publish paparazzi pictures of the same child.

Toddlers are most coveted because the photographer might capture a 'toddler moment'. It could be a melt down or a cute picture.

Usually most paparazzi lose interest in children around the age of 7/8.
Boys are usually left alone from around the age of 7-17. Girls are coveted more than boys. Girls only have a few years where their pictures are not coveted as much. Girls are usually left alone around the age of 8-12.

 

[Isabella]

The pictures of some children are more coveted than others.

The same publications that will blur photographs of some children will publish paparazzi pictures of other children.

Some publications will blur a photograph of a child one week and the next week publish paparazzi pictures of the same child.

Toddlers are most coveted because the photographer might capture a 'toddler moment'. It could be a melt down or a cute picture.

Usually most paparazzi lose interest in children around the age of 7/8.
Boys are usually left alone from around the age of 7-17. Girls are coveted more than boys. Girls only have a few years where their pictures are not coveted as much. Girls are usually left alone around the age of 8-12.

Yep, this is pretty much the case, especially with the children of celebrities. Unfortunately for George and Charlotte, the paparazzi won't lose interest. Celebrities' kids usually get left relatively alone once they're not little and cute anymore (i.e. once they hit those awkward years) - interest in them might resurface later, depending. Royals, unfortunately, don't really get that break. William and Harry have had to deal with pretty consistent attention throughout their lives, though being away at school did help give them a zone of privacy.

 

[Osipi]

David Cameron backs Prince William and Kate Middleton on paparazzi complaints | Daily Mail Online

I'd have thought that Cameron has more pressing issues on his agenda that need immediate attention than the Cambridges' claim for privacy.

It probably took less than 5 minutes of Cameron's time to make a statement on this issue. With everything else going on in the world, this story even made prime time mention last night on CNN here.

Somebody has to start saying "No. This is unacceptable behavior to hide and stalk a small child to get a photograph and I support William and Catherine's right to privacy raising their children".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yep, this is pretty much the case, especially with the children of celebrities. Unfortunately for George and Charlotte, the paparazzi won't lose interest. Celebrities' kids usually get left relatively alone once they're not little and cute anymore (i.e. once they hit those awkward years) - interest in them might resurface later, depending. Royals, unfortunately, don't really get that break. William and Harry have had to deal with pretty consistent attention throughout their lives, though being away at school did help give them a zone of privacy.

Royals represent a country, celebrities represent themselves. Of course there is a different interest in royals that will and cannot fade. It will be very difficult for a royal house to survive in the long run if there is no bond with the public. Its all a question of balance.

It will be interesting to see if there is one of the young royal generation of any royal family growing up under constant surveillance via internet, smartphones etc who will quit because the downside just becomes too much to bear.

 

[hernameispekka]

Royals represent a country, celebrities represent themselves. Of course there is a different interest in royals that will and cannot fade. It will be very difficult for a royal house to survive in the long run if there is no bond with the public. Its all a question of balance.

It will be interesting to see if there is one of the young royal generation of any royal family growing up under constant surveillance via internet, smartphones etc who will quit because the downside just becomes too much to bear.

Yeah, it's a balance. And they don't complain until it reaches breaking points. Kate was followed by paparazzi during their courting but they didn't complain until they rushed her on her 25th birthday. Pictures of Kate was taken of Kate during their marriage, but they didn't take action until the long lens topless pictures. Same here. There have been pictures here and there but they didn't take action until they percived a real security risk. So I think they ARE finding a balance. They didn't complain about a few park shoots, but took the opportunity to mention them in this letter after alot of things had bunched together.

 

[Isabella]

Royals represent a country, celebrities represent themselves. Of course there is a different interest in royals that will and cannot fade. It will be very difficult for a royal house to survive in the long run if there is no bond with the public. Its all a question of balance.

It will be interesting to see if there is one of the young royal generation of any royal family growing up under constant surveillance via internet, smartphones etc who will quit because the downside just becomes too much to bear.

Yes, I realize that royals and celebrities are in different circumstances - that was what I was trying to highlight, really. The media/paparazzi behavior is going to be different because of the nature of the situation. Additionally, celebrity children are really only of interest as long as their parent is of interest - they aren't public figures in their own right. The issue with royal children is tricky because, of course, they do have lifelong public roles. It's a tricky situation though, because obviously children are still children, no matter what. Having paparazzi take measures that are dangerous and frightening to the children is unacceptable regardless of who the children are.

Part of the issue here is people's differing perspectives on how often George should (or must) be seen. They haven't kept George hidden away, of course, though some people seem to feel that way because I suppose they don't see George as much as they want to. Personally, I think we've seen him plenty, considering he's only two. However, some people, especially in the media, wouldn't be content unless George did daily photo calls (and a 24/7 reality show would be even better!) There also seems to be an idea that William is somehow being unusually difficult about George's privacy. In reality, though, the British royal family has been consistently trying to reach agreements with the press, and the paparazzi element in particular, for years now. I know they aren't the only royals to have to deal with the paparazzi, but I would doubt that other families have had to deal with the same level of intrusion (as the lengths the photographers are willing to go to are directly tied to how much the pictures are going to be worth). William and Kate obviously know their children have a public role - I don't think they'd be bringing them out for public events (Trooping the Colour, etc.) otherwise. However, they're also having to deal with a level of paparazzi attention that's generally reserved for top celebrities. There's really no playbook for that. There's no easy deal that can be struck with the press because a) the British press are pretty shameless (and the fact that they are, or typically have been, "in bed" with a lot of British politicians doesn't help from the legal aspect) and b) many paparazzi, and typically those who are most ill-behaved, are often freelance.

 

[Tarlita]

Pap photos end up in Australian womens magazines. [As well as elsewhere I'm sure] Maybe Australian women should boycott these issues to prove a point. Then someone in the Murdoch family May Get the Message!!!!
It's the magazines that pay the big $$$$ for these pics not the internet.

 

[hernameispekka]

Pap photos end up in Australian womens magazines. [As well as elsewhere I'm sure] Maybe Australian women should boycott these issues to prove a point. Then someone in the Murdoch family May Get the Message!!!!
It's the magazines that pay the big $$$$ for these pics not the internet.

The 3 big buyer countries seem to be Australia, the US (which have gotten better I think?!) and Germany... I wonder how their laws differ from others or why it happen to be just those countries?

 

[sophie25]

It appears that George has been totally unaware he's been getting photographed and it's always been in a public place so what's the problem?

 

[hernameispekka]

It appears that George has been totally unaware he's been getting photographed and it's always been in a public place so what's the problem?

The problem? The photographers are following cars, following houselhold staff, using kids to lure him into sight. Also, they are imposing a security risk because the RPOs have to determine if the man hiding in the trunk of a car is a paparazzi or a person staking out for an attack, all which takes attention away from them protecting from real threats.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I have only just skimmed this, but and I've only just glanced at what people have said, but my thoughts off the cuff are this

It's all well and good for Sweden and the Netherlands to have strict media codes and fines, but as has been pointed out, the internet makes these codes irrelevant They only work in Sweden and Netherlands, for example, because the world is by and large unaware of the royal children in continental Europe. In large part I blame US interest in the media frenzy the Cambridges, Diana, the BRF in general. I always like to explain to others that the game show of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, the names of Prince William's children would be the $500 question while the names of King Willem Alexander's would be the $500,000 question, with three life lines used up.

What is to stop anybody from taking a photo of George and Charlotte and selling it to a US media outlet? With our First Amendment protecting the press, it would be very hard for laws in Britain to prevent publications in the US - which surely carry a very heavy payout to the pap. I recall Jolie and Pitt selling first photos of their twins in 2008 to People for 14 million - of course a papped pic of George and Charlotte won't carry that much, but it must be a quite high amount. This makes the payoff worth the risks. In other words, if papped photos of Amalia were suddenly worth $1 million, that media code would not work.

Can you really criminalize in the UK the taking of a photo, even if it's sold elsewhere for profit? Do these laws have any teeth given the amounts involved? Look at the French pap who sold photos of topless Kate to Closer mag? Did anything happen there? If nothing happened, what does this say about the potency of European media laws - a few slaps on the wrist are all part of the game?

As for the idea of "it starts with us," the consumer, in not clicking - true, but the trouble is the dissemination of the this message. People interested enough in royalty to join a forum, follow conversations on Twitter, and take the time to read press releases from KP are few indeed. People who are generally have only an interest enough to watch a royal wedding, or click on a photo of George petting sheep is far greater - will the message get to these people??? It was posted on Yahoo news but I don't think that this message is really getting through to the point people realize or acknowledge, hey, I'm part of the problem. This is a very tough message. I believe the BBC discussed the issue, but you're not going to see it on any of our national news programs.

I'm not saying this is not an issue, and these kids don't deserve privacy, or that they should be stalked from car trunks and sand dunes, or that people should not try a grass roots movement of affording George and Charlotte more protection. I'm playing devil's advocate here - I do think it's a losing battle. Sadly, I think someone will have to get hurt, for laws to change. For American constitutional law to change, it would have to be an American child, like the child of a celebrity being papped, not the child of European royalty.

 

[Tarlita]

This may be the whole problem,- The Laws of every country are not adequate enough to protect royals. Or anyone else for that matter.

Remember when Paula Yates's daughter was deliberately knocked over by a Pap to make her cry so they could get a shot of a screaming toddler and an angry Paula. Michael Hutchince didn't hesitate and clobbered the Pap. Then Michael went to caught for assaulting the Pap. How dumb is that. The child was deliberately made to cry by a Pap. Assaulted in a kind of way.
It's nuts and dangerous what the Paps get up to.

 

[hernameispekka]

I wonder why they don't take the paps to court.. Probably because the paps are very expendable and usually poorer people from other countries... Because this is some examples that the Crown Prosecutors website lists as stalking. (Stalking and Harassment: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service) I've highlighted the ones I think could fit on the paps.

(a) following a person, (Obviously, following cars etc)
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),(Hanging around the houses and parks)
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Re, stalking - I've seen that question posited elsewhere and it's a good one - can the press be accused of stalking? I don't know the answer. In the US at least, I believe that stalking is generally trying to make contact for the purpose of intimidation and harassment. Arguably, I doubt those paps are following George around to intimidate and harass him, they might not give a damn about him other than to make some quick cash, although the effect on George or at least his parents may be the same. Again, just playing devil's advocate - there is likely a reason why the Cambridge's are not seeking criminal charges against the paps following him. Maybe royals don't sue all that often because they fear backlash from the press in general, which to a large extent they need.

I don't know the answer. Do we have any British lawyers on this site?

 

[camelot23ca]

Re, stalking - I've seen that question posited elsewhere and it's a good one - can the press be accused of stalking? I don't know the answer. In the US at least, I believe that stalking is generally trying to make contact for the purpose of intimidation and harassment. Arguably, I doubt those paps are following George around to intimidate and harass him, they might not give a damn about him other than to make some quick cash, although the effect on George or at least his parents may be the same. Again, just playing devil's advocate - there is likely a reason why the Cambridge's are not seeking criminal charges against the paps following him. Maybe royals don't sue all that often because they fear backlash from the press in general, which to a large extent they need.

I don't know the answer. Do we have any British lawyers on this site?

I think it would be potentially very effective for the royals and their legal team to differentiate between regular journalists and paparazzi, which is what they seem to be starting to do now. They should develop a cordial and productive working relationship with the former, (while maintaining clear boundaries), and aggressively fight the intrusions of the latter. I don't see it as a losing battle so much as one which will never be entirely over. If William and Kate throw up their hands and do nothing then the situation deteriorates rapidly.. we've seen that it took only two years with George for things to get to the point where photographers are hiding in cars and using other children as bait. Both the paparazzi and elements of the traditional press have shown time and time again that they will not self regulate.

I also believe the degree to which the royals need the press is often overstated. The press won't stop covering the Cambridge family under any circumstances. The coverage may become less positive but, firstly, that's going to happen anyway, as they all get older and less photogenic, and secondly, you don't have to look very far to find members of the royal family who have survived and thrived despite vicious and sustained negative media coverage. If Charles can survive the 90s then William and Catherine can survive some editors getting into a snit.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I think it would be potentially very effective for the royals and their legal team to differentiate between regular journalists and paparazzi, which is what they seem to be starting to do now. They should develop a cordial and productive working relationship with the former, (while maintaining clear boundaries), and aggressively fight the intrusions of the latter. I don't see it as a losing battle so much as one which will never be entirely over. If William and Kate throw up their hands and do nothing then the situation deteriorates rapidly.. we've seen that it took only two years with George for things to get to the point where photographers are hiding in cars and using other children as bait. Both the paparazzi and elements of the traditional press have shown time and time again that they will not self regulate.

I also believe the degree to which the royals need the press is often overstated. The press won't stop covering the Cambridge family under any circumstances. The coverage may become less positive but, firstly, that's going to happen anyway, as they all get older and less photogenic, and secondly, you don't have to look very far to find members of the royal family who have survived and thrived despite vicious and sustained negative media coverage. If Charles can survive the 90s then William and Catherine can survive some editors getting into a snit.

I agree Will and Kate need to take what legal action they can at this point, as I think that the safety of their children is in question now, and the answer is not keeping George behind a wall. Do I think they can take care of this issue once and for all? No, I think it will be an ongoing battle of keeping their fingers in the dykes. Do I think this fair? No. What's going to happen and what can they do within the bounds of British law, and any other law for that matter? I don't know, but I'm sure they've sought the advice of experts on the subject.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

When have they ever staged a pap stroll? William and Harry play polo to raise funds for charity. There will be regular non paparazzi there and they will posed for pictures at the awards presentation. So when they brought George to polo they know he is getting photographed.

Oh, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have heard the last of it had they not been behind or aware of e.g. the ones of Carole and George because those are highly intrusive as neither William nor Catherine are in them. But I also know that that's a very unpopular thing to say And again, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't protect their children – I think we can all agree that the method some of these photographers use are harrowing – merely that they can't draw a line (a line that's already a bit iffy as they want to be treated like "normal" people when they, in fact, are not) only to repeatedly cross it when it's convenient with good press.

 

[Roslyn]

I agree Will and Kate need to take what legal action they can at this point, as I think that the safety of their children is in question now, and the answer is not keeping George behind a wall. Do I think they can take care of this issue once and for all? No, I think it will be an ongoing battle of keeping their fingers in the dykes. Do I think this fair? No. What's going to happen and what can they do within the bounds of British law, and any other law for that matter? I don't know, but I'm sure they've sought the advice of experts on the subject.

It's complicated, isn't it. There are lots of issues in play and it's not at all fair.

I reckon William and Kate should seek to have criminal charges brought against anyone who is breaking the law by doing what they are doing in an effort to photograph their children. I don't advocate they take civil action against them for damages, but if the photographers are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted.

But if the people taking the photographs are not breaking the law then I think William and Kate should be a bit careful. There is naturally an interest in George, particularly, as he is a future king and a cute and photogenic kid. Lots of people all around the world crave photographs of him because of who he is and will buy any magazine that has snaps of him doing cutesy things like he was doing at that barnyard event. And we can't be sure that the barnyard event photos were taken by a pap anyway, and that's another issue. Who is taking the photos and what degree of acquiescence is involved on an event by event basis? Inconsistency in response is going to create problems because if photographers aren't sure then they will keep having a go.

Yes, someone could be aiming a gun at him and not a camera, but they can do that anyway. It's not the pesky pap with a telephoto lens that they really have to worry about, its the crazy sniper who is out to kill the child, and they are probably not going to be the same person. Making laws about photographers is not going to prevent snipers from shooting him. He can be shot from a distance from a car or building or public land where people who are not potential murderers have a perfectly legal right to be.

William and Kate and their children are not "normal" people and they can't expect to live "normal" lives and to out and about in public like "normal" families, and yet at the same time expect people to not take an abnormal interest in them. I think William needs to get over this "normal life" thing. He can't have it. He and his family will never be "normal".

The excessive and potentially invasive and dangerous level of interest in him and his family is part of the price he pays for being who he is and he really does just have to accept that and modify his family's activities accordingly, whether he likes it or not. The level of interest is not going to change unless he really, really cheeses the public off and I don't think he wants to do that.

The particular level of interest in William and his children is there in large part because of who his mother was. That's not his fault, but it's a fact of life he has to face. His present problems have a lot to do with the huge level of interest in Diana, and the paparazzi level of interest in her. That level of interest has flowed down to her son and her son's son. And it's not going to go away.

What can he do about it? Be careful, and, yes, probably keep his child/children away from public places more than he would like.

Life in a goldfish bowl in no fun at all, and I don't envy them, but I don't really see what they can do about it, either. They are caught in a most unenviable situation that is not of their own making. What they do have control over though is the way they respond to it. They need to respond in a way that engenders a sympathetic and protective response and causes people to feel goodwill and respect towards them, not appear whiny and petulant or, worse, arrogant and entitled, which William is capable of doing without trying very hard at all.

But the bottom line is - as it was with Diana - that the photographers are only doing what they do because lots and lots of people buy the magazines and they can get paid lots of money for their photographs.

 

[Tiggersk8]

Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 1: May 2015

Only a few short weeks ago i clearly remember when I asked for a separate thread for those kinds of pictures of the Cambridge Children, so those who wanted to see pictures of children being stalked just for a picture could and those of us who feel stalking any child for whatsoever disgusting reason was not okay could come into this thread w/out seeing them, The following to the best of my recollection is what ended up happening...

"We don't have different threads for the other Royal Children so why for these two." Completely missing the point there is Worldwide Interest in George and Charlotte. Not so much the other Royal Children.

"Oh well...That's the price of Fame." How quickly some have forgotten the price William has already paid and all for the price of a stupid picture.

Then there was the incident w/that one stalker who had somehow managed to get his hands on what was George's schedule for his walks w/Maria in Kensington Gardens. IIRC some just brushed that off as one of those things that can happen sometimes, instead of seeing it for the Security screwup it was.

I was blowing the whole thing out of proportion. After all, they're only pictures, so what's the harm?

Then there were those thought my concerns were funny and would post where they were "asking a question about posting one of these photos, but wanted to make sure it would be okay because they didn't want to upset anyone after all... "

So....Not funny anymore is it?


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[bethaliz6894]

William and Kate and their children are not "normal" people and they can't expect to live "normal" lives and to out and about in public like "normal" families, and yet at the same time expect people to not take an abnormal interest in them. I think William needs to get over this "normal life" thing. He can't have it. He and his family will never be "normal".

William can renounce his position. He can give up the title, the money, the privilege. Move to a new country and then they can live a normal life. I really doubt Kate nor himself would be able to survive on their own. He may not have asked for this, but this is the hand he was dealt. When I go out in public and a picture is take, I cant complain or file a lawsuit because I am in public. Why should they be different? A sniper can be watching anyone anywhere. Most people on this board probably don't watch the USA news, but people here are killed just for going to church or a movie. Happens here almost every other week. No one is ever 'safe'.

 

[Daria_S]

Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 1: May 2015

Only a few short weeks ago i clearly remember when I asked for a separate thread for those kinds of pictures of the Cambridge Children, so those who wanted to see pictures of children being stalked just for a picture could and those of us who feel stalking any child for whatsoever disgusting reason was okay could come into this thread w/out seeing them, The following to the best of my recollection is what ended up happening...

"We don't have different threads for the other Royal Children so why for these two." Completely missing the point there is Worldwide Interest in George and Charlotte. Not so much the other Royal Children.

"Oh well...That's the price of Fame." How quickly some have forgotten the price William has already paid and all for the price of a stupid picture.

Then there was the incident w/that one stalker who had somehow managed to get his hands on what was George's schedule for his walks w/Maria in Kensington Gardens. IIRC some just brushed that off as one of those things that can happen sometimes, instead of seeing it for the Security screwup it was.

I was blowing the whole thing out of proportion. After all, they're only pictures, so what's the harm?

Then there were those thought my concerns were funny and would post where they were "asking a question about posting one of these photos, but wanted to make sure it would be okay because they didn't want to upset anyone after all... "

So....Not funny anymore is it?


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

Honestly, I think once the details of how the pictures were obtained surfaced, it became evident that the situation was more serious than any of us realized. The sad part is, that nothing major will be done until something awful happens. It's sick that because of money, children under three years of age are basically sacrificial lambs. I sincerely hope that there won't be another tragedy, where we have to watch a child's funeral to drive the point home. I feel awful for looking at the pictures now. Gah.

William can renounce his position. He can give up the title, the money, the privilege. Move to a new country and then they can live a normal life. I really doubt Kate nor himself would be able to survive on their own. He may not have asked for this, but this is the hand he was dealt. When I go out in public and a picture is take, I cant complain or file a lawsuit because I am in public. Why should they be different? A sniper can be watching anyone anywhere. Most people on this board probably don't watch the USA news, but people here are killed just for going to church or a movie. Happens here almost every other week. No one is ever 'safe'.

Why do you assume that they couldn't manage on their own? They come from wealthy families, and William has enough money from his mother to last a lifetime. They could certainly live the life that they do as private citizens, just without all the ceremony. However, I don't think any parent would want his/her child stalked in a fashion of a sick pedophile, just to capture the most prized snap. In schools parents have to sign release forms for children to be photographed, so if the paps want a picture that bad, let them obtain a consent form from George, and Charlotte's parents (doubt that the consent will be given, but for a pap shot, it shouldn't be). Now, if you, or I are photographed in public, that insignificant, because we're not famous, and our pictures are not worth a couple of million dollars/pounds, while George, and Charlotte are. I don't think William, and Catherine would care if their kids were photographed incidentally, by let's say a fellow parent who was trying to get his/her child climbing on the jungle gym, while George was climbing on the other side. The issue is that people are shameless, and will do anything for an extra buck. The paps have already demonstrated a security concern with the tactics they're using to get these blasted pictures. William and Catherine would be pretty awful parents if they didn't see that as a serious safety issue. Today, it's a pap, tomorrow it's a terrorist, or a sicko, intending to do some serious damage.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app