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

[MichelleQ2]

how do press credentials work? Is it a govt license... or something that is issued only to an authorized media outlet and they can assign the credential to anyone? can anyone say they are the press?

Do paparazzi have credentials - or by definition do they not?

 

[hernameispekka]

I just googled imaged Harper Beckham. The vast majority of them had David or Victoria in them or her siblings. I didn't see any of just her with the nanny or grandma. We got 20 plus shots on popsugar of George and Carole digging a hole in the beach. Even Harper isn't getting the George treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Very good points. In those cases it can be argued that it's the adults that are followed. But in the cases of George with Carol or the nanny it is clear that it is the child himself.

 

[soapstar]

i find it interesting that now everyone finds this unethical, shameful and immoral, but whenever paparazzi pictures of george, or any other royal, are posted in this forums, i see little comments saying "i am not opening this as it's unethical", but a lot of comments about them (how cute george is, how great kate looks, etc). this means these people who know appear ethical consumed those "unethical" pictures themselves, but then bash the photographers when a press release like this one is issued.

how hypocritical.

I don't think it's hypocritical. I think the changing opinions are probably due to a number of reasons. For one, I doubt many realized how the photos were actually taken - who would imagine that the paparazzi would hide out in the boot of a car, or use other children to befriend George. Also, some assumed that William and Kate staged the photos, or at least knew they were being photographed. Now that it's come to light that many of the photos were taken when they were unaware, people are reassessing their positions on the photos.

 

[Rudolph]

Soooooooooo happy Palmer is being called out on his obvious bias

Daily Express Royal Correspondent Richard Palmer Has Public Meltdown Over Kensington Palace Letter

 

[Lee27]

The protection detail are charged with protecting these children from not only terrorists, but people with mental illness/issues who could do harm or even kidnappers.

This may be a warning to the photographers that the protection detail plans to deem the them as a safety threat and will take action if necessary

 

[hernameispekka]

Soooooooooo happy Palmer is being called out on his obvious bias

Daily Express Royal Correspondent Richard Palmer Has Public Meltdown Over Kensington Palace Letter

Haha, true. He's acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum because he doesn't get his toys. He's been trying for month hinting that the UK papers should publish pap pics and whining over not getting to. He's trying every way to get people to say "oh, it's ok for you to do that"..... Silly!

 

[hernameispekka]

The protection detail are charged with protecting these children from not only terrorists, but people with mental illness/issues who could do harm or even kidnappers.

This may be a warning to the photographers that the protection detail plans to deem the them as a safety threat and will take action if necessary

Exactly. And because it's a highten security risk in the UK right now they are even more likely to be percived as a threat.

 

[Pranter]

I think that Palmer guy (and others) seems to forget we just found out about a terrorist plot to kill the Queen! They do not value human life at all...killing a baby or child would not be a problem for these people.

LaRae

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I think that Palmer guy (and others) seems to forget we just found out about a terrorist plot to kill the Queen! They do not value human life at all...killing a baby or child would not be a problem for these people.

LaRae

Excatly! The U.K is on a high alert right now with security being beef up and will be for a while with threats being made against the Queen and The Royal Family. These people making threats don't care if it two year old or not just as long as they do harm. And now one the women left the country has now been spotted back in Britain.

A person a park may have a camera and pretend they are from the Daily express or whatever but you cant be too sure and cant be too careful. I can understand KP telling paps and photographers to back off even if there with a threat at the moment but i thunk with the current threat. And stalking is illegal no matter what

 

[soapstar]

other celebrity parents have their children photographed ALL the time. i am thinking of the likes of the beckhams, angelina jolie + brad pitt's children, madonna's children... and i wonder how many times they have thrown a warning like this.

my question is why is it that royals get special treatment? because they have a diplomatic passport that the beckhams don't? because may i remind everyone that they haven't achieved anything for themselves, like the beckhams or madonna, whereas celebrities have (of more or less merit, arguably). they have only been born / married to the right people. that's all.

they represent a country. the reason why people visit buckingham palace or go to shop where kate shops is not because of how many charities they support - it's because of their media presence. ask the average passer by for a charity that kate supports and then go ask them for a brand that kate wears or which magazine she is grazing the cover of this week. you'd find out that the latter is more known than the first.

i don't excuse paparazzi pictures every time george goes out. that would be excessive, and i agree they need privacy. but royals need to understand that with their status, their diplomatic passport, and all their privileges come (very few) disadvantages - lack of privacy is one of them.




you will excuse me, but i see not much difference between these two instances.

Personally, I think all celebrity children should be off limits unless the parents are okay with them being photographed.

I know Brad Pitt has spoken about the paparazzi many times. He's stated that the family had to move out of LA and NY because the paps were stalking the kids. Then in a 2011 interview, he said they felt hunted and that their kids had to live behind gates because there are so many paparazzi. When their sons were younger, the Beckham's warned paps about taking photos of them. I think there was even a point where pictures of them in magazines and on websites were blurred. I'm not sure if Madonna is all that bothered by her kids getting photographed. Earlier this year, she talked about how much she liked the paparazzi attention.

Also, tons of celebs supported and tweeted about the anti-paparazi law that passed here in California. So there are many that want to put an end to the paps stalking children.

 

[hernameispekka]

Personally, I think all celebrity children should be off limits unless the parents are okay with them being photographed.

I know Brad Pitt has spoken about the paparazzi many times. He's stated that the family had to move out of LA and NY because the paps were stalking the kids. Then in a 2011 interview, he said they felt hunted and that their kids had to live behind gates because there are so many paparazzi. When their sons were younger, the Beckham's warned paps about taking photos of them. I think there was even a point where pictures of them in magazines and on websites were blurred. I'm not sure if Madonna is all that bothered by her kids getting photographed. Earlier this year, she talked about how much she liked the paparazzi attention.

Also, tons of celebs supported and tweeted about the anti-paparazi law that passed here in California. So there are many that want to put an end to the paps stalking children.

Exactly! I hope their cause really gets traction soon!

 

[camelot23ca]

There is a considerable difference IMO.

Celebs like Angelina Jolie can for all sorts of reasons be forgotten in ten years. - Royals are on for life.
Celebs can opt out of the limelight or simply retire from their career. - That's not an option royals have.

While celebs can fall victim to the odd stalker or worse someone who wants to harm them, that is the exception rather than the rule.
For royals someone wishing to harm them is a very real threat. That includes someone stalking them for the purpose of finding the best opportunity to strike.

If Angelina Jolie's children suffer psychologically from constant exposure, that won't affect her country.
If royal children become paranoid from constant potential exposure that very well can have an effect on the way they will carry out their duty for their countries in the future.

I would also add that the level of interest in George and Charlotte goes well beyond the interest in any celebrity child I can think of. Even the most well known celebrities can and do give their children completely private lives, if they so choose. The celebrity kids who are consistently photographed are those whose parents have deliberately and actively chosen to live their lives in a public, attention seeking and provocative manner. Some of them are also choosing to set their children up with public "careers" or brands at a very young age.

 

[Dman]

I was shocked to read the full details of how the pictures of Prince George over these couple of months have come about. None of these things should be happening, and I'm glad the Cambridge's and palace officials are putting their foot down for George and Charlotte's privacy.

I'm also glad the Cambridge's and palace took the time to express their gratitude towards the British media for respecting their privacy.

William and Catherine won't bring up their children behind palace walls, like what happened to Queen Victoria when she was a child. They are going to continue to take their kids to the parks, beaches, playgrounds, etc. Their off duty movements should be private, but it's going to get tricky with the international media presence. I don't know if or how they can win that fight. It would great if they did win and dangerous tactics won't be used to capture George and Charlotte's private outings.

Plea-
I'm glad I don't post links that feature Prince George's private outings. I would kindly suggest that all of us here on The Royal Forums don't post any website links that feature private unofficial outings of Prince George, and in the future, Princess Charlotte. It starts with us on protecting their privacy and not fueling the paparazzi to take these pictures.

I think we should at least respect William and Catherine's wishes and the privacy of these two beautiful children.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I'm sorry, and i'm probably going to get some flack for this but my answer is "you can't have it both ways". William needs to learn that the media are friends of the royal families, and royals need the media far more than the media needs the royals.

An arrangement needs to be reached because this too-ing and fro-ing is getting ridiculous.

Plea-
I'm glad I don't post links that feature Prince George's private outings. I would kindly suggest that all of us here on The Royal Forums don't post any website links that feature private unofficial outings of Prince George, and in the future, Princess Charlotte. It starts with us on protecting their privacy and not fueling the paparazzi to take these pictures.

I think we should at least respect William and Catherine's wishes and the privacy of these two beautiful children.

Question: Where do we draw the line then? Why one rule for Britain and another rule for other monarchies with young children? Jacques and Gabriella in Monaco, out for a walk somewhere, do we post a link yes or no?

If the TRF are going to "politely plea" we do not post unofficial pictures of George or Charlotte we might as well shut our eyes for the next 17 years.

What are we classing as unofficial and official? George attends the christmas church event this year, not in the CC, family event, but paps are always there? Yay or nah?

George's first day of school, Charlottes first day of nursery perhaps? Not criticising just asking where do we draw the line?

Frankly, each TRF member should judge for themselves whether they want to look at the pictures and I don't think we should be asked to refrain. George is the future King, Catherine and William should bring their children up to understand the media.

 

[Macrobug]

I think you are making it more difficult than it needs to be. Official event = ok, public event that they are out in the open and they know the cameras are there= ok, hiding/stalking/sneaking around to get photo = use your head - obviously consent not given - not ok

 

[hernameispekka]

I'm sorry, and i'm probably going to get some flack for this but my answer is "you can't have it both ways". William needs to learn that the media are friends of the royal families, and royals need the media far more than the media needs the royals.

An arrangement needs to be reached because this too-ing and fro-ing is getting ridiculous.




Question: Where do we draw the line then? Why one rule for Britain and another rule for other monarchies with young children? Jacques and Gabriella in Monaco, out for a walk somewhere, do we post a link yes or no?

If the TRF are going to "politely plea" we do not post unofficial pictures of George or Charlotte we might as well shut our eyes for the next 17 years.

What are we classing as unofficial and official? George attends the christmas church event this year, not in the CC, family event, but paps are always there? Yay or nah?

George's first day of school, Charlottes first day of nursery perhaps? Not criticising just asking where do we draw the line?

Frankly, each TRF member should judge for themselves whether they want to look at the pictures and I don't think we should be asked to refrain. George is the future King, Catherine and William should bring their children up to understand the media.

There is a big difference between media and paparazzi. In their letter they make the distinction.

First day of school, arriving after births, christening, all these things have been INVITED media with a cordination from their press department. Hence, it's consented situations.

Christmas walk = public and press INVITED to watch them walk = consent

Watching charity polo-match = Event with expected media = Consent

Also, they don't complain about a shot here and there. What they complain about is the stalking. Didn't you read it? Stalking of their personel, hiding in cars and sand, trespassing on neighbouring properties etc. It's not just a "they hung out outside KP for a few days after the birth", it is constant stalking and using of other children to take photos.

 

[Isabella]

I'm sorry, and i'm probably going to get some flack for this but my answer is "you can't have it both ways". William needs to learn that the media are friends of the royal families, and royals need the media far more than the media needs the royals.

An arrangement needs to be reached because this too-ing and fro-ing is getting ridiculous.

Yes, the media and the royals do "need" each other (and it definitely does go both ways), but you can't just have a media free-for-all. As is well, known, if you give the media an inch, they'll take a mile. They really don't understand boundaries, and that can have dangerous consequences.

William and Kate are hardly the only public figures to struggle to find a balance with the media. Obviously, it's something the British Royal Family has been dealing with for a while now, and other royal families, too, to varying degrees. I know in the U.S., when we have presidents who have young children, they frequently try to reach some agreement to protect their children from media intrusion, but inevitably there end up being problems. I think public figures realize the issues they're up against (i.e. there is legitimate interest in the children, and they have to have some media exposure), but I think it's only normal for a parent to try to put reasonable limits on how it's affecting their children. Because, at the end of the day, these are children we're talking about. I don't think asking people not to stalk your toddler and your infant is asking too much.

 

[Chimene]

If they were smart, they would investigate who's tipping off the paps in the first place. How is it known where George, whom the British media is not allowed to photograph, will be at a certain time and place. That would be my first question.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes, the media and the royals do "need" each other (and it definitely does go both ways), but you can't just have a media free-for-all. As is well, known, if you give the media an inch, they'll take a mile. They really don't understand boundaries, and that can have dangerous consequences.

I agree that you cannot have a media free-for-all, I understand that. But what i don't understand is how other monarchies can get along fairly harmonously with their media/paps and the BRF can't. Before anyone says "the BRF are different, they're wider known, they get more attention etc", i'm sorry but I believe they make it harder for themselves.

Both sides know they need each other, come to an arrangement, make a deal, and anyone that breaks the deal is dealt with. There needs to be a line drawn, of which all parties are clearly away of, and when the line is crossed consequences occur.

Didn't you read it? Stalking of their personel, hiding in cars and sand, trespassing on neighbouring properties etc. It's not just a "they hung out outside KP for a few days after the birth", it is constant stalking and using of other children to take photos.

I did read it thank you very much.
I'm sorry but they're royals, to expect anything less than stalking to get a picture wouldn't surprise me.

As i said above, a line needs to be drawn and an agreement reached between all parties so everyone knows what what means, and what event = this etc. Life could be so much simplier for all parties.

If they were smart, they would investigate who's tipping off the paps in the first place. How is it known where George, whom the British media is not allowed to photograph, will be at a certain time and place. That would be my first question.

It doesn't have to be a tip off from anybody. Paps will more than likely have a lowly intern or assistant outside all 4 or more key residences at any one time. When a car leaves, it's either followed to it's destination or if you can tell from the car and it's occupants who's in it, it's left alone.

 

[hernameispekka]

If they were smart, they would investigate who's tipping off the paps in the first place. How is it known where George, whom the British media is not allowed to photograph, will be at a certain time and place. That would be my first question.

In the letter they say that they stake out the houses, hang around public playareas in Norfolk and around the Middleton home + follow cars that leave their recidenses... So litterally following them.. Meaning they don't need much (if any) tipoff.

 

[hernameispekka]

I agree that you cannot have a media free-for-all, I understand that. But what i don't understand is how other monarchies can get along fairly harmonously with their media/paps and the BRF can't. Before anyone says "the BRF are different, they're wider known, they get more attention etc", i'm sorry but I believe they make it harder for themselves.

Both sides know they need each other, come to an arrangement, make a deal, and anyone that breaks the deal is dealt with. There needs to be a line drawn, of which all parties are clearly away of, and when the line is crossed consequences occur.



I did read it thank you very much.
I'm sorry but they're royals, to expect anything less than stalking to get a picture wouldn't surprise me.

As i said above, a line needs to be drawn and an agreement reached between all parties so everyone knows what what means, and what event = this etc. Life could be so much simplier for all parties.



It doesn't have to be a tip off from anybody. Paps will more than likely have a lowly intern or assistant outside all 4 or more key residences at any one time. When a car leaves, it's either followed to it's destination or if you can tell from the car and it's occupants who's in it, it's left alone.

I don't think anyone no matter the position should have to "expect anything less than stalking". And ok, they might have to expect the act itself, what they should not be expected to do is accept it, hence they're taking action.

 

[iisuzieii]

Anyone who stalks minors and babies to take pics is super creepy.

 

[Dman]

I'm sorry, and i'm probably going to get some flack for this but my answer is "you can't have it both ways". William needs to learn that the media are friends of the royal families, and royals need the media far more than the media needs the royals.

An arrangement needs to be reached because this too-ing and fro-ing is getting ridiculous.




Question: Where do we draw the line then? Why one rule for Britain and another rule for other monarchies with young children? Jacques and Gabriella in Monaco, out for a walk somewhere, do we post a link yes or no?

If the TRF are going to "politely plea" we do not post unofficial pictures of George or Charlotte we might as well shut our eyes for the next 17 years.

What are we classing as unofficial and official? George attends the christmas church event this year, not in the CC, family event, but paps are always there? Yay or nah?

George's first day of school, Charlottes first day of nursery perhaps? Not criticising just asking where do we draw the line?

Frankly, each TRF member should judge for themselves whether they want to look at the pictures and I don't think we should be asked to refrain. George is the future King, Catherine and William should bring their children up to understand the media.

I'm just scared something crazy and dumb can happen to these kids. When you think about it, the pictures of George in the park with his mother or nanny are nice, but it just frightens me that the paps are performing these dangerous tactics to get those pictures. They're only doing this stuff for the money and folks on the net are hungry for these pics. The only part we can do is stop fueling the fire on the net for these pictures. It may not stop things, but at least we're doing something to protect these kids.

 

[Isabella]

I agree that you cannot have a media free-for-all, I understand that. But what i don't understand is how other monarchies can get along fairly harmonously with their media/paps and the BRF can't. Before anyone says "the BRF are different, they're wider known, they get more attention etc", i'm sorry but I believe they make it harder for themselves.

The fact is, though, that the BRF are much more widely known than any of the other royal families, and that legitimately presents them with a different set of problems. A picture of Prince George is going to be worth much more than a picture of, say, Princess Estelle, simply because it can be sold to so many media outlets around the world. It's the amount of money involved that makes the paparazzi go to extreme lengths to get pictures of these children. I'm really not sure how William and Kate have made it harder on themselves. Since Charlotte's birth, we've certainly seen more of Prince George in public (in addition to pictures released by the family) - and yet there seems to have been an increase in paparazzi pictures of George since then. What are they supposed to do? If a simple agreement could be easily drawn up, I'm sure it would have been done long ago.

 

[hernameispekka]

The fact is, though, that the BRF are much more widely known than any of the other royal families, and that legitimately presents them with a different set of problems. A picture of Prince George is going to be worth much more than a picture of, say, Princess Estelle, simply because it can be sold to so many media outlets around the world. It's the amount of money involved that makes the paparazzi go to extreme lengths to get pictures of these children. I'm really not sure how William and Kate have made it harder on themselves. Since Charlotte's birth, we've certainly seen more of Prince George in public (in addition to pictures released by the family) - and yet there seems to have been an increase in paparazzi pictures of George since then. What are they supposed to do? If a simple agreement could be easily drawn up, I'm sure it would have been done long ago.

Exactly. Agreements are in place exactly like with other royals. And all british media follows them.. But what do you expect them to do?! Bake a backroom deal with every little magazine in Australia, US, Germany etc? It's just not doable. That's the difference between them and other royals. If the Swedish royal family makes a deal with the Swedish media that chokes the demand (except for an odd picture here and there in germany) but if the BRF does the same they only choke the British media and make them angry for having to follow different standards. The only 2 ways I can see to hinder this kind of stuff is 1. people stop watching the pictures and 2. they make legislations on when a picture taken of a child in a public place is unlawfull. That way number 1 chokes the demand = no money value = people don't go to those lengths and 2. hinders kids (especially of celebrities) from being stalked.

 

[Skippyboo]

Laws are useless unless the punishment is more severe than the gain. Look at what happened in France with the sunbathing photos. No one went jail and the fine was $2500 which is nothing. If a person can break into a house and steal $1000, get caught and just have to pay $100 from the $1000 and keep the difference. They are going to keep doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miche]

How are the media William's friends when they are using pedophile like tactic to stalk his children?

Some people are deliberately being obtuse just to excused the stalking of a toddler.

Victoria and Daniel doesn't have to with the US, Australia, etc media buying photos for the paparazzi. There is no demand for photos of Estelle outside of Sweden and to a lesser extend Germany.

How is William making it harder on himself? The British media doesn't buy these photos, foreign media does. Yet somehow they should take the examples of Victoria and Daniel who doesn't have to deal with foreign media intrusion nor do they have paparazzi trying to lure their kids and causing dangerous situation for securities, but somehow that is all William fault for people breaking the law, stalking children and hiding being the fact of free press.

 

[hernameispekka]

Laws are useless unless the punishment is more severe than the gain. Look at what happened in France with the sunbathing photos. No one went jail and the fine was $2500 which is nothing. If a person can break into a house and steal $1000, get caught and just have to pay $100 from the $1000 and keep the difference. They are going to keep doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Very true..

 

[Daria_S]

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

Laws are useless unless the punishment is more severe than the gain. Look at what happened in France with the sunbathing photos. No one went jail and the fine was $2500 which is nothing. If a person can break into a house and steal $1000, get caught and just have to pay $100 from the $1000 and keep the difference. They are going to keep doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Exactly. There's no consequences that are severe enough in place to be a deterrent. I bet if the penalty for a pap who is stalking a child, and using extremely questionable tactics to lure the said child into the range of the camera would involve immediate loss of employment, with no possibility of rehire from anyone, and a nice, hefty fine, the sleaze bags may think twice about chasing a toddler for a few snaps. Of course if jail time is added on, the pictures would not become so appealing, because the risks would be heavier than a profit.

How are the media William's friends when they are using pedophile like tactic to stalk his children?

Some people are deliberately being obtuse just to excused the stalking of a toddler.

Victoria and Daniel doesn't have to with the US, Australia, etc media buying photos for the paparazzi. There is no demand for photos of Estelle outside of Sweden and to a lesser extend Germany.

How is William making it harder on himself? The British media doesn't buy these photos, foreign media those. Yet somehow they should take the examples of Victoria and Daniel who doesn't have to deal with foreign media intrusion nor do they have paparazzi trying to lure their kids and causing dangerous situation for securities, but somehow that is all William fault for people breaking the law, stalking children and hiding being the fact of free press.

There's nothing like blaming the victim; if they would release more pictures, strike a deal, be more like other royals, etc., then none of this would happen. Sadly, that's not true. Estelle is not stalked by paps from all over the globe, eager for a candid snap, so it's easier to keep that situation under control. I'm in full agreement with William, and Catherine on this. The stalking needs to stop, and it shouldn't mean that they all of a sudden have to subject their children to photo shoots once a month to satisfy the public. Severe consequences need to be put in place for the type of behavior exhibited by the paps, including jail time, permanent loss of employment (including no chances of being rehired), and the permission for the PPOs to shoot first, ask questions later, if they feel the sleaze bag in the boot of a car, pointing a long range camera lens is a direct threat. I think anything less will just allow the behavior to continue.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[miche]

Exactly. There's no consequences that are severe enough in place to be a deterrent. I bet if the penalty for a pap who is stalking a child, and using extremely questionable tactics to lure the said child into the range of the camera would involve immediate loss of employment, with no possibility of rehire from anyone, and a nice, hefty fine, the sleaze bags may think twice about chasing a toddler for a few snaps. Of course if jail time is added on, the pictures would not become so appealing, because the risks would be heavier than a profit.



There's nothing like blaming the victim; if they would release more pictures, strike a deal, be more like other royals, etc., then none of this would happen. Sadly, that's not true. Estelle is not stalked by paps from all over the globe, eager for a candid snap, so it's easier to keep that situation under control. I'. In full agreement with William, and Catherine on this. The stalking needs to stop, and it shouldn't mean that they all of a sudden have to subject their children to photo shoots once a month to satisfy the public. Severe consequences need to be put in place for the type of behavior exhibited by the paps, including jail time, permanent loss of employment (including no chances of being rehired), and the permission for the PPOs to shoot first, ask questions later, if they feel the sleaze bag in the boot of a car, pointing a long range camera lens is a direct threat. I think anything less will just allow the behavior to continue.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

I am also on William side here, I hope my statement didn't come across as if I was blaming William