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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tanna already knows! He has complained on Twitter several times about not being given a permit to take his pap pics in Royal Parks. He has said that if he tries in lieu of a permit he knows for sure the Cambridges will have him in court.

The British Press can complain until they're blue in the face. They still have to abide by British laws. If they want a change then they will have to petition The Parliament. I don't think MP's will be all that sympathetic to tabloid columnists who want to publish unauthorized pictures of toddlers.

The press complains because the law is against them; and the royals are the ones on the moral high ground - not them. They have no options. They can only cross their slimy fingers that someday another Diana-type joins the BRF and feeds them exclusive info/pics. In the meantime they get no sympathy from me! If they could legally get away with stalking 24/7, and phone-tapping - they would do it in a millisecond. They are horrible people and I pity the BRF for having to deal with them.
 
Publications in Australia and elsewhere grab these unauthorised photos and publish them so they don't occupy the high moral ground either.

It's the tabloid press in Britain that helps keep the royals in the public's mind, for good or ill. Comparatively few read the broadsheet press. The royals need British newspaper coverage and photos keeping their image out there just as much as any elected politician and just as much as the tabs need royal stories to feed to their readers. It's a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation.
 
Richard Palmer said on twitter there is no law or agreement in place preventing paps from taking George's picture outside of royal parks.

He said if William and George were walking down the street someone can take their picture. So lets not turn this into the Cambridges control the press.

Palmer said the decision to publish such pics lies with editors, not journalists or photographers and editors almost always refuse to publish them.

So when photographers complain they try and make it about the royals when really its an editorial decision.

For example, Palmer said his paper the Daily Express has a permit for the royal parks but editors won't publish pics of royals taken in royal parks.

So don't blame the royals for editorial decisions.
 
Last edited:
My above post was a reply to Miss Whirley's points about British tabloids. I wasn't saying that the Cambridges control the Press, which would be a ridiculous statement. My point is that ALL the royals need the press as much as the press needs them and it is best for all parties to have a cordial relationship. Naturally, George's photos are in our minds here because this is George and Charlotte's thread and it has been George's photos by unauthorised photographers that have been in contention lately.
 
Last edited:
...I know there is a group of people on this forum that don't want to look at paparazzi photos so posting the actual photos in a message instead of a link doesn't help the pap avoiders…


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

No actual photos have been posted in a message - it has all been links.

However, if you are using the TRF mobile app (as I see you are based on the footer of your post), you are seeing the direct links as photos because the app automatically loads them within the post. Whether or not this can be altered within the app software is something for our techies to determine.
 
No actual photos have been posted in a message - it has all been links.



However, if you are using the TRF mobile app (as I see you are based on the footer of your post), you are seeing the direct links as photos because the app automatically loads them within the post. Whether or not this can be altered within the app software is something for our techies to determine.

Thank you for explaining this! I didn't know that the mobile app automatically loads direct links as photos. Makes sense to me now.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Prince Charles has turned part of his garden at Highgrove House into a magical playground fit for little royals!

Charles, 66, and Prince George, who turned 2 last week, have enjoyed playtime on the grounds of Charles' grand country home, a royal source confirms to PEOPLE.

The proud grandpa recently treated his grandson to a garden picnic, complete with plastic cups, the source says.

He was also able to show George the sweet garden hut he was given to mark the little royal's first birthday last year
Read more: Prince Charles Transforms Highgrove Garden into Playground for Prince George : People.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some tweets about paparazzi pics. Richard Palmer is talking about earlier photos but it applies to the most recent ones.

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/614004822417739776

Richard Palmer clearly states there is no legal reason papers can't publish such pics but its a judgement call by editors. William has no say.

So the next time a photographer or journalist complains on twitter, tell him or her to talk to the newspaper editors. Its always an easy out to bash the royals.
 
Last edited:
As a number of people in above posts have stated, the decision to not publish lies with the newspaper publishers. Why do they refuse to publish? In my opinion, there are 2 main reasons:
1) Diana- the way she was hounded when alive and the night of her death really turned the British public against pap pics. Will & Harry are her children and any intrusive pics of them immediately brings up the Diana situation, thus editors try to advoid these comparisons.
2) Even with the above point in play, there were a lot of pap pics of Will, Harry, Catherine and Chelsy before 2010(?). The girlfriends had it worse because they didnt have RPO and these pics were published. Then came the phone-hacking scandal (first accidently noted by Prince William). The public got an idea of the lengths journos were going to to get stories (blantant invasion of privacy). This resulted in the News of the World being shut down and the public being more supportive of privacy laws. The media is still trying to win back public support and thus the editors are less willing to take chances by publishing pap pics of a child.

So why are the journos and photographers on twitter complaining and blaming the palace? Its simple, they are trying to get public opinion on their side and thus force the palace to explicitly say that they have no problems with these pics being published. They keep on using the whole "how can the rest of the world watch George grow but not the British public" argument. The problem is George is a toddler and few people will support him being followed around. Most people are protective of children plus the fact that he is Diana's grandson.

I have stated before that official pics will not change anything. We have seen George a lot since the birth of his sister and instead of calming things, these appearances have made things worse. There is no denying that he is the current star of the BRF and these past appearances have made that clear and thus increased global demand for his pics. We are seeing more pap pics of him now than before Charlottes birth
 
Last edited:
The argument that the British people can't see George but the rest of the world can is ridiculous. The Internet exist in the UK. They can see the same pictures the rest of the world can. A printed newspaper is a dinosaur in today's world of instead communication.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I'm sure that view that they are dinosaurs must be a great comfort to journalists at work on national dailies in Britain. These are people trying to make a living, you know. It's very easy to say we can all do without newspapers but thousands get their news and views from them each day, including news of the royal family.
 
♛ Mary ♛ ‏@princesspleats 17h17 hours ago
Phew! If you're one of the as of 2013, 36 million adults (73%) in Great Britain who access the Internet every day you can see Prince George

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is newspapers are on a downward trend.

Even if pap pics were published in British newspapers, the above statistic would suggest most people would see them first on the internet anyway

Photos of George today don't appear until tomorrow's newspaper.

A lifetime with today's instant technology.
 
Yes, it is instant technology. So are the countless Twitter forums and unreliable websites peddling news and theories about various members of the BRF. It's not all joy for the future, even if pictures of George can be seen at the touch of a finger. The royal family may well be wary of British tabloids but having to counter and try to control the myriad gossip sites about them on the Internet will be ten thousand times worse if the print media disappears.
 
I'm not suggesting newspaper should disappear. But the argument put forward by some that only people outside the UK can see Prince George is silly.

Anyone, anywhere with a cellphone or laptop can see the pictures of George.

That still doesn't negate the fact that its newspaper editors preventing the publishing of pap pics, not the royals.

If Britons want to see unauthorised photos of Prince George in papers, I suggest you lobby editors of Britain's tabloids.
 
He is growing,,Carole looks a little haggard!

The joys of supervising an active two year old, especially one eagerly throwing sand about when digging a hole! The weather in Norfolk can be quite brisk even in the height of summer. There's sometimes an icy wind blowing gritty sand as well. Carole probably wanted to get back to a less exposed environment!
 
It looks to me like the photos were taken with a long lens. So even if Carole did spot the photographer, what more could she do besides ignore him/her and go about her day.

I am sure there was "someone" with them - at least one someone. Lupo may be free range, but my guess was that he was out of shot often enough that someone was keeping an eye on him. The extra stuff - her shoes, the pail, etc. also come and go.

Carole seems quite natural with George and he with her. She did not fuss but kept him engaged for about the amount of time (if the report of beach time was correct) it would take to toss some surprise decorations up around the house.
Cuteness!
 
.....She did not fuss but kept him engaged for about the amount of time (if the report of beach time was correct) it would take to toss some surprise decorations up around the house.
Cuteness!

that was my thought ...Granny Carole was keeping George 'occupied and out of the way' while the house was being set up for his birthday party.
 
Best thing a child can have is a grandmother.
 
Richard Palmer said on twitter there is no law or agreement in place preventing paps from taking George's picture outside of royal parks.

He said if William and George were walking down the street someone can take their picture. So lets not turn this into the Cambridges control the press.

Palmer said the decision to publish such pics lies with editors, not journalists or photographers and editors almost always refuse to publish them.

So when photographers complain they try and make it about the royals when really its an editorial decision.

For example, Palmer said his paper the Daily Express has a permit for the royal parks but editors won't publish pics of royals taken in royal parks.

So don't blame the royals for editorial decisions.

Richard Palmer is telling a half-truth. While The Express may have a permit, the paparazzi do not, therefore any of the photos would be illegal to publish as they were illegally obtained. The only way The Express could publish the photos would be to plant one of their accredited journalists in Kensington Gardens 24/7 and try to take the pictures themselves. Not very financially practical. That's the real reason they don't publish.
 

Little George is adorable, and he seemed to be having a lot of fun at the beach. His natural hair is sweet, does it get straightened for public appearances?

I find it strange that the beach is clear, apart from the woman in the white and black outfit. Though the weather didn't look that great (and it was cold where I live that day as well) and the English sea is very cold so perhaps that explains why they almost had the beach to themselves. It would seem silly to ask everyone to leave so George and Carole could have it to themselves, so I highly doubt that was the reason for its "emptiness".
 
Little George is adorable, and he seemed to be having a lot of fun at the beach. His natural hair is sweet, does it get straightened for public appearances?

I find it strange that the beach is clear, apart from the woman in the white and black outfit. Though the weather didn't look that great (and it was cold where I live that day as well) and the English sea is very cold so perhaps that explains why they almost had the beach to themselves. It would seem silly to ask everyone to leave so George and Carole could have it to themselves, so I highly doubt that was the reason for its "emptiness".

There was atleast another couple there. pics on popsugar apparently. someone posted it on twitter.
 
Little George is adorable, and he seemed to be having a lot of fun at the beach. His natural hair is sweet, does it get straightened for public appearances?

I find it strange that the beach is clear, apart from the woman in the white and black outfit. Though the weather didn't look that great (and it was cold where I live that day as well) and the English sea is very cold so perhaps that explains why they almost had the beach to themselves. It would seem silly to ask everyone to leave so George and Carole could have it to themselves, so I highly doubt that was the reason for its "emptiness".

Having been born and bred in Norfolk and lived there most of my life, I can say that most of the vast Norfolk coastline and beaches can be virtually empty even at weekends, and you may only see the occasional dog-walker a mile or so away. At busy times like bank holidays or when the schools are off, even then you do not have to walk too far away from the beech-goers to find yourself on your own.
 
Having been born and bred in Norfolk and lived there most of my life, I can say that most of the vast Norfolk coastline and beaches can be virtually empty even at weekends, and you may only see the occasional dog-walker a mile or so away. At busy times like bank holidays or when the schools are off, even then you do not have to walk too far away from the beech-goers to find yourself on your own.
What a great place for the Cambridges to have access to. Inclusiveness with big chances for privacy! Seems perfect!
 
This reminds me of a story I heard somewhere about the Queen and beaches. Seeing as this outing for Carole and George were close to the Sandringham estate, it very possibly could be the same beach HM went to.

Anyways... HM went to the beach one day and was dressed casual with her ever present head scarf. Quietly sitting on the beach, she was approached by a very excited woman who wasted no time informing her that: "Did you hear? The Queen is supposed to visit this beach today. Maybe we'll be lucky and see her!" HM must really have had a good chuckle over that one eh?

The story isn't verbatim as I just recounted the basis of the story but it does go to show how beaches sometimes really can provide privacy.
 
This makes their preference for Norfolk so understandable- seems like an idyllic place for kids to grow up, plus the freedom and privacy must be so great for them.

It'll be interesting to see how they handle school for the kids- if they move back to London when George is old enough to start nursery school or if they stay in Norfolk


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
This makes their preference for Norfolk so understandable- seems like an idyllic place for kids to grow up, plus the freedom and privacy must be so great for them.

It'll be interesting to see how they handle school for the kids- if they move back to London when George is old enough to start nursery school or if they stay in Norfolk

As this is the first I've even thought about the Cambridge kids going to school, my gut reaction is that they'll most likely attend schools like William and Harry did at that age. It wouldn't actually surprise me though if they just went to an ordinary neighborhood school in Norfolk either.

I think a lot depends on the situation with the monarchy at the time too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom