The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 08-15-2015, 09:42 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,841
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
__________________

__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
  #842  
Old 08-15-2015, 01:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
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
__________________

  #843  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:04 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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.
  #844  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:18 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
  #845  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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."
  #846  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:44 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 4,018
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?
  #847  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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.
  #848  
Old 08-15-2015, 02:54 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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.
  #849  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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.
  #850  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:03 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
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.
  #851  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
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.
  #852  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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".
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
  #853  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:37 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella View Post
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.
  #854  
Old 08-15-2015, 03:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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.
  #855  
Old 08-15-2015, 04:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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.
  #856  
Old 08-15-2015, 05:33 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: small town near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,031
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.
  #857  
Old 08-15-2015, 05:37 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarlita View Post
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?
  #858  
Old 08-15-2015, 05:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,360
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?
  #859  
Old 08-15-2015, 05:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
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.
  #860  
Old 08-15-2015, 05:53 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
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.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Closed Thread

Tags
duchess of cambridge, duke of cambridge, kate middleton, prince william, princess charlotte


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 2: May 2016 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 397 01-15-2017 12:38 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit brunei catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll fashion poll december greece history kate middleton king abdullah ii king willem-alexander member introduction mohammed reza monarchy murdoch new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week president nieto; state visit prince charles prince george of cambridge princess laurentien princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess mette-marit and women deliver conference queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathilde in jordan queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion queen rania of jordan september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to norway succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats valentino


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises