Prince George of Cambridge, General News 1: December 2014-May 2015

[Skippyboo]

It wouldn't be shocking to see people with a phone or camera taking pictures at farm aimed for little kids to come and visit so some one taking picture may not of have gotten Kate's attention.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

I can't believe Kate would not have been aware someone was photographing her and George. Even if she wasn't aware, surely her protection officers would have been on the lookout for such things and would have alerted her if they were so instructed. I reckon she's accepted that when she's at such public places, she will be photographed. If they're at some sort of zoo, there's an excellent chance that members of the public would have cameras with them because that's the sort of place that people take photographs, of the animals and of their children. So she'd have to accept being photographed as one of the risks of taking her child to such a place.

 

[Skippyboo]

Why would she have to be aware the pictures are been taken? It's outside so a flash isn't needed a cell phone or digital camera can take a picture without making a sound.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Tiggersk8]

This same australian mag has posted pap pics of george and the cambridges numerous times. i'm not exactly sure why this time people are so convinced this was pr or a photoshoot set up by Kate. They had pics of george in the park with his nanny playing soccer. pics of the nanny walking george and pics of Kate walking george in the park. They also had pics of kate shopping while pregnant and going to the salon while pregnant with george. This is nothing new or sinister. lol

Nothing sinister? Are you kidding? I don't consider a so called Magazine that has proven time and again they have no problem stalking a toddler just in order to make money something that isn't sinister nor is it something that is funny.

Once again I'll ask...Is there not a way for the Mods to put a thread up where pics like this can go and be posted in? So those of us who don't want to see them don't? Please?


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[JessRulz]

We have no such thread for other royal families with young children, so the mods have decided previously that we won't be making special rules in this case.

Posters usually "warn" about these type of photos when they are posting them, stating they are "pap" photos. Which IMO makes it easy enough to avoid them.

 

[Pranter]

He's still looking very much like William in some parts of his face.


LaRae

 

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, most people would just post them on Facebook. But some would seek out a buyer on the internet. I can't imagine it's that hard to email a production department letting them know you have the photos - most publication websites have a link on the site for this purpose.

And whoever brought it up, I agree these are older photos, Kate does not look 9 months along and George is dressed for midwinter. So whoever sold the photos has spent quite some time seeking out a buyer.

I think Kate was aware - whether she was complicit - I have no idea. What I do know is, as I have mentioned before, with the internet and technology, the lines between public and press have blurred to the point where it is impossible to stop these invasions of privacy.

I agree that they Re older photos from several months ago and that the seller, another patron go the zoo, sold them to the highest bidder, this awful Australian magazine. I also believe that this is not harmless, a gun instead of a phone could have been pulled out, where were the protection

 

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, most people would just post them on Facebook. But some would seek out a buyer on the internet. I can't imagine it's that hard to email a production department letting them know you have the photos - most publication websites have a link on the site for this purpose.

And whoever brought it up, I agree these are older photos, Kate does not look 9 months along and George is dressed for midwinter. So whoever sold the photos has spent quite some time seeking out a buyer.

I think Kate was aware - whether she was complicit - I have no idea. What I do know is, as I have mentioned before, with the internet and technology, the lines between public and press have blurred to the point where it is impossible to stop these invasions of privacy.

I agree that they Were older photos from several months ago and that the seller, another patron of the zoo, sold them to the highest bidder, this awful Australian magazine. I also believe that this is not harmless, a gun instead of a phone could have been pulled out, where were the protection

 

[Princess of Durham]

There was, in fact, a forewarning about these pictures and one had to actively click on the link. I can't see that there was a problem here, people were warned and if they chose to look then it seems to me that they cannot complain.

 

[Sun Lion]

Can anyone confirm who these pictures were taken by and when? Because they've not featured in any of the British papers of magazines and there's been nothing on Twitter about her going out. George is heavily wrapped up, and Catherine doesn't look 9 months in those photos.

There are a couple of photos in "New Idea" that haven't made it to the internet Lumutqueen, and in one of these the Duchess is side on, and looks very, very pregnant.

The article says it's a "spring outing", and that Prince George is twenty-one months old.

I don't think they were taken a while back and then just sat on. I think they are a week or so old at the most.

All the other children's faces are pixilated, (except for the sliding photo and the feeding the piglet photo).

The photo of George hugging one of the girls, with the other two girls next to them, was taken very close up, and is very clear.

I'm not suprised they have not yet - and may never be - printed in the UK.

Australia has had a lot of "no, no, no" photos published - the honeymoon, and the pregnant in Mustique photos for example.

(Not to mention the various European magazines that published the French villa photos.)

We even had the dress-fly up in the Blue Mts. photo published in the daily newspaper, and a double-page spread of the Duchess and baby George in the garden at Yarralumla photos in the paper.

None of these were printed in the UK I think.

Though it is a three page feature, the Duchess and Prince George didn't get the main cover shot - that went to Prince Harry.

I think that shows there is an interest here in Oz, but it's not that big a deal really.

(And little George is in the mags a fair bit - a few weeks ago we had photos and details of the local Sandringham school he is said to be going to start at.)

 

[Roslyn]

I agree that they Re older photos from several months ago and that the seller, another patron go the zoo, sold them to the highest bidder, this awful Australian magazine. I also believe that this is not harmless, a gun instead of a phone could have been pulled out, where were the protection

Which is why I said that even if she didn't notice someone taking photos, her protection officers should have. Perhaps they did, and assessed the activity as a non-threat. Or perhaps they are totally incompetent.

Kate is an A-level celebrity who has a husband who makes a fuss about photographs being taken of him and his family. He wants them to be photographed on his terms only, i.e. when they are at public events and "on parade". But they live in today's world where almost everyone has a camera in their pocket, and if they are going to mix with the public like this, they are going to be photographed by the public. They can take steps to try and stop the paps but they can't stop the ordinary members of the public from photographing them when they do things like this. They have to accept this as a fact and live with it or stay on property they control.

 

[Tiggersk8]

There was, in fact, a forewarning about these pictures and one had to actively click on the link. I can't see that there was a problem here, people were warned and if they chose to look then it seems to me that they cannot complain.

Not when the post was quoted. The original poster I have on Ignore, so would have never seen it if his post hadn't been quoted and in turn...

Also I do have limited vision and if there was a warning, I never saw it.

Considering the Cambridges get stalked & their media coverage is nothing like any other Royals in the World, I still think a separate thread for, I'll call them what they are, these Invasions of Privacy & Proof of Stalking would be a good idea, but what do I know...


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Rebafan81]

A gentle warning to any of my fellow TRF posters who may be offended by pap photos of the Cambridge family - please just skip over my post.



This week's Australian magazine "New Idea" has published three pages of colour photos of the Duchess of Cambridge and young Prince George playing together at Snettisham Park, which is a working farm and petting zoo not far from Anmer Hall.

The Duchess was overheard calling her son "Georgie" - (and he has grown so much, he looks so tall for a little boy.)

Prince George squealed out "Neigh!" when the Duchess prompted him with a toy horse belonging to the group of children who joined them.

He copied the Duchess's "moo", and he must watch "Peppa the Pig", as that was his mother's hint when the toy pig was shown.

The toy duck got a kiss and some quacking noises.

There is a photo of the Duchess and George sliding down twin slides - side by side, holding hands - and a series of photos of PG high up among the hay bales, a bit out of his pregnant mother's reach.

The little Prince is also pictured hugging one of the young girls he made friends with earlier, when they were together in the sand-pit.

George also joined a group of children and bottle-fed a piglet, and he and the Duchess also fed some goats.

Other photos show George tackling the climbing frame, with the Duchess firmly supporting him from behind up the steep walking ladder.

Three protection officers accompanied the Royal pair, and it must have been a bit chilly as both Prince George and the Duchess are rugged up - (as are the other children in the photos.)

Young George is covered head to toe in dark blue - shoes, puffy onesie zipped suit and tie-on wooley hat with a pom pom on top. No mittens.

The Duchess is in her gum-boots, a checked shirt, jeans and a brown puffy, quilted jacket with her hair tied back.


Following this three-page spread, there are a couple of photos of Prince William out cycling at Sandringham Estate - without a protection officer - looking very professionally kitted out.

Is there a link?

 

[Roslyn]

Not when the post was quoted. The original poster I have on Ignore, so would have never seen it if his post hadn't been quoted and in turn...

Also I do have limited vision and if there was a warning, I never saw it.

Considering the Cambridges get stalked & their media coverage is nothing like any other Royals in the World, I still think a separate thread for, I'll call them what they are, these Invasions of Privacy & Proof of Stalking would be a good idea, but what do I know...

That Ignore function must give rise to quite a few disjointed/nonsensical conversations and nasty surprises, though I think responsibility for those consequences must rest with the Ignorer. If a person chooses to walk around with their hand over their eyes, they can't really complain when they bump into something.

How on earth can it be stalking when Kate was the one who took her child into a public place frequented by other families who would almost certainly have at least one camera phone in each group? I call it voluntary assumption of risk on her part.

But you won't know I've said this, either.

 

[Sun Lion]

Is there a link?

Hi Rebafan81 - I was out shopping early Monday morning, (it's now Tuesday afternoon here/mostly the new magazines come out nationwide Monday mornings), and wrote that post after buying the magazine. (A very "Royal" issue this week with the Danish Royals and Prince Harry also covered.)

Someone posted scans of some of the pages to a Prince George fansite, and these have been retweeted and reblogged in the time since. (It must have been someone here in Oz - having access to the mag.)

(The photos are available on this thread in a post by Duke of Marmalade.)

There is no link as such - all the twitter accounts and blogs are dealing with the same scans posted to the original George site.

Some also have scans of the Prince William cycling photos now - not sure where these first popped up.

If you go to the "New Idea" facebook page, or website, there may be something, but the best photos are already here from those original scans.

Another interesting thing is to check out the Snettisham Park Farm website - there is a very appealing one, very well done, and see what little PG has on offer there.

There have been many sightings of the Cambridges reported over the last couple of weeks on different twitter accounts and blogs that follow the Duchess, that were probably at this Farm Park.

Reports say the Cambridges take Prince George there often, and having seen their web-pages, I don't blame them, a wonderful place for young families.

I saw a mention of the Park having some Prince George photos on their facebook page, but I don't know if that was, or still is, the case. I didn't see them myself - maybe they've now been removed.


P.S. There are now four different photos of the Duchess and George on the internet, scans from a magazine again. (Maybe the New Zealand version of "New Idea" which also ran the feature.)

 

[Ish]

That Ignore function must give rise to quite a few disjointed/nonsensical conversations and nasty surprises, though I think responsibility for those consequences must rest with the Ignorer. If a person chooses to walk around with their hand over their eyes, they can't really complain when they bump into something.

How on earth can it be stalking when Kate was the one who took her child into a public place frequented by other families who would almost certainly have at least one camera phone in each group? I call it voluntary assumption of risk on her part.

But you won't know I've said this, either.

I think it depends on who it is that is responsible for taking the pictures.

If it was another patron of the park who just happened to be there when Kate and George were there and took the pictures then later decided to sell them, then no it's not stalking. You can argue the morality of it - whether or not it's okay to deliberately take a picture of someone who you don't know and who isn't aware that pictures of them are being taken/hasn't consented to them, and then again whether or not it's okay to sell (or buy) pictures taken of a person without their consent - but ultimately if Joe Average sees Kate out and about they're not actually stalking her if they do take pictures.

That said, the paparazzi treatment - not the press or public treatment, the actual paparazzi treatment - of royals and celebrities is often very stalker-ish. To say that someone sitting outside of a person's home waiting for them to come out so they can take pictures, then following them as they go out and about on their personal time, or to wait outside places they frequent, their schools, etc, isn't stalking is just ridiculous. Yes, there are certainly some famous people who use the press and paparazzi for their own means, but that doesn't mean that the behaviour of the paparazzi in general isn't stalker-ish.

It's even worse in regards to celebrity children. The fact that children who themselves are only famous because of who their parents are are being stalked by adults, having their pictures taken without their parents' consent, and then having said pictures sold to the press for publication is just ridiculous. The press shouldn't be publishing paparazzi pictures of kids, period. George, or any other royal child, is no exception. While I agree that these children, particularly those in the direct line, should be exposed to public duties and the press, there's a difference between taking a picture of a child at an engagement or an official event and taking a picture of a child while they're playing in a park. Can you really blame William for being protective of his family when his wife and son can't play in a park without someone taking their picture to sell to a newspaper? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take issue if you were in his shoes?

 

[sndral]

She can't say she does not want photos in her kids face one moment and use them the next for her benefit....well she can but it is disengenous at best.

Course they are to her benefit. She gets glowing fawning reviews every time she does these activities in public with him.not saying anything negative against her but that is just fact.

If Catherine had alerted the press then:
1) We would have had much better photos not the grainy surreptitious shots we see, and
2) She would have worn a much more flattering outfit and not the drab brown quilted jacket with dirt around the hem (although the dirt could have been acquired while playing with George.)
Frankly, in the dozen years Catherine and William have been an item, including the time they broke up, there has been no suggestion that she has ever associated with the press - I seriously doubt that she decided to do so at 9 months pregnant. More over, it was on Twitter that William and George where there the previous week - I bet some one went hoping that William or Catherine (or Carole or the nanny) would make a repeat visit and they could take photos of George and sell them.

I think 100% that Kate was aware of the photographer, as eg the kid on the right is looking straight at him or her.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/17cda93a1d07eb6352e8bdb3c24965a5/tumblr_nmqgxilBPo1tc20kuo1_540.jpg

I am not saying that Kate called the paps to have these pictures taken but I am sure that she was aware of the photographer. In her position, she can almost be sure that somebody is around with a camera as soon as she leaves her own home. What else can she do than act normal.

What a stranger to Catherine several feet away from her saw or didn't see is not evidence that Catherine saw anything. For all we know that boy was looking at his parent who was taking the picture.
Catherine and William lived several years in Anglesy without much intrusion on their privacy - I suspect they hoped for the same consideration in Sandringham - after all Royals have been out and about in the neighborhood for years.
Catherine was focused on enjoying her son, she was not anxiously scanning the crowd for fellow parents surreptitiously pointing their cell phone in her direction and snapping photos while pretending they were texting or taking photos of their own nearby children.
It's just sad that some person saw a way to make a quick buck and rather than condemning that person people attack Catherine and attribute motives and knowledge to her when there's zero evidence of either. And how sad that the freedom Catherine and William enjoyed in Anglesy isn't possible near Amner.

 

[Roslyn]

I think it depends on who it is that is responsible for taking the pictures.

If it was another patron of the park who just happened to be there when Kate and George were there and took the pictures then later decided to sell them, then no it's not stalking. You can argue the morality of it - whether or not it's okay to deliberately take a picture of someone who you don't know and who isn't aware that pictures of them are being taken/hasn't consented to them, and then again whether or not it's okay to sell (or buy) pictures taken of a person without their consent - but ultimately if Joe Average sees Kate out and about they're not actually stalking her if they do take pictures.

This is what I am assuming was the case: just another park-user who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

some more photos on twitter now.
https://twitter.com/British_Heir/media

of course Kate knew about the photographer, but what can she do? stay indoors with George all the time? You simply cannot keep sueing photographers who take pictures of one of the next Kings in a public place. It's part of the parcel I'd say.

 

[dazzling]

some more photos on twitter now.
https://twitter.com/British_Heir/media

of course Kate knew about the photographer, but what can she do? stay indoors with George all the time? You simply cannot keep sueing photographers who take pictures of one of the next Kings in a public place. It's part of the parcel I'd say.

I dont see what the big deal is if these pictures are out or if someone took pictures of Catherine. She is in public space.

If she was at home/private space and someone took her picture, then that I would have a problem with, because thats invading privacy.

It's always great to see Catherine out with George and it's not always we get to see such great/fun pictures of them.

 

[Jacknch]

I tend to agree and I think Catherine handled the situation very well by simply carrying on with what she was doing. It would have turned into a big deal had she gone over to the person and caused a scene or stormed off or made any other kind of reaction.

 

[Kellin]

Well, they could easily decrease that photo rush around their son if they publish official photos once a few weeks. The rarer the celebrities photos than they are more expensive and valuable for paparazzi, I suppose.

 

[Pranter]

Not to mention the last thing she would want to do is scare George by a big scene...and it's (photographers) something he's going to grow up having to deal with.


LaRae

 

[Princess Mara]

Newbie here, but wanted to inject some thoughts to ponder. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the first batch of photos in which Katherine is wearing no makeup while out with George, and dressed down? I agree with Pranter (LaRae) that she got there and became involved with activities, both the protection officers and she realized they were being photographed, and decided it was a low threat. I believe that Katherine would not have wanted to scare other children with the fallout of having a cell phone taken away from a parent, and having George hustled away when there is no danger present. At this age, that is teaching him to fear other people.....something by the look of George and him appearing so outgoing, they have managed to avoid. All in all, it is a sad business when this family cannot be afforded some privacy, but they have to know when they step outside their doors, this will happen. I hope that all this hub-bub doesn't harm Katherine's health at the moment with the stress of it, it's the last thing that she needs with an impending labor/delivery.
Mara

 

[Skippyboo]

There were most likely multiple people there with digital cameras or cell phones taking pictures of their kids. Unless the photographer is a well known pap or pulls out a professional camera, you're not going to be able to tell who taking photos of their kids and who is taking pictures of Kate and George. It could even be the same person.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Newbie here, but wanted to inject some thoughts to ponder. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the first batch of photos in which Katherine is wearing no makeup while out with George, and dressed down? I agree with Pranter (LaRae) that she got there and became involved with activities, both the protection officers and she realized they were being photographed, and decided it was a low threat. I believe that Katherine would not have wanted to scare other children with the fallout of having a cell phone taken away from a parent, and having George hustled away when there is no danger present. At this age, that is teaching him to fear other people.....something by the look of George and him appearing so outgoing, they have managed to avoid. All in all, it is a sad business when this family cannot be afforded some privacy, but they have to know when they step outside their doors, this will happen. I hope that all this hub-bub doesn't harm Katherine's health at the moment with the stress of it, it's the last thing that she needs with an impending labor/delivery.
Mara

Welcome to the forums Mara and you've made some really good points I think. Along with the photos being taken being non-invasive in my book and harmless, you're absolutely spot on on how a scene would cause more harm than good.

There's another aspect your posts brought to my mind. Knowing there are possibly many cameras focused on Kate and George at the zoo could possibly serve as a deterrent for someone plotting harm. Sometimes when something happens, the best evidence has come through with Joe Public as a bystander taking pictures and/or videos.

I think W&K, after being the target of a camera for a very long time, have learned to not think about them and leave the protecting up to the protection officers and just get on with what they want to do.

 

[Sun Lion]

Can anyone confirm who these pictures were taken by and when? Because they've not featured in any of the British papers of magazines and there's been nothing on Twitter about her going out. George is heavily wrapped up, and Catherine doesn't look 9 months in those photos.

Some Twitter accounts are now posting that the photos were taken on March 30th Lumutqueen - no details regarding where this info came from.

 

[Queen Camilla]

IMO, the person was not directly infront of Kate and George when the photos were being taken. Almost all were taken from an angle. In a few of the photos it appears as if the person was taking pictures of their child and George and Kate walked into the frame.

 

[Osipi]

The more I think about it, the happier I get with the feeling that I have that George is getting to be a kid. Doing kid things and liking things that kids like and his special times with Mommy and special times with Daddy. Things are going to be quite an upheaval for him soon as a new upstart for Mommy and Daddy's attention is going to upset the apple cart but with the way we've been able to see and hear about how W&K are raising George so far assures me that they'll acclimate him to his little sibling quite well.

I'd much rather have George just experience things in front of him as any other kid and have a few bystanders snap some pictures than have George subjected to formal photographers for portraits or facing a hoard of cameras and flashbulbs wherever he goes. He's got too much work right now just being a kid.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think that the person who took these photos should have sold them to a magazine - or even given them to the magazine. The market will be there and now that everyone has a camera with them all the time there will be more and more of these sorts of photos - ones that William and Kate don't necessarily approve being taken.


They have decided to release one or two photos a year and not video ever but ... that means that whenever they are in public places the ordinary public will take photos and sell them and sadly that will mean that they will be more hounded than ever Diana was because the royal fanatics will fuel the market - as they did for photos of Diana.


If the magazines and press learnt anything from the Diana years it was that they should only use photos taken on official or sanctioned occasions but this shows that they haven't learnt that lesson - and nor have the public, particularly royal fans who think that this is acceptable.