The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we have to remember there will be a couple of thousand guests who will be outside and likely to get as near to the steps as they can for a good view. They'll be milling about, taking up space.
 
Except a photographer who has covered royal weddings at St. Georges before have said there wasn't an issue of space at those weddings.

EXcept none of them had covered a royal wedding that has this much security risk there. The terror level isn’t the same as the last royal wedding that was held there.
 
As a former journalist, I can't help but roll my eyes at the photographer's complaints. This is all about them as individuals, not their publications, and they seem to lack the imagination to realize they still have some really good, if different from the past, opportunities in this situation. No, they won't all get their credit on the exact photo as every other royal photographer because they won't all be in the exact same place with the exact same angle. The one photographer inside will be working pool, which means everything taken by that photog will be available to the media as a whole; I wouldn't be surprised if a similar requirement is being made of those few outside the door to St. George's. But beyond that every one of these photographers gets a fairly unique spot to potentially take photos that no one else has. They all still get a chance at that golden photo of whatever moment or gesture we can't predict, only now whoever gets it will get their credit in a lot of places rather than having the impact be diluted by the fact that every other guy in a crowded media pen got it, too.
 
As a former journalist, I can't help but roll my eyes at the photographer's complaints. This is all about them as individuals, not their publications, and they seem to lack the imagination to realize they still have some really good, if different from the past, opportunities in this situation. No, they won't all get their credit on the exact photo as every other royal photographer because they won't all be in the exact same place with the exact same angle. The one photographer inside will be working pool, which means everything taken by that photog will be available to the media as a whole; I wouldn't be surprised if a similar requirement is being made of those few outside the door to St. George's. But beyond that every one of these photographers gets a fairly unique spot to potentially take photos that no one else has. They all still get a chance at that golden photo of whatever moment or gesture we can't predict, only now whoever gets it will get their credit in a lot of places rather than having the impact be diluted by the fact that every other guy in a crowded media pen got it, too.

That's what I was thinking as well would happen. I just can't imagine the royal family gives an "exclusive" to anyone for profit. But some seem to think I'm wrong on that.
 
It was Clarence House who acted. It was because The Sun published paparazzi pics. So The Sun tabloid was banned from future photo calls. It just happens Arthur Edwards is their snapper. It wasn’t anything personal. They still get along.

Edit: Arthur didn’t take the pics

So you are ok with the photographer being punished for the coverage by the paper they work for. There goes the photographers shouldn't be punished for the coverage by their paper argument. :lol: Or is it only ok when some do it, but not others?
 
Here’s an example of what they’re complaining about.

Take the Lindo Wing. Rather than just have one PA photographer out front and that one person shares his or her pics with everyone else, there is a large media pen set up with hundreds of snappers and tv crews.

They all compete with each for front pages and magazine covers.

That’s their issue with Harry’s wedding.
 
Last edited:
So you are ok with the photographer being punished for the coverage by the paper they work for. There goes the photographers shouldn't be punished for the coverage by their paper argument. :lol: Or is it only ok when some do it, but not others?

My opinion doesn’t count. I didn’t ban anyone. You’ll have to ask Clarence House.
 
So you are ok with the photographer being punished for the coverage by the paper they work for. There goes the photographers shouldn't be punished for the coverage by their paper argument. :lol: Or is it only ok when some do it, but not others?

It's absolutely fair. When you work directly for a publication you are evaluated in the context of that publication. The only way to escape that is working freelance. Every job has it's trade-offs; that's one that comes with being a staff photog.
 
I could be wrong but Arthur Edwards is the only royal photog I can think of that actually works solely for a newspaper. All of the ones Im familiar with via Twitter work for Getty, Rex Shutterstock, PA or are freelance. So photographers are being restricted for stories reporters are writing. Its odd IMO
 
People are taking this so personally, and it's absurd. Harry has every right to hold photographers at arms length. Reporters too.

The reality is, this is a man who recognizes his role is to support his brother now, but he will, in the not so distant future, be replaced. The idea is to slim down the family, and he and his children will fade away as much as possible. If it were me in that position, I'd tow the line, and do nothing more, especially when it comes to people he distrusts so deeply.

I'm always amazed at Harry's (and yes William's) composure in these situations. This is a man who people demanded grieve the death of his mother publicly, at the age of 12. He was a boy. He had no say in the fact that he was born a royal, but because his mother lived a public life, and was now gone, people demanded to see him. That's disturbing on so many levels. He's been forced to live his life publicly (could he renounce, sure, but he's so far back, why do it at this point. He's all his brother has once their father is gone. He's certainly got a familial obligation and sense of duty to his brother if not his country.). He hasn't had any say in any of it. He found love, and then watched pretty helplessly as the media wrote horrible, horrible things about that woman. He stays quiet, and continues to do his duty as an asset to the Crown. But how much should he be forced to endure. I commend him for putting his foot down and drawing his boundaries.

The same people who moan and groan about this being a lavish state occasion, would also complain if they went completely private. They cannot win.
 
Harry will not be 'going away' in even the distant future, he'll be working until George is 18 at least. And his and his future wife's upkeep will be paid by the citizens of the UK until the end of their lives, he will never get by with fading away.

But, if it all becomes to much for him he can leave the title and privileges behind and ride his polo pony off into the sunset, no one is stopping him.
 
the only thing the British public pays for is security, i.e., the wedding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Their upkeep of Harry/Meghan and the Cambridges is paid for by Charles. The Queen pays for the upkeep of Anne/Edward/Sophie/Andrew, the Kents etc. The Queen also pays taxes.


LaRae
 
the only thing the British public pays for is security, i.e., the wedding.

No matter how you want to look at it (and I've heard all the explanations for where their upkeep comes from) he owes his position in life to the citizens of the UK. If he doesn't like the downside of that, he can leave.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter how you want to look at it (and I've heard all the explanations for where their upkeep comes from) he owes his position in life to the citizens of the UK. If he doesn't like the downside of that, he can leave.

Harry, among the rest of the royal family do not answer to the public at all. They do not dictate how the "Firm" operates. However, its always good for the British royal family to have a finger on the pulse of the people and garner positive feedback.

Their upkeep of Harry/Meghan and the Cambridges is paid for by Charles. The Queen pays for the upkeep of Anne/Edward/Sophie/Andrew, the Kents etc. The Queen also pays taxes.

So does Charles and if I'm not mistaken, they pay taxes *voluntarily*. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wish to discuss the finances of the BRF, take it to the Royal Wealth and Finance thread. Further off-topic comments will be deleted.
 
Here’s an example of what they’re complaining about.

Take the Lindo Wing. Rather than just have one PA photographer out front and that one person shares his or her pics with everyone else, there is a large media pen set up with hundreds of snappers and tv crews.

They all compete with each for front pages and magazine covers.

That’s their issue with Harry’s wedding.

You do realize Lindo Wing is on a public street right? They can't prevent them from taking pictures on a public street, just like Harry can't prevent them from taking pictures during the procession. If you criticize one for the behavior, it's only fair to criticize the other for the same behavior.

My opinion doesn’t count. I didn’t ban anyone. You’ll have to ask Clarence House.
But you think they are wrong for doing. Or at least you've been trying to say how this is a bad move and photographers shouldn't be made to pay for what the reporters write. Yet, you seem to be ok with Arthur being banned when The Sun published photos he didn't have anything to do with when it was regarding the Cambridges.

I could be wrong but Arthur Edwards is the only royal photog I can think of that actually works solely for a newspaper. All of the ones Im familiar with via Twitter work for Getty, Rex Shutterstock, PA or are freelance. So photographers are being restricted for stories reporters are writing. Its odd IMO

That's what Arthur Edwards is speculating. We are just going off that speculation for now because no one else is offering anything. Of course, he's not in Harry's head, nor is he privy to any decision making process.
 
Last edited:
Arthur Edwards and the lot are whining because they are not having their way, and when individuals don't have their way, that's what they do. Whine, winge and complain.
 
You do realize Lindo Wing is on a public street right? They can't prevent them from taking pictures on a public street, just like Harry can't prevent them from taking pictures during the procession.

Because of the interest and the fact it was outside a hospital they zoned off an area in advance and prevented parking on that street in order to give the photogs and reporters a good view. They allowed the media in to choose their pitch (hence the tape on the ground etc) and sent them away until needed. Everyone happy because they knew where they would be on the day and each with a good opportunity.

They have done this with every major royal event - roads are closed; spaces allocated; passes given out etc.

But not this time - this is that last major royal wedding in the UK for at least 20 years. Its important. The public are interested.

This isn't how it is usually done and that is the problem for the media.

We will still get pictures and video and pundits. But the range of pictures etc will be less.

H and M can do what they want - that's also ok, but both sides have a point.
 
You do realize Lindo Wing is on a public street right? They can't prevent them from taking pictures on a public street, just like Harry can't prevent them from taking pictures during the procession.

You don’t have to agree with the complaints of royal photographers but that doesn’t mean their complaint isn’t valid.

On a normal day St Georges Chapel is open to the public. Anyone is allowed to attend services there. Anyone can stand outside and take pictures.

You’re clearly in the camp who supports just the PA taking pictures as the couple leave the church but that doesn’t help Getty, Rex, Shutterstock et al from competing.
 
I honestly don't believe that any of this move to just allow a few photographers actually outside the chapel has anything to do with backlash at the tabloids or any media but rather its being selective on just how many people and knowing who those people are that will be in close distance to the chapel and the bridal couple and their guests. Its along the lines of just allowing one media outlet to televise the wedding from inside the chapel and share their feed with all the other outlets.

It saves space. Its contained more securely and most of all, it doesn't detract from the wedding itself which is a happy celebration for family and friends of the couple. With Windsor Castle and the land around it being owned by the Crown Estate and the being residence of the monarch, they have the right and privilege to determine just who will be in close proximity or not.

We've heard recently that platforms are already being erected in Windsor itself for the media and I'm sure that all reporters and photographers are going to get some very good pictures out and among the people gathered to celebrate this wedding and beautiful photos of the processional in the Ascot landau too.
 
Many agencies don’t care if they get a photo of the carriage ride. It’s the couple leaving the church that’s the money shot.
 
You don’t have to agree with the complaints of royal photographers but that doesn’t mean their complaint isn’t valid.

On a normal day St Georges Chapel is open to the public. Anyone is allowed to attend services there. Anyone can stand outside and take pictures.

You’re clearly in the camp who supports just the PA taking pictures as the couple leave the church but that doesn’t help Getty, Rex, Shutterstock et al from competing.

I don't really care if just PA is taking pictures or if everyone is allowed in. There are photos for me to look at, why do I care? :lol: I just think some of the excuses that's been given is ludicrous and quite frankly some of the criticism as well given what's been said about what Harry's importance or lack there of is. While St. George's is open during most days, they obviously have the right to close it down without having to apply for any permits or gain special permission. That day has obviously been decided as it'll be closed to the public. It is obviously not like an open street for WA and Lindo Wing where it's far harder to limit. A castle wall and the fact that St. George's doesn't have the same ownership structure as any public street obviously do make a difference. I'm saying if they think Harry is doing this because he's upset with the coverage, then perhaps they should take a look at what they've been printing and learn a lesson.

I've always maintain that there is collateral damage, but I understand where they are coming from both the fact that the press gets out of hand with their coverage and from the fact that this is ultimately not a state or even semi-state event.
 
Last edited:
You don’t have to agree with the complaints of royal photographers but that doesn’t mean their complaint isn’t valid.

On a normal day St Georges Chapel is open to the public. Anyone is allowed to attend services there. Anyone can stand outside and take pictures.

You’re clearly in the camp who supports just the PA taking pictures as the couple leave the church but that doesn’t help Getty, Rex, Shutterstock et al from competing.

However, this is not a normal day when tourists are filtering through the chapel grounds at St. George's. It's a private family wedding that Meghan and Harry have graciously allowed us to view, and by only allowing a certain amount of vetted individuals into the grounds. It's not the same. If it was, anyone in the public without being vetted could easily walk up the step and snap pictures Apples and Oranges.
 
Many agencies don’t care if they get a photo of the carriage ride. It’s the couple leaving the church that’s the money shot.

Then don't go. If the photographer and/or their agencies don't care about it, why bother? I'm sure they won't have problems filling those spots. I mean some keep saying Harry is only 6th in line, and thus doesn't matter. So why is any one up in arms about it? Or does he only not matter when it's convenient or in terms of getting anything. But he's expected to give just as much?
 
Last edited:
The streets of London are public as well but that doesn’t mean the Metropolitan Police can’t close them. Central London was closed for the Cambridge wedding.

The photographers outside the Abbey were in media pens, not hanging around on the pavement.

Harry has the freedom to restrict or allow whoever he wants outside his wedding but that’s doesn’t make it right.
 
Last edited:
The streets of London are public as well but The doesn’t mean the Metropolitan Police can’t close them. Central London was closed for the Cambridge wedding.

The photographers outside the Abbey were in media pens, not hanging around on the pavement.

Harry has the freedom to restrict or allow whoever he wants outside his wedding but that’s doesn’t make it right.

That right there was my point about the hypocrisy in terms of when Arthur was banned because The Sun's coverage, versus this.

And let's be real, they have media pens because they know it's better to get control over the situation than loose control of it. And yes, the public can close down the streets for events, but they are other places and buildings that they can be in to still capture a shot. Not so with Windsor Castle. And the castle is NOT the same as the streets. They are not public in the same sense, and thus the case for it to be completely forbidden is much harder unless it's a public event. And really, if you are going to have a state or semi-state wedding, it's much harder to justify the lack of access. This, however, is not a state or semi-state wedding.
 
Do we even know how many of these photographers who would have needed an area cordoned off for them? We are talking hundreds of photographers, in a small space, all vying for the attention of the bride and groom. This is not central London outside WA. And let's face it, looking at all of the images taken from different photographers at past royal events, they all almost always look the same. Why? Because they are in a bull pen, all with their cameras facing the same direction and shuttering away at a million miles per hour.

Again, I don't think it's one particular reason why access is limited, but a variety, and if this is what they feel they need, then so be it. The photogs are just going to have to grow up.
 
Last edited:
To my shock, this story was on today’s front page of the New York Times, with a big picture of Megan in the grey Anzac coat looking forlorn and Harry’s back of the head. The story made three important factual points to the basic story that access was restricted because of negative stories from the tabloids on Megan. First, that these stories are typical, they recounted several nasty stories from the Middleton’s, then, that the supposed defendant relationship between royals and the press has become tilted in favor of the royals because of the decline of print media. A curious point was made that the fail has readers mostly female over 65 which doesn’t jive with the comments made to the stories. but mostly it was the fact by unnamed sources that the princes hated the media because their mother died while trying to escape paparazzi on motorcycles chasing her car. Harry was quoted in an interview he gave last year, “ instead of helping, they were taking photographs of her dying on the back seat”
 
T“ instead of helping, they were taking photographs of her dying on the back seat”

Honestly, I believe the princes are grown adults and understand that they need to make nice with the press in order to move forward their charitable endeavors, and they will do their part. However, they will always be more guarded than a lot of people to the press because of what happened. That quote from Harry is quite simply haunting, even today. It's such a simple sentence, but captured such an ugly side of humanity. What can anyone say to that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom