The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:14 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #682  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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.
__________________

  #683  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:19 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,183
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.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #684  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
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.
  #685  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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? 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.
  #686  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
  #687  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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?
  #688  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:30 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
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.
  #689  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
  #690  
Old 05-02-2018, 08:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
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.
  #691  
Old 05-02-2018, 10:41 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,564
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”
  #692  
Old 05-02-2018, 11:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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?
  #693  
Old 05-03-2018, 03:41 AM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 631
Official photographers for established media organisations are not the same as paparazzi. These photographers are the people William and Kate invite into their homes to take pictures of their children for official release. Yet Harry somehow feels they're not deserving of equal opportunity at his very public, very expensive wedding?

The Queen and Charles need to take Harry aside and make him rethink his entire approach. Charles is going to be subsidising Harry and Meghan to the tune of many millions for the foreseeable future and so he has a right to be heard on this.

Many elements of the British media have been absolutely appalling in their treatment of lots of royals over the years. Living and growing up here, Meghan's has not felt particularly worse than what Kate has received. It's not even in the same stratosphere of what Charles and Camilla lived through and yet they understand that the monarchy cannot survive without the goodwill of the majority of the British press.

Harry is cutting off his nose to spite his face. If he makes an enemy of the press then things will only get worse for Meghan and their family, not better. He needs to be pragmatic about this as his father and grandmother have had to be. The alternative is that he renounce his titles, get a regular job and move to America with Meghan.
  #694  
Old 05-03-2018, 04:38 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,095
This is a private wedding that Harry and Meghan have all but lost control of because of the needs of the people. He envisioned much the same as Edward and Sophie's and rightly so. Instead, people are talking about him like he is obligated to do what the media want when and where they want it. Earlier it was alleged that he chose St Georges for no other reason than to thwart the media.

I do not believe the arrangements are all on Harry. TPTB handle the minutia of the occasion and Prince Charles blessing was the last ceremony of import held in St Georges. I would be interested to see how they handled the media inside and outside of St Georges. TV coverage, photographers and journalists. We would at least have a yardstick as to what was possible.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #695  
Old 05-03-2018, 10:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
Official photographers for established media organisations are not the same as paparazzi. These photographers are the people William and Kate invite into their homes to take pictures of their children for official release. Yet Harry somehow feels they're not deserving of equal opportunity at his very public, very expensive wedding?

The Queen and Charles need to take Harry aside and make him rethink his entire approach. Charles is going to be subsidising Harry and Meghan to the tune of many millions for the foreseeable future and so he has a right to be heard on this.

Many elements of the British media have been absolutely appalling in their treatment of lots of royals over the years. Living and growing up here, Meghan's has not felt particularly worse than what Kate has received. It's not even in the same stratosphere of what Charles and Camilla lived through and yet they understand that the monarchy cannot survive without the goodwill of the majority of the British press.

Harry is cutting off his nose to spite his face. If he makes an enemy of the press then things will only get worse for Meghan and their family, not better. He needs to be pragmatic about this as his father and grandmother have had to be. The alternative is that he renounce his titles, get a regular job and move to America with Meghan.
I'm wondering why you somehow think decisions like this would be made without consulting the PoW and the Queen. Even the fact that they wanted no politician on the guest list was consulted with the government. So, I'm assuming they also consulted with PoW and the Queen in the process on that. And it's still debatable whether an arrangement would be made with PA to just release those photos and share with everyone rather than having publications pay for it. Someone who has worked in journalism in posts above has said this is likely to be treated the same as BBC sharing live footage with all channels. If that's the case, then it seems that Harry and Meghan basically choose to give the public a view without having people make a profit off of it. What is wrong with?

Last I check, security is paid by the public, not just royal photographers or tabloids. They are not denying the public anything, so I'm not sure why his "public" or "expensive" wedding has to do with only allowed four or five photographers in. If the royal photographers want to complain about not being able to profit off this, then do so, but don't act like this is for the public's benefit. We are getting the shot regardless of them. And let's not act like the security expense is all for Harry and Meghan. If they decided to make it completely closed off to public, this would be a lot cheaper. However, there will be an outcry from the public, and obviously the couple takes the public's feeling into this, and hence the much higher security expense. However, I'm sideeyeing somehow they have to take into account photographers' feelings for not being able to profit off of their wedding.
  #696  
Old 05-03-2018, 11:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
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.
Great post. All excellent points.
  #697  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
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.
I appreciate that you acknowledge both sides have a point instead of going in and saying how Harry is making a mistake and this is terrible and blah blah blah.
  #698  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,250
The legitimate press and accredited photographers did not have complete unfettered access for either W&K's wedding or the photos of their newborn children leaving the hospital. Roads were closed and the press was restricted to certain locations-but they were there doing their jobs and providing the photographs for positive life events that make people feel warm towards the Royal Family. There is a difference between one set of cameras in the church versus a pen of photographers outside the church.
And Harry is now a senior working member of the Royal Family-he isn't completely a private individual.
  #699  
Old 05-03-2018, 01:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The legitimate press and accredited photographers did not have complete unfettered access for either W&K's wedding or the photos of their newborn children leaving the hospital. Roads were closed and the press was restricted to certain locations-but they were there doing their jobs and providing the photographs for positive life events that make people feel warm towards the Royal Family. There is a difference between one set of cameras in the church versus a pen of photographers outside the church.
And Harry is now a senior working member of the Royal Family-he isn't completely a private individual.
He's not restricted access when he's working. However, this is a private affair that they have the right to control access just like how we see photos of the Cambridge children. and there will be more than one set of camera in the church. There will be four or five photographers seeing them coming out of the church, so we will get multiple angles. And in this case, they could actually work out the better angles rather than pack everybody so close together and hope for a good shot.
  #700  
Old 05-03-2018, 01:15 PM
Missy-'s Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Beautiful PNW, United States
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Because the papers brought it up. More specifically DM brought that up in a write up about a false story that's already been denied by Oprah's rep. And used a quote that Meghan said her mom said in a completely wrong context to show she's trying to profit off of the royal couple.

If we wonder why there is limitation, perhaps look at coverage like that.
Ah, I see now that there are drawbacks to the 'ignore' feature.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british royal family, caricatures, cartoons, fleet street, newspapers, tabloid press


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
Madeleine and Chris: Media and Public Opinion LadyFinn Princess Madeleine, Chris O'Neill and Family 743 12-20-2015 09:30 PM
Dutch Royal House Code of Conduct for the Press (Media Code) Silvermj Dutch Royals 41 06-30-2014 06:15 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales chittagong countess of snowdon crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history felipe vi foundation french revolution friendly city genealogy germany head of the house henry v hill house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha kiko letter lithuanian castles marriage meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco christening monaco history monarchism monogram naples nelson mandela bay nobel 2019 norwegian royal family official visit palaces potential areas prince harry prince of wales rumania russian imperial family saudi arabia shakespeare south africa south korea spain spanish history state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty tracts united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×