The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I can see why the sun aren't getting good spots to picture anything.
 
Yep! Did the UK tabloids really think that they would have been rewarded with the best photo positions after the crap that they have written...as well as giving estranged friends and relatives full media access to denigrate and embarrass Meghan?
Let the tabloids now continue with their trash stories. When Harry and Meghan start their first tours, have their children (hopefully) etc the trash tabloids will again be side lined. Maybe the US media will be given more favourable access. We shall see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"My view is that they are taking control. The boys are taking control.”

Mr Edwards is damn right there, and I [for one] am glad of it. For DECADES the tabloid media [and paps] have fed off an institution they NEVER hesitate to damage, absolutely without the least consideration for anyone within it [not children, not 'newcomers'.. NO-ONE].
I have zero sympathy for their 'plight', and am pretty certain a majority my compatriots [regardless of their views on the Monarchy] feel the same..
 
I can understand Arthur Edward's disappointment too. Although he works for the Sun and that paper has not treated Harry and Meghan as a couple very nicely, Edwards has been around a long time and is actually a photographer that the royal family likes and gets along with nicely. I remember Kate coming out of the Lindo Wing with her newborn and pointing and say "Oh! There's Arthur!" and waving to Edwards.

I am going to be honest and state that I'm actually pleased that this wedding will not be overrun with reporters and photographers so close to the actual wedding. This keeps the wedding on the more intimate scale that Harry and Meghan have been wanting. We're definitely not going to be short on stories and pictures from the day but its just that its a chosen few that will actually be close and they will share what they get with the rest of the media.

This wedding is going to be tight on security and gaggles of media aren't going to be directly in their line of sight and I think that does make it more pleasurable for a family wedding and the bridal couple. It also tells me that most definitely that even if the Markle siblings have hopes of being close to the wedding because of being a media "royal correspondent", they are going to be sadly disappointed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
???
Mr Edwards is damn right there, and I [for one] am glad of it. For DECADES the tabloid media [and paps] have fed off an institution they NEVER hesitate to damage, absolutely without the least consideration for anyone within it [not children, not 'newcomers'.. NO-ONE].
I have zero sympathy for their 'plight', and am pretty certain a majority my compatriots [regardless of their views on the Monarchy] feel the same..

? Succinctly put. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. There are enough respectable outlets out there for the monarchy to get its point across without wallowing in the filth of tabloid culture.
 
Mr Edwards is damn right there, and I [for one] am glad of it. For DECADES the tabloid media [and paps] have fed off an institution they NEVER hesitate to damage, absolutely without the least consideration for anyone within it [not children, not 'newcomers'.. NO-ONE].
I have zero sympathy for their 'plight', and am pretty certain a majority my compatriots [regardless of their views on the Monarchy] feel the same..

Well said. They are a blight.


LaRae
 
While Arthur Edwards is well liked by at least some members of the royal family, I also understand why he wouldn't be given prime access due to who he works for. The Sun ran a number of unfair and unflattering headlines when the relationship came to light. And course, we had the war of the bums of Meghan's butt right on the front page from a paparazzi shot right before Pippa's wedding. Emily Andrews' justification for that was that the lads thought it looked good. Seriously? So, they are getting what they deserve.

Another thing we have to consider is that St. George's Chapel is located within the grounds of Windsor Castle, unlike WA, which is on a public street. I'd imagine the security of whom to let into the Castle grounds would be tight that day. They can't just have photographers wondering in and out. They can't stop them from camping out in front of the Abbey, but I doubt they'd let them do the same at Windsor Castle.
 
Britain’s Wedding-Mad Tabloids Feel a Cold Royal Shoulder. Wedding mad Photographers too. It's a real shame, with all of us previously enthusiastic tub thumpers for the Harry and Meghan union

Via James Whatling Twitter

He’s a royal photographer for people not in the know


I’ve covered over 25 royal weddings and never seen such a limited amount of media as for this months one. Britain’s Wedding-Mad Tabloids Get a Royal Cold Shoulder

Via Mark Cuthbert Twitter

Another royal photographer
 
According to a few royal reporters yesterday on Twitter, only PA will be outside the chapel by the steps. So the wide range of pictures that we are all used to in the past wont happen.

These photogs, incl Arthur are not paps - they are recognised professionals who have toured with all of the royals over theyears,

This change appears to be just with William and Harry. Its a 2 edged sword because they still need the media to get their messages re causes out into the wider domain. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

The NYT article is definitely worth reading - its more than just the wedding.
 
According to a few royal reporters yesterday on Twitter, only PA will be outside the chapel by the steps. So the wide range of pictures that we are all used to in the past wont happen.

These photogs, incl Arthur are not paps - they are recognised professionals who have toured with all of the royals over theyears,

This change appears to be just with William and Harry. Its a 2 edged sword because they still need the media to get their messages re causes out into the wider domain. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

The NYT article is definitely worth reading - its more than just the wedding.

I thought the NYT article said four or five outside the Chapel? But regardless, this is a private wedding. The couple is not obligated to share ANYTHING with the media. They've allowed access for cameras to televise the wedding and a procession for the public, all which they aren't obligated to do either as this isn't a state or even semi-state event.
 
Any media outlets dumb enough to hire the Markles and Dooleys as wedding correspondents deserve the worst media access. I wouldn't be surprised KP and Buckingham Palace reached out to those outlets and told them fire them or lose you're media credentials for the wedding. The Markles losing the gig for that reason is a rightful comeuppance.
 
I thought the NYT article said four or five outside the Chapel? But regardless, this is a private wedding. The couple is not obligated to share ANYTHING with the media. They've allowed access for cameras to televise the wedding and a procession for the public, all which they aren't obligated to do either as this isn't a state or even semi-state event.

So, this refrain about it being a "private wedding" may be true in some respects, but private weddings do not cost the public purse millions and millions in security.

Harry is a member of the BRF who will be supported by the public as he does duties on behalf of a national institution. Meghan will now too. Their wedding is not a private event and the public deserves access which comes through the media. Claiming so is IMO disingenuous.

So, I am of two minds: media access being curtailed simply because the Boys have feeling about the media is bad strategy in the long run bcause the BRF NEEDS the media. Full stop. Love them or hate them, the tabs and mainsteam media set the national narrative. If Harry wants events that mean something to him like IG to be covered, he has to play the game. That is the reality. I think it is a dumb move to so restrict the media myself. These are photographers who are yes, obnoxious at times, but they are not the Niraj Tanna's of the world, they are respected photojournalists.

On the other hand, these publications, not the photographers who are often freelancers who sell to wires, but the Fleet Street groups have been out of hand for years. Both royals and every day folks claimed back some control after Leveson, but the papers have been out for blood with Meghan for MONTHS. So I understand not being friendly toward the papers.

I just think the wedding is a bad avenue to exact that revenge.

For Arthur Edwards to speak so negatively about Harry is a big, big red flag.

I also agree that Harry has IMO come across more petulant in his dealings with the media which reads badly to the broader public. I get he is protective now of Meghan, but diplomacy is a practice.

BUT, broadcast media will have lots of access it seems.
 
Last edited:
The public purse is going to make many times over what the security costs from tourism etc related to the wedding.

Quite frankly I applaud it when Harry/William draw hard lines in the sand with the media. The media are lucky to have any access at all.



LaRae

I thought the NYT article said four or five outside the Chapel? But regardless, this is a private wedding. The couple is not obligated to share ANYTHING with the media. They've allowed access for cameras to televise the wedding and a procession for the public, all which they aren't obligated to do either as this isn't a state or even semi-state event.

I read one inside the Chapel and four or five outside the Chapel and then dozens (if not hundreds) along the carriage route etc.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boo hoo. I have ZERO sympathy for him or the rest of them.


LaRae
 
Harry is a member of the BRF who will be supported by the public as he does duties on behalf of a national institution. Meghan will now too. Their wedding is not a private event and the public deserves access which comes through the media. Claiming so is IMO disingenuous.

Just to set something straight here. Royal security is actually the *only* thing that is paid for directly from the taxpayer's purse.

As far as paying for the engagements and duties and such, I believe it is funded by the Sovereign Grant, the payment which is paid annually to the Monarch by the Government in order to fund the Monarch's official duties. That payment is based on the profits from the Crown Estates. Things like Harry and Meghan's working wardrobe are covered by Charles.

Looking at it this way. Any security that will be in place for this upcoming wedding is not only for the bride and the groom and the royal family but for each and every member of the public in the vicinity.
 
Folks everyone knows William doesn’t like the press but this wedding isn’t about William. Arthur Edwards says in the story this is Harry’s doing.

Press wasn’t limited at the wedding in 2011. Press isn’t limited in front of the Lindo Wing for royal births. William makes sure we see the children.

We had video and photographs for George’s first day of school.

I mention this only to keep the mods happy and not have yet another thread go off topic
 
Last edited:
Folks everyone knows William doesn’t like the press but this wedding isn’t about William. Arthur Edwards says in the story this is Harry’s doing.

Press wasn’t limited at the wedding in 2011. Press isn’t limited in front of the Lindo Wing for royal births. William makes sure we see the children.

We had video and photographs for George first day of school.

I mention this only to keep the mods happy and not have yet another thread go off topic


Actually, Arthur says this is the "boys taking control" because this is part of an overall media strategy shift. Not just Harry. No one was comparing the two in any way that is against the rules :ermm:

And the media complains plenty about William not giving access to the kids. The press wasn't limited at the Abbey because there are public streets directly across.

Let's not act like William is a paragon of press diplomacy. Or that Harry is entirely alone in his sentiments. The article talks about both and the wedding marking an overall shift in the relationship.
 
:previous:

I said William doesn’t like the press but this is the quote I’m talking about

“Mr. Edwards, 77, a veteran of seven royal weddings, said he assumed the decision was Prince Harry’s. “I can’t imagine the press officer advising that to the prince,” Mr. Edwards said. “He and Meghan have seen what’s been written and said, ‘We don’t want anyone near the wedding.’ That’s a clear message, yeah.”

William doesn’t control Harry’s wedding. You can try and muddy the waters but this one is on Hazza
 
:previous:

I said William doesn’t like the press but this is the quote I’m talking about

“Mr. Edwards, 77, a veteran of seven royal weddings, said he assumed the decision was Prince Harry’s. “I can’t imagine the press officer advising that to the prince,” Mr. Edwards said. “He and Meghan have seen what’s been written and said, ‘We don’t want anyone near the wedding.’ That’s a clear message, yeah.”

William doesn’t control Harry’s wedding. You can try and muddy the waters but this one is on Hazza

I'm sorry, but what part of the "boys taking control" is not understood? It started before Harry and this wedding with William drawing a line in the sand, and it seems that the wedding is the "icing on the cake" so to speak. This has been building up with both William and Harry for years, and the wedding was the perfect time to ensure that they meant business.
 
:previous:

I said William doesn’t like the press but this is the quote I’m talking about

“Mr. Edwards, 77, a veteran of seven royal weddings, said he assumed the decision was Prince Harry’s. “I can’t imagine the press officer advising that to the prince,” Mr. Edwards said. “He and Meghan have seen what’s been written and said, ‘We don’t want anyone near the wedding.’ That’s a clear message, yeah.”

William doesn’t control Harry’s wedding. You can try and muddy the waters but this one is on Hazza

Actually I think the big culprit here is the venue. Westminster Abbey and the area around it is public accessible. St. George's Chapel is on private land of Windsor Castle where there is more freedom to set the limits on who will be close and who won't be. We saw that there were certain invitations issued to people to actually be on the grounds of the chapel for the wedding. These people are vetted ahead of time so they know who is outside and no chances of someone with nefarious intents is going to get close.

This is Harry and Meghan's wedding and they're calling the shots for how it is dealt with as far as the public goes and that includes the media. They very well could have closed this wedding off to everyone and only let the press and the public in on the carriage ride through Windsor.
 
Folks everyone knows William doesn’t like the press but this wedding isn’t about William. Arthur Edwards says in the story this is Harry’s doing.

Press wasn’t limited at the wedding in 2011. Press isn’t limited in front of the Lindo Wing for royal births. William makes sure we see the children.

We had video and photographs for George’s first day of school.

I mention this only to keep the mods happy and not have yet another thread go off topic

And last I checked no media is barred from this wedding. It will be well covered by all sorts of media. Their issue is they dislike the access and frankly, oh well.

I see one photographer saying this should be a time of healing yet these same photographers sell their work to these publications that turn around and attack the royals and royals to be using their images. They can't have it both ways. They will be in attendance. They will just have to make do. They always manage.
 
William’s to blame for everything. Even limited access to a wedding he has nothing to do with is William’s fault. :lol:

This is getting to be too funny
 
Who blaming William exactly? I've yet to see anyone say that.
 
Actually I think the big culprit here is the venue. Westminster Abbey and the area around it is public accessible. St. George's Chapel is on private land of Windsor Castle where there is more freedom to set the limits on who will be close and who won't be. We saw that there were certain invitations issued to people to actually be on the grounds of the chapel for the wedding. These people are vetted ahead of time so they know who is outside and no chances of someone with nefarious intents is going to get close.

This is Harry and Meghan's wedding and they're calling the shots for how it is dealt with as far as the public goes and that includes the media. They very well could have closed this wedding off to everyone and only let the press and the public in on the carriage ride through Windsor.

I think you are quite right in your assessment.
 
William’s to blame for everything. Even limited access to a wedding he has nothing to do with is William’s fault. :lol:

This is getting to be too funny

I find nothing funny about this. You specifically stated that Harry was to blame per the article, yet conveniently stated that it has nothing to with William, when the photographer in question specifically stated that the boys were taking control. I pointed out that this control began before this wedding, and that the wedding was the precipice.
 
The “boys” are taking back control but Harry and Meghan are free to do what they want. It’s their wedding. William isn’t the bogeyman for his brothers wedding. Does Harry tell William how often he should have his children photographed?
 
I think that NYT headline is misleading. Britain's tabloids aren't 'wedding mad' about the May 19th nuptials, and have not been 'wedding mad' since the couple were known to be dating.

In fact I have never seen a more sour, snide and nasty set of stories about the background of a bride about to marry into the BRF in my life.

I'm sorry Arthur Edwards is upset. He's always been fond of Harry and gets on well with most members of the BRF.

However, if he thought that Harry was going to beam and suck up all the sarcasm, lies and innuendos about Meghan and allow full range to the tabloids on his wedding day, then he must have been extraordinarily optimistic. Harry's extra protective of Meghan. The British tabs must know that, since the November 2016 KP statement. However they still went full-pelt on his fiancee.

And Arthur knows very well why the restrictive access has been put in place otherwise he wouldn't say 'He and Meghan have seen what has been written..and said 'We don't want anyone near the wedding'.

Yes, correct! And if the tabloids had been just a bit nicer, just a bit fairer, a bit more welcoming of a foreigner who is going to marry into the BRF, things might well have been different.
 
Last edited:
And last I checked no media is barred from this wedding. It will be well covered by all sorts of media. Their issue is they dislike the access and frankly, oh well.

I see one photographer saying this should be a time of healing yet these same photographers sell their work to these publications that turn around and attack the royals and royals to be using their images. They can't have it both ways. They will be in attendance. They will just have to make do. They always manage.

Exactly.

The photographers are whining because THEY won't be able to get the money shots, but the money shots will be taken. Every aspect of this wedding will be covered by the media, through live tv, photographs etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom