The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, I predict that we'll discover Harry and Meghan's kids will have similar upbringing to the Wessexs, likely declining HRHs once Charles becomes King and having only occasional updates on the kids (possibly just birthdays, Christmas cards, and miscellaneous family events).
 
"Even Charles’s love life was choreographed for him with the sort of elaborate care and tact usually reserved for pandas in captivity. " :eek: :D

[...] the quote about the choreographing of Prince Charles' love life absolutely takes the cake. ;)

Hopefully, Princes William and Harry understand how fortunate they are to be modern day princes [...] they have been able to avoid the panda treatment when it comes to their love lives. :D

S0 funny. :flowers: I have to admit the review is depressing, albeit funny.

Also illuminating. When one considers the full angst of Charles' personal challenges, and what he was greeted with at Gordonstoun, his first marital experience takes on a particular gruesomeness (and we can only be happy for his second marriage). But what strikes me is how much the British public's reaction and treatment of Charles winds up being Gordonstoun 'writ large'. :sad:

When that marriage exploded, Diana’s superior instincts for wooing and handling the press insured that Charles emerged as the villain of the piece. But it seems safe to say that the union visited equal misery on both parties. One of the chief marital shocks for Charles was Diana’s lack of deference. He had assumed that the slightly vapid teenager he was settling for would at least be docile, but she turned out to be the biggest bully he had encountered since Gordonstoun. She taunted his pomposity, calling him “the Great White Hope” and “the Boy Wonder.” She told him that he would never become king and that he looked ridiculous in his medals. When he tried to end heated arguments by kneeling down to say his prayers before bed, she would keep shrieking and hit him over the head while he prayed.

Good grief! :sad:
 
Last edited:
Yep, I predict that we'll discover Harry and Meghan's kids will have similar upbringing to the Wessexs, likely declining HRHs once Charles becomes King and having only occasional updates on the kids (possibly just birthdays, Christmas cards, and miscellaneous family events).

I'm going to disagree a bit. :cool: Of course, I don't know, because declining the HRH was not only what Edward did but what Anne did before him. The difference is that Harry is one of two siblings, whereas the Queen had four children. Seems like Harry is 'needed' more, but maybe not. Maybe Meghan and Harry do official duties and the children are kept behind the screen like Anne's were and like Edward's are now with no HRH.

But if the above happens the press will not be happy. However, declining the HRH will protect their children for sure.
 
Last edited:
Boo hoo. I have ZERO sympathy for him or the rest of them.


LaRae

I do. Arthur Edwards is not a paparazzi. He is a longtime professional photographer who covers Royal events. He doesn't lurk in bushes.
ETA-sorry, didn't see note to move discussion until long after I posted and then finished reading the thread.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to disagree a bit. :cool: Of course, I don't know, because declining the HRH was not only what Edward did but what Anne did before him. The difference is that Harry is one of two siblings, whereas the Queen had four children. Seems like Harry is 'needed' more, but maybe not. Maybe Meghan and Harry do official duties and the children are kept behind the screen like Anne's were and like Edward's are now with no HRH.

Anne’s children would’ve never been HRH even if Mark Phillips accepted a title. The HRH is only for grandchildren of the monarch through the male line.
 
Anne’s children would’ve never been HRH even if Mark Phillips accepted a title. The HRH is only for grandchildren of the monarch through the male line.

Oh. :flowers: Didn't know that. So if Harry and Meghan refuse the HRH for their children that will be news, akin to what Edward and Sophie did. If that happens the press will not be happy we can assume, not so? However, declining the HRH will protect their children, I think.
 
Oh. :flowers: Didn't know that. So if Harry and Meghan refuse the HRH for their children that will be news, akin to what Edward and Sophie did. If that happens the press will not be happy we can assume, not so? However, declining the HRH will protect their children, I think.

At this moment, they wouldn’t be HRHs unless the Queen issued a new LP like she did for Charlotte making all children of the eldest son of PoW HRHs. The HRH title would only come in when Charles becomes king, and they become grandchildren of a monarch rather than just great grandchildren of QEII. However, I don’t think this issue will be dragged out until Charles becomes king. I think it’d be safe to assume they would go the Wessex route if no new LP is issued when their first child is born. Meaning their children will always be addressed as children of Duke even if it’s not spelled out explicitly at the time of the birth.

And frankly, the press does not get a consideration in the matter as any children they have will be private citizens and will not be working royals.
 
Last edited:
But those photographs line the pockets of the those tabloid. And your comparison of WSJ and NYT to National Enquirer or OK is not accurate in this case. Arthur Edwards works for The Sun. That's a tabloid, not the "elites" you speak of. And just to point out, they are not denying anyone photos. All photos the AP takes will be shared with other outlets, just like BBC's live feed will be sent to others as well. It's not like AP will get the exclusive publishing rights and they are leaving the rest in the dust.

And to go after the publication is almost useless as they have to publish an apology, but that's about it. And what does it do in the end? They weren't in the business to be accurate or fair in the first place, they are there to sensationalize. The only effective way is to go after their pockets.

I don't think that is true-the photos will not be "shared" they will have to be purchased to use them. And there will be fewer photos available from fewer angles.
 
Honestly yes Arthur covers royal events (though he is usually relegated to Charles tours and such), but he does work for the Sun. He is not a freelance photographer. He is not a 'royal photographer' in he works for the royal family. He is hired by the Sun to cover their stories about the royal family. He may not write the stories that accompany his photos, but he knows what those stories are just the same. The reality is that the sun has been one of the worst in their tabloid coverage of Meghan.

No one but the photographers suffer. All the 'the public deserves to see the wedding'. No one is arguing that point. Certainly Harry isn't.

Does the public care if they get 10,000 different shots?? No. They care they get to see the wedding and the big moments. And they will. There will be a live video of the wedding. There will be a photographer in the church. There will be photographs outside. The public will not suffer at all for the lack of bodies. They will see all the important and even minor parts of the wedding.


This is nothing new. This is how it is handled at major events. Do you think freelance photographers get invited into major political events or dinners? No. They need 'press passes' and those usually are obtained by working for a major publication. If you are a freelancer, you are lucky to get a photo from a public street. Like the carriage passing here.


This is not London. This is not a public church on public property, where there is room for all the press they want. Besides being on private ground, there will be over 2000 people watching out side the church. And some how they seem a tad more important then photographers at this point.

Arthur should watch it. If he wants his 'good relationship with the royals' to continue, making such comments about Harry is not going to help. Does he think Charles will be inviting him for photo ops, if he is bad mouthing Harry? Maybe, but seems a risk to take.

If the royal photogs are hurt over not being able to be right at the church, sorry they can be replaced. There are plenty of people who would likely be happy to become the 'royal photographer' for the sun and follow royals on tours.


Do we know which photographers did get the golden ticket anyways??
 
That's not the issue.







LaRae



Yep it is the issue his job is to take royal photos that’s what he does for a living
For Will and Kate to look out for him shows that they respect him and he respects them.
 
I do. Arthur Edwards is not a paparazzi. He is a longtime professional photographer who covers Royal events. He doesn't lurk in bushes.
ETA-sorry, didn't see note to move discussion until long after I posted and then finished reading the thread.

No, not in bushes, just mangrove swamps. I have a long memory. It was dear sweet, cuddly old Arthur (not so old then) who crept on his belly through mangrove swamps to photograph a pregnant Diana when she was having a private holiday with her husband and was on the beach in her bikini. I believe that breach of privacy earned a reproof from BP.
 
Last edited:
At this moment, they wouldn’t be HRHs unless the Queen issued a new LP like she did for Charlotte making all children of the eldest son of PoW HRHs. The HRH title would only come in when Charles becomes king, and they become grandchildren of a monarch rather than just great grandchildren of QEII. However, I don’t think this issue will be dragged out until Charles becomes king. I think it’d be safe to assume they would go the Wessex route if no new LP is issued when their first child is born. Meaning their children will always be addressed as children of Duke even if it’s not spelled out explicitly at the time of the birth.

And frankly, the press does not get a consideration in the matter as any children they have will be private citizens and will not be working royals.

Understood. :flowers: Thank you. Regarding the press, my mention was solely to do with the fact that I believe Harry and Meghan are going to be a very charismatic couple, with the result that interest in their family/children will always be intense. Hence, the press will always be trying to get copy and photos regarding them. The Wessexes were left alone, and still are pretty much, but I don't think that will hold for Harry and Meghan. We'll see.
 
I haven't read Bedell's book yet. It's not something that's on the top of my reading list. [...]

As far as the New Yorker reviewer's critique of Bedell's biography, and of Prince Charles, don't you guys get the full-on sarcasm and humor of it all, even if the review is downright serious albeit replete with tongue-in-cheek jabs at both Charles and Bedell? :lol: [Apparently some posters' responses to the review were deleted after I submitted this post?]

There's more in the review that I find interesting. :flowers: I think it's a more worthy piece of reviewing than maybe others do?

I find much stated dead-on: pertaining as to why the Queen is so well-regarded, for example. Finally someone has elucidated why she is regarded as so successful, which has always puzzled me.

A constitutional monarchy requires that the sovereign—and, by extension, the prospective sovereign—be above politics. Their symbolic power and their ability to work with elected governments in a disinterested manner depend on their maintaining an impeccable neutrality on all matters of public policy. The Queen’s enduring inscrutability is often cited as one of the great achievements of her reign, and she has fulfilled her duties to everyone’s satisfaction, with no mystical knowledge beyond dog breeding and horse handicapping.

And then it goes into how Charles was shaped and molded in his intellect, with the puzzling irony that for a man wanting to just do good he is viciously mocked. All the negatives previously piled up make his outcome all the more significant imo. I am intrigued. I have the book: it sits on the side table with a pile of other un-read books. I will get to it in time, maybe during the family vacation this month. Looking forward to reading it. Looks to be, by this review, to be a good read. :flowers:
 
At this moment, they wouldn’t be HRHs unless the Queen issued a new LP like she did for Charlotte making all children of the eldest son of PoW HRHs. The HRH title would only come in when Charles becomes king, and they become grandchildren of a monarch rather than just great grandchildren of QEII. However, I don’t think this issue will be dragged out until Charles becomes king. I think it’d be safe to assume they would go the Wessex route if no new LP is issued when their first child is born. Meaning their children will always be addressed as children of Duke even if it’s not spelled out explicitly at the time of the birth.

And frankly, the press does not get a consideration in the matter as any children they have will be private citizens and will not be working royals.

I have to disagree about this part. Ever since his birth, it has been said that Diana was worried about Harry's status as the spare, and she did everything she could to help him carry this burden and not feel left out. The Royal family's worries about Harry were compounded after her death (mainly Charles, William, The Queen, and Prince Philip). Hence their indulgence during his trouble years (Fights with paparazzi when exiting clubs, the heavy partying, the drinking, the marijuana episode et al). It is well known that Harry along with lady Zara Chatto are the favorite grandchildren of the queen. This is why I believe there has been this leniency ever since the engagement. Meghan at Sandringham for xmas, Meghan partaking in official events before being officially married. All of this happened because it is about Harry. If Harry accepts a Dukedom for his wedding, in due time special LPs will be issued for his children to make them HRHs and Princes/Princesses of the UK. After all they will be grandchildren in the male line of a monarch. HRHs and Princes/Princesses of the UK does not only mean working royal, but it is also a matter status. Not giving his children this status would defeat everything Diana worked for to insure the status of spare not be a burden for Harry, by pointing out the difference between him and William (though there is indeed a difference). The only way i think his children won't be HRHs is if he himself refuses. He won't be deprived of it from a top down decision imposed on him, but only time will tell
 
I have to disagree about this part. Ever since his birth, it has been said that Diana was worried about Harry's status as the spare, and she did everything she could to help him carry this burden and not feel left out. The Royal family's worries about Harry were compounded after her death (mainly Charles, William, The Queen, and Prince Philip). Hence their indulgence during his trouble years (Fights with paparazzi when exiting clubs, the heavy partying, the drinking, the marijuana episode et al). It is well known that Harry along with lady Zara Chatto are the favorite grandchildren of the queen. This is why I believe there has been this leniency ever since the engagement. Meghan at Sandringham for xmas, Meghan partaking in official events before being officially married. All of this happened because it is about Harry. If Harry accepts a Dukedom for his wedding, in due time special LPs will be issued for his children to make them HRHs and Princes/Princesses of the UK. After all they will be grandchildren in the male line of a monarch. HRHs and Princes/Princesses of the UK does not only mean working royal, but it is also a matter status. Not giving his children this status would defeat everything Diana worked for to insure the status of spare not be a burden for Harry, by pointing out the difference between him and William (though there is indeed a difference). The only way i think his children won't be HRHs is if he himself refuses. He won't be deprived of it from a top down decision imposed on him, but only time will tell
Lady Zara Chatto doesn't exist. One of Margaret's children is Lady Sarah Chatto but she is not a grandchild of the queen. The queen's eldest granddaughter is Mrs Mike Tindall (née Zara Phillips).

The discussion about Harry's title and his children's titles has been discussed extensively in the appropriate topic. There is no reason to issue an LP as they automatically become HRH when Charles ascends the throne (if he never does they won't). I see little reason to expedite this process by making them HRH earlier on. And related to this topic, not making them HRH at that point might save them quite some media backlash for life.
 
Isn't it interesting, Arthur Edwards, Gentleman and Royal Photographer, has gotten what he wanted. He is the voice for all those who were not the one that scored the inside job or the one just outside the Chapel.

The man is a disingenuous creep blaming "the boys" and in particular Harry. The boys grew into men over a decade ago, or perhaps he missed it. Harry has won his last complaint against the Mail Online for breaching the law, just as William did before him.

Unlike their father or grandfathers generation, they do not see any virtue in suffering in silence when the paparazzi pick, pry and just plain broke the law. But Arthur wants to stick it to Harry for no other reason than the wedding is being held at St Georges and not Westminster Abbey, because geography is the source of the access problem.

Essentially, the road is a dead end and H & M arranged for a special group to be opposite the Chapel door the steps will be lined and the stairs basically used in lieu of the "Balcony" as Windsor doesn't have a balcony and is on private and secure land, photos are going to be taken there.

Arthur knows this but it doesn't sound nearly as nasty and entitled as "Harry snubbing the Media". And he wonders why they don't like the press!
 
If all that’s true why do Will and Kate look for him and make sure he gets a photo
 
Another so called snub? No new pictures of Charlotte. Press basically were told to just saw her. That's good enough.
 
If all that’s true why do Will and Kate look for him and make sure he gets a photo

That hasn’t always been the case as Arthur was once banned by the Palace for pictures taken of William and Kate that were published by the Sun.
 
We’ll see Charlotte at the wedding, Trooping the Colour and more than likely Louis’ christening.

There’s no snub because they’ve never had photo ops for birthdays. Royal photographers who are complaining about the royal wedding are wishing Charlotte a happy birthday today

Hard to believe Princess Charlotte is 3 today. #royal #princesscharlotte #birthday #kensingtonpalace

Mark Cuthbert Twitter


It doesn't seem that long ago that we were waiting at #lindowing for Princess Charlotte to leave hospital as a baby now she's three.Happy Birthday Princess Charlotte #HappyBirthday #Royals

Royal Focus Twitter
 
No, not in bushes, just mangrove swamps. I have a long memory. It was dear sweet, cuddly old Arthur (not so old then) who crept on his belly through mangrove swamps to photograph a pregnant Diana when she was having a private holiday with her husband and was on the beach in her bikini. I believe that breach of privacy earned a reproof from BP.


And then there was the time he was in trouble for selling pics of W&K to a tabloid IIRC.


LaRae

Yep it is the issue his job is to take royal photos that’s what he does for a living
For Will and Kate to look out for him shows that they respect him and he respects them.


I doubt it....better to deal with the devil you know sometimes. Still again, nothing to do with the issue. He's boohooing around because he wasn't picked or Harry doesn't say hello now as if he has no idea why or has never gotten his hands dirty. Please.

I have no sympathy for any of them.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That hasn’t always been the case as Arthur was once banned by the Palace for pictures taken of William and Kate that were published by the Sun.

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
 
Last edited:
Arthur was the photographer who crawled on his belly through mangrove swamps to get a photo of a pregnant Diana. She was in a bikini on the beach enjoying a private holiday with her husband. I think BP issued a reproof for that breach of privacy.
 
We’ll see Charlotte at the wedding, Trooping the Colour and more than likely Louis’ christening.

There’s no snub because they’ve never had photo ops for birthdays. Royal photographers who are complaining about the royal wedding are wishing Charlotte a happy birthday today

Hard to believe Princess Charlotte is 3 today. #royal #princesscharlotte #birthday #kensingtonpalace

Mark Cuthbert Twitter


It doesn't seem that long ago that we were waiting at #lindowing for Princess Charlotte to leave hospital as a baby now she's three.Happy Birthday Princess Charlotte #HappyBirthday #Royals

Royal Focus Twitter

Except many very much thought it.

As for the congrats. Did you think they wouldn't? I mean come on. Just like the same ones upset now will be at the wedding on the 19th and doing the same. Watch their spaces in two weeks. Will be interesting to see how things shift again.

It's not personal. There is no ill will towards these royal photographers like Arthur and James.
 
Except many very much thought it.

I haven’t seen royal photographers complaining about it which is what this thread is about.

As for general royal fandom on social media, you never please them anyway.
 
We’ll see Charlotte at the wedding, Trooping the Colour and more than likely Louis’ christening.

There’s no snub because they’ve never had photo ops for birthdays. Royal photographers who are complaining about the royal wedding are wishing Charlotte a happy birthday today

Hard to believe Princess Charlotte is 3 today. #royal #princesscharlotte #birthday #kensingtonpalace

Mark Cuthbert Twitter


It doesn't seem that long ago that we were waiting at #lindowing for Princess Charlotte to leave hospital as a baby now she's three.Happy Birthday Princess Charlotte #HappyBirthday #Royals

Royal Focus Twitter

Just like they will when major things happen in Harry’s life. They whine, and then they get over it.
 
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

Haven’t some of us said that this isn’t personal? But of any of the photographers they let in, it won’t ever be the ones working for tabloid. Some are just pointing out Arthur Edwards isn’t always innoncent himself as some tried to paint him as above it all. He clearly isn’t. But sometimes it’s not even necessarily about that.

Btw, why do people think Harry should give unfettered access for his wedding because William did? Why should he be nearly as accommodating? I keep hearing about how Harry isn’t important, he’s the sixth in line blah blah blah. If that’s the case, first why would the photographers even give a crap? He’s no big deal right? Second, if he’s not given as much as his brother, then he should be expected to give as much. I’m not sure why people keep harping on about what place he is in line to the throne when it comes to what he should get, some have even complained about the amount of military involvement, and now some of the sameness people are upset about how Harry is being mean. This should please those people.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it interesting, Arthur Edwards, Gentleman and Royal Photographer, has gotten what he wanted. He is the voice for all those who were not the one that scored the inside job or the one just outside the Chapel.

The man is a disingenuous creep blaming "the boys" and in particular Harry. The boys grew into men over a decade ago, or perhaps he missed it. Harry has won his last complaint against the Mail Online for breaching the law, just as William did before him.

Unlike their father or grandfathers generation, they do not see any virtue in suffering in silence when the paparazzi pick, pry and just plain broke the law. But Arthur wants to stick it to Harry for no other reason than the wedding is being held at St Georges and not Westminster Abbey, because geography is the source of the access problem.

Essentially, the road is a dead end and H & M arranged for a special group to be opposite the Chapel door the steps will be lined and the stairs basically used in lieu of the "Balcony" as Windsor doesn't have a balcony and is on private and secure land, photos are going to be taken there.

Arthur knows this but it doesn't sound nearly as nasty and entitled as "Harry snubbing the Media". And he wonders why they don't like the press!

Except a photographer who has covered royal weddings at St. Georges before have said there wasn't an issue of space at those weddings.
 
I don't think they had as large of a guest list or need for space at other weddings there.


LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom