The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

His marriage is not an entirely private affair as the queen had to grant permission for him to marry (and whether any children have succession rights also depends on this official permission); without it, he would be out of his job :flowers:
 
His marriage is not an entirely private affair as the queen had to grant permission for him to marry (and whether any children have succession rights also depends on this official permission); without it, he would be out of his job :flowers:

At one point, the Queen had to grant permission to EVERYONE in line to the throne, never meant that everyone requiring her permission can't have a private wedding. This wedding has been classified as such, hence no bank holiday and no foreign dignitaries at all.
 
The flour or five photographers thing came from the NYT. The press and photographers in the U.K. have already said it will be just the PA outside in front of the church.

Photographers from other agencies are on the sides or along the route. Look back to when the Cambridges exited WA. There were all kinds of photographers there from all agencies not just one.
 
The flour or five photographers thing came from the NYT. The press and photographers in the U.K. have already said it will be just the PA outside in front of the church.

Photographers from other agencies are on the sides or along the route. Look back to when the Cambridges exited WA. There were all kinds of photographers there from all agencies not just one.

Does PA have only one photographer or something? Because there was quite a bit of chatter about how we won't get it from different angles and blah blah blah blah. So there goes that argument. Public isn't loosing out here. And again, public street and castle grounds are not the same thing. There are ways for the photographers to set up as soon as they get on street. If you can't stop them, manage them. And why does Harry have to give as much access as William? I seem to recall people saying he's not that important. Then fine, don't expect as much access.
 
Does PA have only one photographer or something? And again, public street and castle grounds are not the same thing. There are ways for the photographers to set up as soon as they get on street. If you can't stop them, manage them. And why does Harry have to give as much access as William? I seem to recall people saying he's not that important. Then fine, don't expect as much access.

The streets were closed off in 2011. No different from the castle grounds. I don’t know why you keep saying public street as if people were coming and going.

Anyone outside WA was accredited and in designated press areas. Not just anyone could be there.
 
I think the crux of the matter lies in one simple sentence. When it comes to Harry and Meghan's wedding, *any* access at all is a privilege and not a right.

Its their day. They're planning it. They're going to be the ones getting married and who they invite to the wedding is their choice. Everyone else is basically a bystander with an interest in this couple tying the knot. ?
 
A media question about People's report that Tom Sr. is coming to the wedding. Sam and Jr have been going back and forth about their dad being invited. They recently landed on no. If the half sibs knew all along Dad was going and told the tabloids the opposite ( and took their money) how much exposure do DM and others have to a defamation lawsuit from KP?
 
The streets were closed off in 2011. No different from the castle grounds. I don’t know why you keep saying public street as if people were coming and going.

Anyone outside WA was accredited and in designated press areas. Not just anyone could be there.

So, no one can go to a different building and take pictures from there? Bottom line is to close a public street, there has to be special requirements, and the crowds are very much near WA with a good view. There is simply no way to deny access there.
 
A media question about People's report that Tom Sr. is coming to the wedding. Sam and Jr have been going back and forth about their dad being invited. They recently landed on no. If the half sibs knew all along Dad was going and told the tabloids the opposite ( and took their money) how much exposure do DM and others have to a defamation lawsuit from KP?

They wouldn't as they simply printed what was said by them. Saying their dad isn't going to the wedding doesn't come in the realm of defamation.
 
I seem to recall people saying he's not that important. Then fine, don't expect as much access.

You keep repeating this like everyone kept saying this which is untrue. At best it was a few people that said that and most did not agree with that stance.
 
@Jacqui - even tabloids can be sued for reckless disregard to the truth and some have been. They still have some responsibility to make sure what they put out is accurate, i.e. vet your sources for credibility, especially when they make contradictory statements publicly.
 
At one point, the Queen had to grant permission to EVERYONE in line to the throne, never meant that everyone requiring her permission can't have a private wedding. This wedding has been classified as such, hence no bank holiday and no foreign dignitaries at all.
I know but recently they changed the rules and decided that Harry is in a position in which the Sovereign's involvement (and therefore the government's involvement) is required.

Moreover, Windsor wouldn't be completedly locked down to allow for a procession for a 'private wedding' nor would people all over the country be invited (by officials!) to join the celebrations at Windsor Castle if this was a private family event.
 
I know but recently they changed the rules and decided that Harry is in a position in which the Sovereign's involvement (and therefore the government's involvement) is required.

Moreover, Windsor wouldn't be completedly locked down to allow for a procession for a 'private wedding' nor would people all over the country be invited (by officials!) to join the celebrations at Windsor Castle if this was a private family event.

Again, just because sovereign’s involvement is required, doesn’t mean this is anything other than a private event.

You can invite and not invite anyone you wish to a private event. And last I checked, you can only get in the ground of Windsor Castle that day by invitation. It’s not that anyone can just show up without an invitation and be let in. The officials were asked to select the individuals. The ultimate invite came from the couple. It’s not like the public officials can just invite people on their own.

Like someone said earlier, the choice to share this day with public is their voice. No one is entitled to it.
 
Again, just because sovereign’s involvement is required, doesn’t mean this is anything other than a private event.

You can invite and not invite anyone you wish to a private event. And last I checked, you can only get in the ground of Windsor Castle that day by invitation. It’s not that anyone can just show up without an invitation and be let in. The officials were asked to select the individuals. The ultimate invite came from the couple. It’s not like the public officials can just invite people on their own.

Like someone said earlier, the choice to share this day with public is their voice. No one is entitled to it.
Happy to disagree on whether the sovereign's and government's involvement makes this marriage more than a private event (repeating 'again' your stance doesn't make it right (nor does me repeating my stance make my view the one and only right one)). To me it does, you apparently argue that this marriage is just like any other private event. The difference stems probably from the number of categories applied; to me there is more than '(semi) state wedding' and 'private wedding'; this one is clearly an in-between. If it wasn't, they should have approached it completely differently.

I agree that no one is entitled but the fact that they use public officials means that this no longer is a private wedding. A private couple would not be able to use public officials...

If they wanted the wedding to be private (which I am sure would have let to an outcry - so, it's far better for everyone involved that they don't make it a completely private wedding) they should not expect public officials to do the work for them nor expect all of Windsor to yield to their festivities just because they happen to marry at a private property.
 
Last edited:
IMO, this is Harry and Meghan's wedding and the Queen has given them the leeway to have exactly the kind of wedding they want. The decisions have been made and if some part of the media aren't happy, then they are quite welcome to give up their spots and don't turn up at the wedding.

But I think we all know that's not going to happen because they will still make money regardless!
 
Having searched back there were no "visible" private photographers in Westminster Abbey when William and Catherine got married and, to my mind, anyone with a lick of sense would know that allowing unlimited access in the church would just plain ruin the wedding.

As for outside coverage, walking out the door of the Chapel and being blinded by camera flashes used by photographers from all over the world sounds like the ultimate nightmare. I remember Meghan's "calm" deserted her on her first engagement with Harry when the got out of the car to a barrage of flashes. Even with red carpets and appearances for the show, she had never experienced anything anywhere like it and she grabbed onto Harry's arm like a limpet, totally disoriented.

Now think of exiting the chapel to that. Not going to happen. It was reported there would be four photographers immediately outside the chapel which is sensible and will allow them to get some good shots and not startle the horses! The fact that there will only be the one carriage will enable photographers along the route to get some really great shots.
 
Except a photographer who has covered royal weddings at St. Georges before have said there wasn't an issue of space at those weddings.

Things change, at least from how I view life. :lol: Rest assured not every photog who wanted to be at ANY royal wedding in the last 50 years was guaranteed to be let into the church.

Photogs who work for major press organizations are more likely to be given access. Either in church or outside. But the photog for my local paper will not be given space.

Stringers, or the photogs who do not work for a newspaper, but regularly sell to news outlets have always had limited access to royal weddings. The snappers who work to get photos that show the BRF in a bad light will be the first turned down. And stringers only make money off their own photos. Not all are Paps, but all are incentivized to get photos that will draw clicks (positive and negative photos). Stringers like Mark Cuthbert (just an example) take the high road, take favorable photos and make a very good living. Mark also understands how to use a camera and is an artist of sorts. JMO. There is a reason his photos are so often bought by newspapers.

Pool photographers are very normal for big BRF events. On overseas tours when access is limited, there IS ALWAYS A PHOTOG POOL (as well as a print reporter pool). It rotates about.

Stringers really are inventing an issue here. The public will get great photos from great photographers. This "issue" is fake news.
 
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
The only change from William's wedding is that there is not a pen filled with photographers across the road from the door.

What a tremendously horrendous thing for Harry to do. Really? Harry has other things to worry about and TPTB do the best they can. Arthur is just a whinging creep who is incredibly disingenuous.

BTW: Which royal wedding did he cover at St Georges Chapel.
 
Harry has other things to worry about and TPTB do the best they can.

BTW: Which royal wedding did he cover at St Georges Chapel.

What is TPTB?

I’m guessing Edward/Sophie and Charles/Camilla?
 
He's still going to be covering Harry's...it's not like he's being made to stay home.


LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom