General News for the Cambridge Family 2: January 2015-March 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Osipi said:
Aren't the NHM and the NPG two totally different places? The National History Museum and the National Portrait Gallery?
Click to expand...


I'm confused... When did the NPG come up in this discussion?
 
I imagine it's all about dinosaurs for George. One of my granddaughters, age 2, is allowed to watch one TV show a day. She always chooses Dinosaur Train. It's a huge favorite with little ones. As a retired school librarian, I observed that most of the dinosaur books were checked out all the time. Museums are wonderful places, even for toddlers.
 
MichelleQ2 said:
I'm confused... When did the NPG come up in this discussion?
Click to expand...

I believe it was a query into a post where the NPG was mentioned. The post has since been edited. :)
 
Osipi said:
I believe it was a query into a post where the NPG was mentioned. The post has since been edited. :)
Click to expand...

thanks for clarifying - makes perfect sense. just thought I missed something:confused:
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
somebody took a picture at the museum

Tamara si z londýnskeho múzea odniesla nečakaný zážitok: Ocitla sa len pár metrov od Kate a princa Georgea!
Click to expand...

god, I can't imagine being so without manners that you take photos of a child without his parents knowledge. Absolutely disgusting. It's one thing if this was an official visit. But this is a mother with her child visiting a museum. That he will one day be King means nothing. He's just a two year old.

I hate paparazzi photos, but I also can't stand regular people take photos like this.
 
Its not a picture of a child without parents knowledge, Kate is with George and she will have anticipated people taking pictures. I don't think William & Kate are bothered by this, the NHM is superbusy, lots of people, usually you have to queue up to get inside. I would have been surprised if nobody had taken a picture when Kate is walking by, with all these smartphones on hand. You cannot expect people NOT to take a picture and I don't think Kate & William do.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Its not a picture of a child without parents knowledge, Kate is with George and she will have anticipated people taking pictures. I don't think William & Kate are bothered by this, the NHM is superbusy, lots of people, usually you have to queue up to get inside. I would have been surprised if nobody had taken a picture when Kate is walking by, with all these smartphones on hand. You cannot expect people NOT to take a picture and I don't think Kate & William do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant consent, not knowledge.

And I'm sorry, but it's such a gross attitude to have. He is a child. He cannot consent to this life he lives. He's 2! It's one thing to take a photo of Kate, it's another to do it of George.

I just don't like it.
 
It was also stated via a tweet earlier that some people had taken pictures of Kate and George and were asked to delete them. I'm sure they didn't see everyone that took pictures and the ones that were spotted were asked nicely to please delete. They don't want the pictures splashed all over the tabloids but I think they're astute enough to realize that short of confiscating phones in the venue while they are there, there's not really too much they can do.
 
Osipi said:
It was also stated via a tweet earlier that some people had taken pictures of Kate and George and were asked to delete them. I'm sure they didn't see everyone that took pictures and the ones that were spotted were asked nicely to please delete. They don't want the pictures splashed all over the tabloids but I think they're astute enough to realize that short of confiscating phones in the venue while they are there, there's not really too much they can do.
Click to expand...

I get being excited to see them in public and even wanting to be able to prove it, but what's so wrong about just letting a mother and son have a private visit to a museum? Why take photos? If I saw them in public, I'd be so excited and I might look at them for a bit, but then I'd move on and I certainly wouldn't take photos. It's a private visit, let them be a family.

It's so just weird and gross to me.
 
GömdNatt said:
I get being excited to see them in public and even wanting to be able to prove it, but what's so wrong about just letting a mother and son have a private visit to a museum? Why take photos? If I saw them in public, I'd be so excited and I might look at them for a bit, but then I'd move on and I certainly wouldn't take photos. It's a private visit, let them be a family.

It's so just weird and gross to me.
Click to expand...
I mean... people take photos of every meal they eat and post online and every little thing. Ofc they will take photos if they run in to these two. That is why I have WAY less problem with an excited "normal" person taking a quick snap of an exciting moment in their life than the paparazzi that hang around places or stalk them for the sole purpose of taking photos. I think it's the question of intent.
 
General News for the Cambridge Family Part 2: January 2015

I think asking people to delete the pictures was a good move. It's impossible to know the intent of every single human being that wanted to take a picture of the Duchess, and her son on a day out. While more than likely majority of the people just wanted a snapshot to brag about, no one can guarantee that that is indeed the case. It's the few bad apples, whether they're paps, or members of the public who would sell such pictures to make a quick buck, that ruin it for those of us who may just genuinely want a picture to keep on our phone/camera. Personally, I won't take pictures of any royal when it's family time, but during official appearances/engagements, definitely will have my camera ready to go.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
What I found interesting and also very well done is those the took pictures with their cell phones were asked nicely to delete them. So far I've seen no pictures that have hit the media anywhere.

What I'm wondering now if the trip to the museum has anything to do with what all little boys seem to have in common. A big love for dinosaurs. George may have come across dinosaurs in movies or books and Mummy took him to see how big they actually really were. I've seen where Pixar is releasing a movie with a very cute dinosaur in it called "The Good Dinosaur" in November.
Click to expand...


Yes and I think when it comes to an outing to a place like the NHM, where there are plenty of Staff around and they can see who is doing that, this is best way to go. They can make sure the photos really are deleted and that frees up the Protection Officers to do their jobs a bit easier, than when at a Playground or anywhere out and about sadly.

As for the rest...Tell me about it!! Guess who has a Great Auntie who is crocheting a Dinosaur hat for her three year old Great Nephew for Christmas? I'm amazed he isn't going as one for Hallowe'en honestly. :D :lol: :D

GömdNatt said:
Sorry, I meant consent, not knowledge.



And I'm sorry, but it's such a gross attitude to have. He is a child. He cannot consent to this life he lives. He's 2! It's one thing to take a photo of Kate, it's another to do it of George.



I just don't like it.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the never ending debate of the Cambridge forum threads. I'm in the group that agrees w/you BTW.

Daria_S said:
I think asking people to delete the pictures was a good move. It's impossible to know the intent of every single human being that wanted to take a picture of the Duchess, and her son on a day out. While more than likely majority of the people just wanted a momentous to brag about, no one an guarantee that that is indeed the case. It's the few bad apples, whether they're paps, or members of the who would sell such pictures to make a quick buck, that ruin it for those of us who may just genuinely want a picture to keep on our phone/camera. Personally, I won't take pictures of any royal when it's family time, but during official appearances/engagements, definitely will have my camera ready to go.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
Click to expand...


Thank you Daria for, once again, explaining why many of us have such a huge concern about, not just the scummy Paps, but also the camera phone photos. Said it far better than I could have.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Last edited by a moderator:
General News for the Cambridge Family Part 2: January 2015

Unfortunately I was reading a Kate fashion blog about the Spectre premiere and a photo of George and Kate at the NHM was also part of the post. The picture source said TMZ. I went to TMZ's website and buried down the page after a lot of stuff about rappers they had exclusive museum pictures of George and Kate. I didn't click further.

The fact that TMZ had exclusives would suggest that it wasn't some random tourist cellphone picture. I have been a random London tourist before and I would have no clue how to sell a photo. My closest Royal encounter in London was a black cocker spaniel out of KP in the gardens which I tried to pass the photo to my family as Lupo. William and Kate were at the Order of the Thistle service at Edinburgh so it's possible. ??


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
It was also stated via a tweet earlier that some people had taken pictures of Kate and George and were asked to delete them. I'm sure they didn't see everyone that took pictures and the ones that were spotted were asked nicely to please delete. They don't want the pictures splashed all over the tabloids but I think they're astute enough to realize that short of confiscating phones in the venue while they are there, there's not really too much they can do.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what the minders would have done had the people they asked to delete their photos had politely said no. Or even not so politely said no. If this was a public place where people were at liberty to take photographs, there's nothing that could be done to stop it, and, in my opinion, nothing should be done to stop it.

George is not like an ordinary child. I can understand celebrities wanting images of their children taken when they are out as a family to be blurred so the child is not recognisable. In those situations the child is not a public person and is entitled to privacy. But George is in a very different situation. He has been public property since before he was born. Everyone knows what he looks like. It is George that people want to photograph. You can't parade the child in front of the public and sundry photographers one day and the next day tell people they mustn't photograph the same child when you take him out amongst the public.

As for him being unable to consent, of course he is too young to be able to consent. It is his parents who make decisions like that for him at this age, and if they don't want him photographed in public then they shouldn't take him out in public. They must know that nearly everyone has a camera phone and that they are curiosities that people will want to photograph. And unless they are in a place they control and where they can make rules prohibiting photographs, they just have to suck it up. Fair? Hell, no. But a fact of life.
 
Last edited:
Skippyboo said:
Unfortunately I was reading a Kate fashion blog about the Spectre premiere and a photo of George and Kate at the NHM was also part of the post. The picture source said TMZ. I went to TMZ's website and buried down the page after a lot of stuff about rappers they had exclusive museum pictures of George and Kate. I didn't click further.

The fact that TMZ had exclusives would suggest that it wasn't some random tourist cellphone picture. I have been a random London tourist before and I would have no clue how to sell a photo. My closest Royal encounter in London was a black cocker spaniel out of KP in the gardens which I tried to pass the photo to my family as Lupo. William and Kate were at the Order of the Thistle service at Edinburgh so it's possible. ??


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Its only one photo, the one that was posted here. It can well be random, lots of people take pictures of everything and post on their social network. TMZ might be getting their stuff from there too, I know of tabloids that encourage their readers to take pics of celebrities when they see them and post those pictures on the tabloid's website.

Roslyn said:
I would like to know what the minders would have done had the people they asked to delete their photos had politely said no. Or even not so politely said no. If this was a public place where people were at liberty to take photographs, there's nothing that could be done to stop it, and, in my opinion, nothing should be done to stop it.

George is not like an ordinary child. I can understand celebrities wanting images of their children taken when they are out as a family to be blurred so the child is not recognisable. In those situations the child is not a public person and is entitled to privacy. But George is in a very different situation. He has been public property since before he was born. Everyone knows what he looks like. It is George that people want to photograph. You can't parade the child in front of the public and sundry photographers one day and the next day tell people they mustn't photograph the same child when you take him out amongst the public.

As for him being unable to consent, of course he is too young to be able to consent. It is his parents who make decisions like that for him at this age, and if they don't want him photographed in public then they shouldn't take him out in public. They must know that nearly everyone has a camera phone and that they are curiosities that people will want to photograph. And unless they are in a place they control and where they can make rules prohibiting photographs, they just have to suck it up. Fair? Hell, no. But a fact of life.
Click to expand...

They can ask politely but that's it. As soon as they would appear to threaten people the Cambridges would have a PR issue, big time.

There is no harm in asking, maybe people even agree and delete their pictures. But others will not, the same as opinions differ on this forum. But some will say no and thats it, some will say yes but do not delete in the end. And the minders will never be able to ask anyone, given the amount of people at the museum and the smartphones they have.

I agree 100% with the rest of your post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to go to stage doors after viewing a theatre performance, and I've been in situations where the security guard at the door specifically asked that no pictures be taken of so and-so, and if he saw any such pictures being taken, he would personally delete them, and check that person's phone at the end. He also said that if those rules weren't acceptable, people were free to leave. Something similar can be done at any venue that Catherine, William and their children choose to visit on a family outing. People can be let inside in small groups to help crowd control, and to make it easier to keep an eye on the photographing. If people don't want their phone/camera checked, they can be mindful of what they photograph, delete an accidemtal/intentional snapshot of the royals, do without photographs, or vacate the premises and come back another time if the rules are not to their liking. The RPOs don't even have to get involved.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I don't think that pic was real to be fair. My first thought ,when I saw the pic, was that George and Kate looked weirdly photoshopped...
 
Daria_S said:
I used to go to stage doors after viewing a theatre performance, and I've been in situations where the security guard at the door specifically asked that no pictures be taken of so and-so, and if he saw any such pictures being taken, he would personally delete them, and check that person's phone at the end. He also said that if those rules weren't acceptable, people were free to leave. Something similar can be done at any venue that Catherine, William and their children choose to visit on a family outing. People can be let inside in small groups to help crowd control, and to make it easier to keep an eye on the photographing. If people don't want their phone/camera checked, they can be mindful of what they photograph, delete an accidemtal/intentional snapshot of the royals, do without photographs, or vacate the premises and come back another time if the rules are not to their liking. The RPOs don't even have to get involved.
Click to expand...

There a big difference between visiting a performer back stage vs seeing them in a public place.

The performer is allowing you special access and request that no private pictures be taken.

If pictures are allowed in a public place then policing them becomes a large issue.

If a museum has a 'no photograph' policy then that is a different situation.

Making special rules for William & Catherine during normal business hours will cause a major PR disaster, not only for the Cambridge family/BRF but for the museum.

William and Catherine can ask to for a private visit to any museum or attraction. There is no need to treat everyone like a criminal.
 
Kate mentioned the visit today so I don't mind posting an article. No pap photos

Once again, Princess Kate and Prince George are getting their roar on.

In the middle of a busy few days at work last week, Kate squeezed in some mommy time, taking her "lively" 2-year-old son to see the dinosaurs at the Natural History Museum in South Kensington on October 22.

"She was holding George's hand, showing him around and talking to one of the people who worked there," says fellow museum-goer Rimi Rahman.

"People didn't really notice her at all," adds Rahman. "They went all around the dinosaur gallery – George looked so cute and little, his hair is so nice. He looked so happy."
Click to expand...
Read more: Royal Roar! Princess Kate and Prince George Go Dinosaur Hunting : People.com
 
Last edited:
Roslyn said:
I would like to know what the minders would have done had the people they asked to delete their photos had politely said no. Or even not so politely said no. If this was a public place where people were at liberty to take photographs, there's nothing that could be done to stop it, and, in my opinion, nothing should be done to stop it.

George is not like an ordinary child. I can understand celebrities wanting images of their children taken when they are out as a family to be blurred so the child is not recognisable. In those situations the child is not a public person and is entitled to privacy. But George is in a very different situation. He has been public property since before he was born. Everyone knows what he looks like. It is George that people want to photograph. You can't parade the child in front of the public and sundry photographers one day and the next day tell people they mustn't photograph the same child when you take him out amongst the public.

As for him being unable to consent, of course he is too young to be able to consent. It is his parents who make decisions like that for him at this age, and if they don't want him photographed in public then they shouldn't take him out in public. They must know that nearly everyone has a camera phone and that they are curiosities that people will want to photograph. And unless they are in a place they control and where they can make rules prohibiting photographs, they just have to suck it up. Fair? Hell, no. But a fact of life.
Click to expand...
The answer to this is very simple. The laws do not protect the image of an adult or child in the USA, the uk or Australia in a public place. Any child, famous or not, can be photographed in a publi,c place without their consent and that image can be u sed for anything. Advertising, you name it. The blurred faces of children's images which you mention, are from continental Europe, where images of children in public places are protected by law.

ladongas said:
Leave Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge alone says AMANDA PLATELL* | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with the article, especially the last part-about her mother
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frelinghighness said:
The answer to this is very simple. The laws do not protect the image of an adult or child in the USA, the uk or Australia in a public place. Any child, famous or not, can be photographed in a publi,c place without their consent and that image can be u sed for anything. Advertising, you name it. The blurred faces of children's images which you mention, are from continental Europe, where images of children in public places are protected by law.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You can not use a photo (in the US) for any commercial i.e. advertisement purpose without the written consent of the people recognizable in the photo. The law is clear and enforceable.
 
Roslyn said:
I would like to know what the minders would have done had the people they asked to delete their photos had politely said no. Or even not so politely said no. If this was a public place where people were at liberty to take photographs, there's nothing that could be done to stop it, and, in my opinion, nothing should be done to stop it.

George is not like an ordinary child. I can understand celebrities wanting images of their children taken when they are out as a family to be blurred so the child is not recognisable. In those situations the child is not a public person and is entitled to privacy. But George is in a very different situation. He has been public property since before he was born. Everyone knows what he looks like. It is George that people want to photograph. You can't parade the child in front of the public and sundry photographers one day and the next day tell people they mustn't photograph the same child when you take him out amongst the public.

As for him being unable to consent, of course he is too young to be able to consent. It is his parents who make decisions like that for him at this age, and if they don't want him photographed in public then they shouldn't take him out in public. They must know that nearly everyone has a camera phone and that they are curiosities that people will want to photograph. And unless they are in a place they control and where they can make rules prohibiting photographs, they just have to suck it up. Fair? Hell, no. But a fact of life.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Even for public figures, I believe they should be allowed privacy and to go out in public without worrying about pictures and harrassment(not to say that's happening here). The only people who say they should suck it up are people who have no idea what it's like to live in their shoes.

Being a public figure does not mean people own you. Royals are representatives of their nation not objects to be ogled everywhere they go. They is too much obsession with people in the public eye anyway. Everyone deserves a private life especially children. I believe that people can ogle them when they are performing a public duty not and only then. I think the Cambridges have a right to ask people to take down pictures of their children. I can't understand why this activity by papparrazi and the general public should be okay. No one would be okay with it if it were their child, public figure or not. It's a double standard.

How is it even logical to argue that they should keep their children locked in their homes? These people taking pictures are old enough to understand privacy and boundaries. They just don't care.

I do understand your point that it is unavoidable, however. I just think there are better solutions for these situations that respect their privacy.
 
Last edited:
Frelinghighness said:
Yes, I agree with the article, especially the last part-about her mother
Click to expand...


It's a good article but this bit

Nothing could possibly have prepared her for the unending pressure of becoming a senior member of The Firm, the sheer weight of responsibility of being a future king’s consort, of raising the next generation of monarchs.

I think she would have known what she was in for, if she didn't she must have been hiding under a rock.
I think she's doing a good job and at times it must be horrible but she would have known that it was going to be like that. I also don't think she's complaining about it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
29K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
2
Replies
56
Views
12K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Iñaki Urdangarín, News and Events 1: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Infanta Cristina, News and Events 1: Jan, 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom