Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 3: May 2016-April 2018


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO the photos appear to be taken at a great distance which is a tactic that the paparazzi have used in the past with members of the British royal family. These do not look like the photos that have been taken by Catherine or designated photographer who was requested to take George and Charlotte's pictures. I doubt that the Cambridges gave their consent to have their children photographed at the park while feeding the water fowl.
I share your doubts. I also believe these photo's are the result of a papparazo who stalked the children and their minder. It will be interesting to see if the pictures are published, as the wrath of the Cambridge's is well known! BTW, there are reports in the Canadian media that the Cambridge children and, coincidentally, their parents:lol:have been invited to tour Canada in 2017 when our country celebrates its 150th anniversary. If the invitation is accepted, no doubt many photo's of the Cambridge-and Trudeau!:flowers: families will result. Stay tuned!
 
Those photos look grainy to me, and as if they weren't taken by a professional photographer; for example what professional photographer would bother with a rear shot? It could well have been a member of the public with a cell phone.

Photos of Frederik and Mary's kids on the beach, with their parents, and with Mary's friends, were taken on the last family trip to Australia. As far as I know no one in the party raised any official objection and there were quite a few photos taken then. I doubt whether the photographers rushed up and asked permission.
 
Honestly I am not bothered, for any royal child, if the photos are in public and not intrusive. Long distance as these seemed to be, the kids wouldn't notice. Its not as if the photographers were chasing them down, climbing walls to take private pictures, or even noticed by the kids. I highly doubt any pic of royal kids in magazines, over than a rare photo call, got permission from the parents (rare exception).

I am bothered when the photos are taken from the next table at a restaurant, or up close and personal except photo calls. I look at pics of Leonor of Sweden in a restaurant and the photo was obviously right across from her, and she could see. Now that angers me.
 
Thank you hernameispekka and I agree that without the direct consent of the Cambridges for their children to be photographed is an issue. Our Muhler shares that having one or both parents present to give consent is why we've seen these types photos of the Danish royal children in the past. Here is his post from today.



"Originally Posted by Frelinghighness
How are they against privacy rules if they are in public? Because there are children?
Basically you can't just walk up to anyone, whether in public or in private, and take their picture without consent. Especially children.
Unless there is a very good reason or the one you are photographing is a part of something where (s)he must be expected to be photographed, like a carnival.
Strictly speaking that also applies to celebs and royals. - But of course royals know that what they do is somewhat newsworthy. So as long as the photographer is standing in open view and perhaps saying hi, it's part of the game.
But if the photographer had been hiding behind a bush or using a 20.000 mm lens PET would very like grab him by the collarbone.
And if Mary had say "no photos" to the photographer - that's it."

But as said before, every year photographers hang around at that intersection to snap a few photos and the DRF know it and I imagine the photographers sometimes see the children playing in the park. But of course they don't take photos of that."

Muhler clearly states that without the consent of Frederik or Mary the photographers know they are not to photograph the children. Mary was present when she and the children were out riding bikes and she gave her consent.

I have yet to see these types of paparazzi photos featuring the Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian children with just their caregivers/bodyguards when their parents are not present.

Oh my dear, you have quite taken my question and run with it! I was just making sure to clarify the point that there are different rules for children in public places in different countries.
In the US, UK and Australia, adults AND children can be photographed in public places. It is a different story on the continent. I just wanted to be clear about it. That is why there were always lawsuits from Ps Caroline of Monoco whenever her underage children where photographed. She had someone on it all the time, the publication had to decide whether or not the fine was worth it.
Denmark does have laws that protect childrens' images in public. We do not in the US, for adults or children.
 
Oh my dear, you have quite taken my question and run with it! I was just making sure to clarify the point that there are different rules for children in public places in different countries.
In the US, UK and Australia, adults AND children can be photographed in public places. It is a different story on the continent. I just wanted to be clear about it. That is why there were always lawsuits from Ps Caroline of Monoco whenever her underage children where photographed. She had someone on it all the time, the publication had to decide whether or not the fine was worth it.
Denmark does have laws that protect childrens' images in public. We do not in the US, for adults or children.

You have not seen those other "European" royalty children's photos because they are illegal. The Monaco photos are so much more valuable they are willing to take the chance.
 
Oh my dear, you have quite taken my question and run with it! I was just making sure to clarify the point that there are different rules for children in public places in different countries.
In the US, UK and Australia, adults AND children can be photographed in public places. It is a different story on the continent. I just wanted to be clear about it. That is why there were always lawsuits from Ps Caroline of Monoco whenever her underage children where photographed. She had someone on it all the time, the publication had to decide whether or not the fine was worth it.
Denmark does have laws that protect childrens' images in public. We do not in the US, for adults or children.

There is an increasing push in the US to protect the privacy of children from having their pictures taken without their parents' permission. I believe it's actually illegal in California to take pictures of the children of high profile individuals without their parents' permission. This is why you more and more frequently see celebrity children being cropped out of pictures, or having their faces blurred in them being published in magazines. The idea is to not harass children just because their parents are famous.
 
:sleeping: they are public figures in a public place, i don't get the fuzz about those photos.

any other royal kids get photographed outside, no big deal. what is so special about the cambridges?

The thing I don't get about this type of argument is that there's no reason as to why we need these types of photos of the Cambridge children, or any other royal children. What need is there for pictures of George and Charlotte feeding the geese, or the Danish children out riding their bikes, or Leonor at a restaurant with her parents?

What need is there to take pictures of children without the consent of their parents? And seriously, how is it justification that "they're public figures"? George is a 3-year-old. Him being a public figure doesn't justify adults selling pictures of a 3-year-old to be printed in magazines and put on the internet, with absolutely no consent from his parents - in fact, rather the opposite.
Save
 
Oh my dear, you have quite taken my question and run with it! I was just making sure to clarify the point that there are different rules for children in public places in different countries.
In the US, UK and Australia, adults AND children can be photographed in public places. It is a different story on the continent. I just wanted to be clear about it. That is why there were always lawsuits from Ps Caroline of Monoco whenever her underage children where photographed. She had someone on it all the time, the publication had to decide whether or not the fine was worth it.
Denmark does have laws that protect childrens' images in public. We do not in the US, for adults or children.


Correct, I was talking about the Danish legislation, which is very strict regarding privacy.
I don't know about these laws in other countries.
 
The nanny doesn't look happy with the presence of the geese and the kids look pretty scared. The geese can be quite intimidating and snappy, even for adults.
Good to see them out and about though, Charlotte will soon walk on her own.
 
:previous: And shorts. Mom and Dad only have to plump for shoes and socks... ;)
 
There is an increasing push in the US to protect the privacy of children from having their pictures taken without their parents' permission. I believe it's actually illegal in California to take pictures of the children of high profile individuals without their parents' permission. This is why you more and more frequently see celebrity children being cropped out of pictures, or having their faces blurred in them being published in magazines. The idea is to not harass children just because their parents are famous.
Yes, you are right about that, typical piecemeal approach to the problem. Not sure about the privacy laws re children in Canada either. A knowledgeable poster enlightened us/me about the differing laws on this forum a few years ago.
 
There is an increasing push in the US to protect the privacy of children from having their pictures taken without their parents' permission. I believe it's actually illegal in California to take pictures of the children of high profile individuals without their parents' permission. This is why you more and more frequently see celebrity children being cropped out of pictures, or having their faces blurred in them being published in magazines. The idea is to not harass children just because their parents are famous.

As a resident of the Golden State I can positively state that what you mentioned is true.:) It is illegal to take these types of photographs. Paparazzi would lie in wait outside of schools when their parents/nannies would arrive to pick up their children from school in order to photograph them.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/halle-berrys-anti-paparazzi-law-passes-2013269
 
Last edited:
As a resident of the Golden State I can positively state that what you mentioned is true.:) It is illegal to take these types of photographs. Paparazzi would lie in wait outside of schools when their parents/nannies would arrive to pick up their children from school in order to photograph them.

Halle Berry’s Anti-Paparazzi Law Passes - Us Weekly

to be fair, in general and especially in the Halle Berry case, photographers are very aggressive, they shove the camera into the children's face, run after them, harrass them, call them out. If it is not illegal yet, it should be and is not acceptable. None of this has happened to the Cambridge children and I believe this is the reason why the Cambridges don't complain.

For me it is ok to take photos from a safe distance without harrassment etc in a public place from the future king of England, even if he is a minor. Having his picture taken is and will be an inherent part of his life and as soon as he turns 18, the harrassment will start. He just needs to ask his uncle Harry.
 
What need is there to take pictures of children without the consent of their parents? And seriously, how is it justification that "they're public figures"? George is a 3-year-old. Him being a public figure doesn't justify adults selling pictures of a 3-year-old to be printed in magazines and put on the internet, with absolutely no consent from his parents - in fact, rather the opposite.

I agree totally, and I'll go one step further. I disagree with children, Royal or otherwise, say celebrities' children, being used to sell magazines, by putting them on the cover. Even official photos. Children have no say in these matters, in being used this way; they are innocent of the machinations of the press.
 
Well, this is part of the parcel, as a future monarch you have to bond with the public from early age, you can't hide away your kid and then present him as an 18 year old, totally unprepared for the demands of public life.

I think its too easy to say 'they are children', press making money is only one side, the other side is the royals presenting themselves as happy family - making kind of use of their children themselves - to remind the public how nice and relevant they are. Not to mention that the public as taxpayers fork out for their lifestyle. The real issue is control - the royals want to dictate the press what to publish or not to publish and that doesn't work.
 
IMO the photos appear to be taken at a great distance which is a tactic that the paparazzi have used in the past with members of the British royal family. These do not look like the photos that have been taken by Catherine or designated photographer who was requested to take George and Charlotte's pictures. I doubt that the Cambridges gave their consent to have their children photographed at the park while feeding the water fowl.

Yes, to me they also look like they have been taken with a close up lens, however I can't tell for sure because I don't know if they'd still be grainy like these ones (I'm an amateur photographer and have a close up lens for my camera, which has excellent quality), but then again at the same time, I guess it depends on how far away the photos were taken.

I didn't mean that the photos were taken on request, because I can tell that they are paparazzi shots. I doubt William and Catherine would request to have their private outings photographed, unless the photos from that private outing were going to be used for either one of George or Charlotte's birthday photos as an example.
 
with William and Catherine confirmed for the Tattoo on Friday - what a great surprise if they were to bring George. fabulous fun day for 3 yr old boy who reportedly loves airplanes!
 
:previous: Would be a great way to introduce him to more. I love how Victoria takes Estelle to events when they are child friendly, so she gets accustomed to the attention. But other than balcony at Trooping, Will and Kate seem to prefer keep their kids hidden except for released photos.
 
I think its too easy to say 'they are children', press making money is only one side, the other side is the royals presenting themselves as happy family - making kind of use of their children themselves - to remind the public how nice and relevant they are. Not to mention that the public as taxpayers fork out for their lifestyle. The real issue is control - the royals want to dictate the press what to publish or not to publish and that doesn't work.

Fair enough comment! There's always two (or more) ways to look at things, and it's good to read other points of view.

Although, and I may be wrong about this (I frequently am wrong!) but I thought the taxpayers paid for the public part of the Royals' lives, such as public engagements; i thought their lifestyle (house, holidays etc) were paid for by the Royals themselves. Whoops, getting off topic here. I do actually feel that W&C share quite a few photos of their children growing up; perhaps not as much as the Scandinavian Royals, but I doubt there 's a rulebook for such things! :)
 
Prince George loves sculpture, his proud mum, the Duchess of Cambridge, has revealed. Kate was guest of honour at a lavish arts dinner at the Natural History Museum on Wednesday evening, and she told fellow guests that her toddler especially enjoys visiting the museum to see the dinosaur models.

Nicky Wilson, from Jupiter Artland in West Lothian, said: "The Duchess said George comes here a lot. We were talking about children interacting with sculpture and contemporary art and he loves doing that.

"He loves 3D three dimensional sculptures. He does come here [the Natural History Museum] quite often."
Read more: Kate Middleton reveals Prince George loves visiting the Natural History Museum
 
Only the Queen and DoE get taxpayers money, the other royals get supported when they do a public engagements, officials duties by the Queen... everything else, their lifestyle that come out of their own pocket.
People act like they don't have personal wealth as a reason to excuses the denial of basic human right. Stalking someone, especially a toddler shouldn't be alright
 
Last edited:
Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News Part 2: May 2016

Security took that away quickly and so they should. A plastic bag with toys what a risk !
Don't people think


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Charlotte is getting so big already!
It looks like they really did not trust the geese lol :p

in these pictures I dont think they had any idea about being photographed.
and regarding other royal kids, just yesterday 3 of the Danes were photographed on their bikes on their way to horseback riding school (these photos usually come out as the family stay in Grasten for part of the summer)
http://3.t.cdn.belga.be/belgaimage:94255672:preview:watermark?v=577251ca&m=ejfpkagf

She is wearing her brother red cardigan and matching romper...:lol:

Regarding the on-going, and quite frankly, annoying topic about photos or not. I hope that who wants to see the pics can do so without being harassed by the those who disagree with the matter.:eek:
 
Regarding the on-going, and quite frankly, annoying topic about photos or not. I hope that who wants to see the pics can do so without being harassed by the those who disagree with the matter.:eek:


As someone who participated in the discussion, I apologise. I was unaware of the effect this would have on you, I just found the discussion interesting. If I had known that you were frustrated by this discussion I wouldn't have participated. I didn't contribute massively and I often agree with your posts.
 
:previous: Would be a great way to introduce him to more. I love how Victoria takes Estelle to events when they are child friendly, so she gets accustomed to the attention. But other than balcony at Trooping, Will and Kate seem to prefer keep their kids hidden except for released photos.

Just because Will and Kate don't trot out their children at every opportunity doesn't mean they are "hidden". As evident by the various pap photos and sightings, Kate is frequently out and about with them.

Also exposing children to the press does not guarantee that the child will become comfortable with it. William himself is a good example of that.
 
At the age the Cambridge children are at, the most important thing is that they are able to be children. Adjusting to royal roles and getting used to facing the public and any of the other stuff really isn't a top priority right now. Both George and Charlotte's worlds are pretty much centered around themselves with the ones that they are the closest to always available. Its time to explore their world with wonder without any undue worries or stress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom