re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.
re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
I disagree immensely with the idea that George isn't a public figure (or any other royal title holding child of a reigning family for that matter), but I do agree strongly that pap-type photos of him like these ones shouldn't be taken, let alone published.
First of all, he's extremely high up in the line of succession. He holds royal titles. His birth was marked with a gun salute and the bells of Westminster Abbey being rung. He could very well become King tomorrow, although that would be a tragic event. If he follows the pattern set by William, Harry, and the Yorks, he'll be doing some engagements long before he's 18 - according to Bertie's analysis of the CC in 2000 the Wales boys did 4 engagements each and the York girls did 2 each. William was 18, Eugenie was 10.
Even if he isn't doing some engagements by 10, he will be attending things with his parents well before then - he already has. His parents have already chosen to bring him on some of the engagements they undertake that are appropriate for him, and are likely to continue to do so in the future. He's also likely to continue to make appearances at polo games, and in the future we can expect to see him at events like the Trooping of Colour and balcony appearances, as well as the walk to church at Christmas and other big public family events.
All of this makes him, as a child, a public figure. And the fact that he is, as an adult, going to have to deal with this kind of stuff and the public scrutiny means, in my opinion, that his parents should be teaching him how to handle it all - how to deal with the press and public in public, how to do engagements, how to not be shy around the cameras, etc. This is something that Charles and Diana did with their children, that many (if not all) of the Continental royals are doing with theirs, and is what the Cambridges seem to be doing with George. He goes to events sometimes now and is exposed to the cameras as much for his future benefit as for the opportunity for us to see him.
Pictures should be taken of George - when he's at engagements or events with his parents. When he and his parents are on a tour and they get off the plane to be greeted by whatever dignitaries are there to greet them. Or when they go to a zoo to name an animal, or when he and his mother are watching his father play polo.
Pictures shouldn't be taken of him when he and his nanny are out for a walk or playing in the park. Or when he and his mother or father are out for a walk. I don't care if the paparazzi want to take a picture of William or Kate when they're out and about, but they shouldn't be taking them of George. The difference to me isn't that William is a public figure while George isn't but rather that William is an adult, and George isn't.
When Dax Shepherd and Kristen Bell started the whole movement to ban the paparazzi photos of celebrity's children one of the things they stressed was that we the public need to stop purchasing the magazines with the pictures of celebrities' kids in them, and stop clicking on the links to articles with such pictures. They asked that the magazines stop publishing these photos, or to blur out the faces of the children, but really if we're buying the issues (or giving the articles traffic) then the magazines are making money off of publishing the pictures and have no reason to stop.
This isn't just about George either though. Other royal or quasi-royal young children get the same treatment. Consider Mia Tindall, Sasha Casiraghi, and Raphaël Elmaleh.