Daughter for Peter and Autumn: Savannah Phillips - December 30, 2010 - Page 14

Iluvbertie · #**261** 01-07-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shikha Pal

are there any pictures of the little baby?

None of which I am aware and I doubt that we will get to see any.

The Philips children have been raised out of the spotlight and no doubt Peter will want that privacy for his children as well. This girl will be a blip on the royal radar - will maybe appear at the odd royal function in the future but in the full measure of time should be allowed to grow up and go about her life in anonymity - like Louise and James are being raised.

It is very clear that the children of the royals down the line of succession are being raised away from the spotlight to allow them as much freedom as possible.

jdcharlie · #**262** 01-07-2011, 04:01 PM

I was looking through an old Hello! about the Concert for Diana and ran across a picture of one of Diana's close friends who was with her daughter Savannah. I'm sure they weren't influential in Autumn and Peter's decision making, but maybe it's a more common name in those circles than we think.

Rosa Monckton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biri · #**263** 01-08-2011, 08:36 AM

So we have Savannah; and what about her middle names?

Her father has three: Peter Mark Andrew

Patra · #**264** 01-08-2011, 08:44 AM

I love the name Savannah- cant wait to see pics of the lil cuite pie!

Lumutqueen · #**265** 01-08-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri

So we have Savannah; and what about her middle names?

Her father has three: Peter Mark Andrew

I don't think she has any, or they haven't been released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patra

I love the name Savannah- cant wait to see pics of the lil cuite pie!

I doubt we'll get any pictures.

Iluvbertie · #**266** 01-08-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patra

I love the name Savannah- cant wait to see pics of the lil cuite pie!

I think you will have a long wait - maybe we will get one when she is baptised and then I wouldn't expect to see any until she is in a young girl at a wedding or a funeral.

I really think we should accept the fact that this child, and any more that Peter and Autumn or Zara and Mike have simply won't be photographed for the general public to see. She is way too far from the throne to be on any interest to the press.

MRSJ · #**267** 01-08-2011, 07:40 PM

The first pic, whether official or just paparazzi, probably will be of interest just because it's the first .... We will see her eventually at something I am sure

Stefanie · #**268** 01-09-2011, 12:46 PM

As far as I can remember there is one black and white photo showing Queen Mum with one of her great-grandsons by Lady Sarah Chatto. I believe it was photographed by Lord Snowdon. Maybe we get to see some kind of photos where from Great-Grandmother down to great-grandchild are all on the photo. (Elizabeth, Anne, Peter and Savannah). Would be nice IMO.

Iluvbertie · #**269** 01-09-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefanie

As far as I can remember there is one black and white photo showing Queen Mum with one of her great-grandsons by Lady Sarah Chatto. I believe it was photographed by Lord Snowdon. Maybe we get to see some kind of photos where from Great-Grandmother down to great-grandchild are all on the photo. (Elizabeth, Anne, Peter and Savannah). Would be nice IMO.

I would expect that such a photo could be taken at the christening and released then.

MRSJ · #**270** 01-12-2011, 01:52 PM

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Blogs | Exclusive opinion, news and views from Daily and Sunday Express's top writers

If they are not releasing because they are private citizens and not "royal" it seems a bit hypocritical considering they used their "royal" connections/status to get the Hello! deal for wedding pics.....I guess we shall see if there is ever and annoucement of picture

Lumutqueen · #**271** 01-12-2011, 01:53 PM

Releasing pictures of your first child to the public and being paid for pictures at a wedding that are going to be taken anyway, is a bit different.

Bella · #**272** 01-12-2011, 03:11 PM

I understand the parents' desire to shield their young children from the spotlight (a la Prince Edward) however, a photograph or two of the child taken under the guidance of the parents and released to the media/public every so often I don't think violates the child's privacy. If anything, never allowing a photo of the child leads to speculation and would have the papps more rabid to get a photo thus breeching the child's privacy more than had the parents simply released a photo at their own discretion. Perhaps once the family gets more settled the Phillips will release a photo of the baby and/or the baby with the family. After all, most new parents are eager to show off their child.

**Zonk** · #**273** 01-12-2011, 03:21 PM

As much as we would like to see little Savannah...the Phillips are under no obligation to release a picture of their daughter.Yes, it would be nice to release one every now and then but its only been three weeks.

Like Iluvbertie, I expect that we will see a picture of the family at the Christening and not before then.

Iluvbertie · #**274** 01-12-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

I understand the parents' desire to shield their young children from the spotlight (a la Prince Edward) however, a photograph or two of the child taken under the guidance of the parents and released to the media/public every so often I don't think violates the child's privacy. If anything, never allowing a photo of the child leads to speculation and would have the papps more rabid to get a photo thus breeching the child's privacy more than had the parents simply released a photo at their own discretion. Perhaps once the family gets more settled the Phillips will release a photo of the baby and/or the baby with the family. After all, most new parents are eager to show off their child.

It is only people on boards like this that have any interest for instance in seeing the Wessex children while most couldn't care less - they are so far from the throne and the same thing with this Philip's baby - to far for general interest.

William and Kate's children will be photographed regularly because they will be the children of the future King.

I bet their friends and family have photos and even film of the little one but the general public - complete strangers - no way and the sooner comments like If anything, never allowing a photo of the child leads to speculation and would have the papps more rabid to get a photo really worry me as the only way the paps would be taking the photos is if there was a demand from the public and thus these sorts of comments are creating the situation. I am for respecting the rights of the parents to raise their child away from the public eye - Savannah is 12th in line to the throne and within a decade will probably have dropped to around 20th or lower (based on William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marrying and having 2 children each in that time). Even a little brother will drop her further from the throne.

MRSJ · #**275** 01-12-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Releasing pictures of your first child to the public and being paid for pictures at a wedding that are going to be taken anyway, is a bit different.

Yes in a way but I was speaking more to using the 'royal' connections when helpful to them but hiding behind 'oh we are not royal' when it benefits them to not be so- this is all I was pointing at. Just my thinking that it's a bit hypocritical to want it both ways-

Lumutqueen · #**276** 01-12-2011, 05:25 PM

I can understand, however they haven't personally said that's the reason they haven't released a picture. We didn't see many pictures of Viscount James when he was born.
I'm not sure what you mean by the using royal connections from the magazine thing? Could you PM as i'm truely interested to hear what you mean? :)

MRSJ · #**277** 01-12-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I can understand, however they haven't personally said that's the reason they haven't released a picture. We didn't see many pictures of Viscount James when he was born.
I'm not sure what you mean by the using royal connections from the magazine thing? Could you PM as i'm truely interested to hear what you mean? :)

Yes you're right they haven't actually said I assumed, yes I PM you :)

Bella · #**278** 01-12-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It is only people on boards like this that have any interest for instance in seeing the Wessex children while most couldn't care less - they are so far from the throne and the same thing with this Philip's baby - to far for general interest.

I don't know, Iluvbertie, about the only people interested in seeing photos of the Wessex children and the new Phillips baby are only those on these boards. I think there is still (hopefully) a broader interest in the royals, esp. the newer members. The new baby is the Queen's first great grandchild and her birth has been acknowledged in various media outlets that don't often report on royalty, so I think there is an interest.
I'm not disputing the parents right to chose what they feel is best for their child, I'm just saying I don't think there would be any harm in the parents releasing a photo at their discretion.
Papps interest in these things are a reality. Regardless of how much the parents try to shield their children, they can't keep them in glass houses all their lives. An example are the photos taken of the Wessex kids at fairs and such. True, there won't be as much media attention on these kids, the further they are from the crown, but it will still be there.
I agree there will probably be a formal photo released at the time of the baby's christening and that will be fine.

Lumutqueen · #**279** 01-12-2011, 05:40 PM

I don't think anyone outside the royal follower have any interest in Savannah Phillips. For instance the birth of the baby nor the name was announced in the big newspapers.
Peter can place his child in a glass house, they have no royal titles, they have their own jobs and they take no money from the public. They are just like any other person, except they have the royal family as relatives.

**Zonk** · #**280** 01-12-2011, 05:45 PM

To put Savannah in perspective....she will follow a similiar path of the Linley and Chatto children. Also, the great grandchildren of a Monarch. There were press reports on their births, and names. I distinctly remember there being pictures when the parents left the hospital but that was about it until the Christening. And then a picture was released to the press or appeared in the magazines.

That was about it.

And you pretty much only see them on Royal occasions (like Christmas, the Trooping of the Colour, etc.). Unless they happen to be with their parents and they are caught doing normal things like walking down a London street. The same with Lady Helen Taylor's children.