The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 07-05-2016, 12:34 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
Especially the Danish kids are a great example, I've lost count how many photos I've seen taking the twins to school by bike, Mary or Fred wearing ordinary clothes, nothing staged about that. Yet there is no uproar on this forum when these pictures are posted here.
I have to say I think it's a big difference in this case. That the kids are with the nanny. Them being photographed in the precense of their parent it can be excused as photographing the adults. But in this case it's probably clear that they were targeting the kids. (I've not watched the pictures since this goes over my personal line)
__________________

  #142  
Old 07-05-2016, 01:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
I have to say I think it's a big difference in this case. That the kids are with the nanny. Them being photographed in the precense of their parent it can be excused as photographing the adults. But in this case it's probably clear that they were targeting the kids. (I've not watched the pictures since this goes over my personal line)
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.
__________________

  #143  
Old 07-05-2016, 02:06 PM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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?
To be fair, DoM, some of us believe that no children should be photographed in any commercial context without the permission of their parents or guardians.
  #144  
Old 07-05-2016, 02:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by hel View Post
To be fair, DoM, some of us believe that no children should be photographed in any commercial context without the permission of their parents or guardians.
Sadly hel I've read comments on this site (Not by Duke of Marmalade) that stated that any royal child is basically "fair game" for photographers because the taxpayers pay for their security.
  #145  
Old 07-05-2016, 02:50 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,153
If we are using that logic - where are the daily photos of Cameron's kids or Obama's daughters? Big brother cameras in all royal and government residences ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #146  
Old 07-05-2016, 03:11 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,928
We've seen pictures of the Danish children last year in Spain without Fred & Mary present, all I was pointing out that there was no outrage about those pictures or calls to remove the links, as it happens with the Cambridges from time to time.

I don't think at all that children are fair game but do think that as long as there is no harmful activity such as chasing or harrassing (I strongly disagree with that) I don't have a problem with pictures of royal children in public places. In the Cambridge's case the nanny is replacing the parents and even though many posters here disagree, the future King of England and his sister are public persons, no matter what age.
  #147  
Old 07-05-2016, 03:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
We've seen pictures of the Danish children last year in Spain without Fred & Mary present, all I was pointing out that there was no outrage about those pictures or calls to remove the links, as it happens with the Cambridges from time to time.

I don't think at all that children are fair game but do think that as long as there is no harmful activity such as chasing or harrassing (I strongly disagree with that) I don't have a problem with pictures of royal children in public places. In the Cambridge's case the nanny is replacing the parents and even though many posters here disagree, the future King of England and his sister are public persons, no matter what age.
Maria is not their parent/guardian so she can't give permission for her charges to be photographed. Also after viewing photos, it is apparent that she is also unaware that she is being photographed while in the park.

If the children's parents give their consent to photographs being taken in a public place that is their right to do so. In the recent pictures of the Danish children, Mary was present and agreed to having the kids photographed. The objection here is that the children's parents are not present and therefore cannot give their consent.
  #148  
Old 07-05-2016, 04:35 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Maria is not their parent/guardian so she can't give permission for her charges to be photographed. Also after viewing photos, it is apparent that she is also unaware that she is being photographed while in the park.

If the children's parents give their consent to photographs being taken in a public place that is their right to do so. In the recent pictures of the Danish children, Mary was present and agreed to having the kids photographed. The objection here is that the children's parents are not present and therefore cannot give their consent.
George and Charlotte are sweet, but; that's true, and something to keep in mind IMO. William and Catherine also issued a statement asking the paparazzi to not take photographs of George and Charlotte in intrusive ways (when it was discovered that they were using tactics like luring other children into playing with George and Charlotte just so they could get a photo of them), however I can't tell whether these photos were taken in a "normal" way or an "intrusive" way.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #149  
Old 07-05-2016, 04:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
George and Charlotte are sweet, but; that's true, and something to keep in mind IMO. William and Catherine also issued a statement asking the paparazzi to not take photographs of George and Charlotte in intrusive ways (when it was discovered that they were using tactics like luring other children into playing with George and Charlotte just so they could get a photo of them), however I can't tell whether these photos were taken in a "normal" way or an "intrusive" way.
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.
  #150  
Old 07-05-2016, 06:45 PM
miche's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 811
Also DoM, not every users on the BRF forum visit the Danish forum.
  #151  
Old 07-05-2016, 07:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
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 parentshave 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! families will result. Stay tuned!
  #152  
Old 07-05-2016, 08:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
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.
  #153  
Old 07-05-2016, 09:01 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
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.
  #154  
Old 07-05-2016, 10:51 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
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.
  #155  
Old 07-05-2016, 10:53 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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.
  #156  
Old 07-06-2016, 12:36 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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.
  #157  
Old 07-06-2016, 12:42 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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
  #158  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:58 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
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.
  #159  
Old 07-06-2016, 02:26 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,928
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.
  #160  
Old 07-06-2016, 07:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Prince George and Princess Charlotte have their own Wales football shirts

https://twitter.com/SkyRhiannon/stat...44349537484800
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince george of cambridge, princess charlotte of cambridge


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, General News Part 4: April 2018 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 762 08-08-2021 06:09 AM
Prince George and Princess Charlotte, General News 2: May 2015 - May 2016 JessRulz Current Events Archive 1575 05-08-2016 03:17 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family tradition united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×