The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 06-24-2020, 11:00 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I question this situation because

A; if these papers were lodged in a U.K. court nearly 3 months ago why are we just hearing of it now? Not a single British paper has reported on this.

B; Isn’t Meghan’s title wrong in “court documents”?

C; How can they sue in an English court when at the time they weren’t here and they’re also not here now?
Published in the DM today. Which i’m Guessing if the original from where the Irish website for it.

Click image for larger version

Name:	9C4D348C-AD16-4D9F-80F1-042FB58C2700.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	80.3 KB
ID:	302209

Click image for larger version

Name:	AAC3DBB7-56CB-44CE-B959-A14A9A465F5E.png
Views:	50
Size:	194.3 KB
ID:	302210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
IIRC there were pictures of Archie with her, out walking, soon after they moved to Canada...I agree that they haven't given a clear message.
. I've often said that they claim Archie is a private person and yet they put out pics on Social media, they did that video on his birthday which I coudl not see the point of.
I agree that they keep giving mixed messages, but all the same, Archie IS a baby and should not be photographed except by his parents consent. Its possible that they have to put the suit in his name.. I dont know abot the law but that is a possibility...
Those are the pictures being sued for. The ones where she was walking on, reported, public property with the dogs, happily smiling to the cameras while Archie was in a carrier looking like he was about to fall off.

The thing is how privacy was not intruded upon because: a) theybwere in public, b) we already knew what he looks like (this isn’t like with Pippa son where his face is always blurred) because his parents shared pictures and him in the flash with the public - similar to the Cambridge and other royal family member kids faces being shown. C) his face wasn’t even shown in the published pictures, so in what way was his privacy breached?

And since then they have shown his face and body publicly using him for PR.
It’s now way past “mixed messages” it’s pure hypocrisy.

One more comment: they are suing in the UK because it was published by a British paper.
As mentioned though, Archie would have had far more privacy in the UK than in the US! Where celebrity babies and kids are constantly being pictured and published.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 06-24-2020, 12:25 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 434
This just seems like them trying to keep their names in the news. You cannot claim any expectation of privacy on public property. They seem to be more upset that a BRITISH paper published them than the pictures being taken.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 06-24-2020, 12:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 771
It is their behaviour and court cases that is keeping them in the headlines, the British public are not that bothered about them. They want privacy let them have total privacy. They need to keep themselves out of the press.
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 06-24-2020, 12:43 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
He has privacy, he will have even more if his parents will cease to use him for PR purposes.
In the year since he has been born the majority of times we have seen this kid was by pictures and videos his own parents published.
No one forced them to do a video with him for his birthday!

You do not scream you want your kid to have privacy but than use him for publicity sake.
This lawsuit is no exception.
Any celebrity will tell you the only way to disappear from public radar is to totally disappear from public radar, drop off completely. You don’t tweet, you don’t leak information to your mouthpieces and use PR companies, you don’t do PR videos at all.
And most of all: you don’t file so many lawsuits!

Can they sue on behalf of the child? Sure.
Should they in this case? No.

This lawsuit is foolish, most of all because there is no evidence any privacy was breached.

And if Meghan felt so compelled to sue, she could have done so solo without adding her one year old innocent child name to the lawsuit.
This is what seeking attention looks like.

A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 06-24-2020, 01:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.
Bingo.

Also, I could have read it wrong, but they seem to be suing the paper and not the agency who took the pictures.
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 06-24-2020, 02:14 PM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 8,274
which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.
__________________
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.
https://www.humanesociety.org
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 06-24-2020, 02:25 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.


Those are the ones yes.

Can anyone explain why Henry is not listed and why Meghan is a litigation friend and not parent/guardian?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 06-24-2020, 02:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
If the Sussexes share your sentiment, they are going to be deeply disappointed by this aspect of their move to the United States. (I realize this particular alleged dispute is about pictures taken in Canada.) One major trade-off they have made with their move is that Archie is far less protected in terms of media exposure. They will find that pictures of him taken in public in the US are fair game in our media. They will face a simple, if not an easy, choice: hide him away as he grows up, or accept that he will be photographed and those pictures will be published freely here.
I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 06-24-2020, 02:54 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...
Denville, I won't pretend to be an expert on our privacy laws, which vary state to state and potentially at the federal level, and don't want to play Google lawyer and mislead you. However, generally, our media privacy laws are far more liberal here in the US. The children of celebrities are photographed often and, unlike in the UK, their faces are not pixelated. Although certainly laws have evolved since then, think of Michael Jackson covering his children's faces whenever they were in public. Our press will be able to take and publish photos of Archie.

This is true for many aspects of our press, not just photographs of children. We do not pixelate on nearly the same scale, have much more leeway in printing information about ongoing court cases, and online outlets can keep open comment sections about issues where UK publications cannot. Each of these things will potentially affect the Sussex couple moving forward, although of course will not be a cultural shock for Meghan in the way they will be for Harry.
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 06-24-2020, 03:45 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...

The only law in the US that I know of that protects them all is the Jennifer Aniston law (that's not what it's called) where they took pictures of her topless sunbathing in her own yard. She sued and won and they said the paps couldn't shoot you without your knowledge in your own back yard. The blurry face of the children laws are in the UK. In the US they don't blur the faces of the children that I've ever seen. I think if avoiding the paps was their goal they would have done better to stay in the UK. LA is paparazzi central.
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 06-24-2020, 03:46 PM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 06-24-2020, 03:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,718
Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 06-24-2020, 03:53 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.

The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 06-24-2020, 04:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.
That is a good point with regards the polo, why didnt they sue then, we couldnt really see his face then either , the truth be told you cannot even tell if it is Archie in the Canadian photograph. Meghan is walking her dogs wearing a baby carrier with a baby in it but you couldnt identify the baby as Archie. You can assume it is him but you couldn't identify him.
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 06-24-2020, 04:48 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 418
Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 06-24-2020, 05:08 PM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...
William and Kate still want privacy for their children. I doubt they'd agree with having photographs taken of them when they're all shopping. Point is, private or otherwise, parents decide how much they want to show of their children. Everyone has different limits. It's not for anyone else to decide how they let us see him (or not). I'd be different for me if they had some type of social media account where they post photo's of each other every day.

Another things that bugs me is that I've seen other people criticize them for not showing him. Meaning they are hiding him and Meghan supposedly shipped him off with a nanny (or surrogate depending on you believe in conspiracies).

And it still eaves me with the feeling they can't really do anything right.
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 06-24-2020, 06:41 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.

I think we're talking more about what legally the media can do not whether or not the should. The media SHOULDN'T stalk children but if they can they will. And the situation might be worse for them in LA than if they'd stayed in England.


Now that I think about it there is a law called "John's Law" that was enacted after a reporter broke JFK Jr's arm trying to grab him to take his picture. But I'm not sure what it covers. I think this also covered president's children getting more secret service protection.


Oh and I'm going to add on there was some deal with Reece Witherspoon and her children where a man who had been accused of sex crimes had turned paparazzi and was stalking her then 10 year old daughter trying to get pictures. She was taking him to court saying that he shouldn't be allowed near her daughter. But I don't know how that turned out either.
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 06-24-2020, 07:03 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
We all have to remember that the pictures in question were taken in Canada and published by, apparently, a British newspaper.

US Law has nothing to do with it?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 06-24-2020, 07:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDrea2ms View Post
Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.
There is. A huge difference.
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 06-25-2020, 06:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 771
I am not sure how much is ' by law' and how much is by agreement, but we do not see any real photographs of the Cambridge children other than those released by the palace or as somebody said earlier the polo or an event i.e trooping the colour.

I think I am right in saying that William put out a statement some time ago warning the paps that it was becoming dangerous the lengths that some were going to in the pursuit of a photograph of the children.

They were hiding and jumping out etc, undercover tactics that could in effect have been a kidnapper or worse and there was a risk that somebody could be seriously hurt in the process.
What I read in to that was that the security could not be sure if it was a photographer or somebody with more sinister intent and there could be repercussions.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi america anastasia 2020 archie mountbatten-windsor armstrong-jones background story british royal family canada china chinese commonwealth countries coronavirus customs daisy doge of venice doll duke of sussex earl of snowdon emperor family life family tree fashion and style general news thread george vi gustaf vi adolf hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume interesting introduction jack brooksbank jewellery jewelry kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers maxima meghan markle nepal nepalese royal family princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess laurentien princess of orange queen consort royal ancestry royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech stuart sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thailand tradition united states of america videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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