The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1161  
Old 06-25-2020, 05:07 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
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.
yes and William and Kate have set their limits. They have agreed that
"yes we know they are royal, and there is public interest and we are willing to release some photos of them.. as it is part of our duty as working royals. "
So they do release photos, moslty taken by Kate.. so as to minimise the intrusion on their kids' lives.. and if the children are out at public events such as a royal wedding, like Harry's or Trooping the colour, they will expect the cameramen to take pictures. But private things like going shopping, taking the kids to school are off limits.

Even so I've seen a lot of criticisims of W and K for their not allowing too many photos and for preferring to release photos that Kate took...
However Harry and Meghan have siad form the beginning in essence..
"Yes we are royal and we expect a certian public interest in our doings.. but our son isn't. he's a baby, he's a private individual and we are not going to show him off when he comes out of hospitial. etc etc.. We are not even going to tell you who his godparents are.. or where he was born"

Then they go and publish pics of him on social media, they do that video of hm being read to (why?)
AND now since A was born, they have dropped out of royal working life..and so there is NO obligation to show Archie off at all.. so why do it??
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 06-25-2020, 09:04 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,028
Doesn't matter as to why ..he's their child and if they, THEY, choose to share a photo that is their right to do so. They've shared one clip of him in recent months. Past that you aren't seeing him.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 06-25-2020, 09:36 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,123
Exactly. If Harry and Meghan on *their* terms want to show their son that is their right. We saw Archie for his birthday. Other than that we have not seen that child. Just like W & K... they can do as they please in regard to their children. We literally have zero say.
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 07-01-2020, 01:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 191
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-article.html

I presume this story is just for clicks as its mainly a rehash?
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 07-01-2020, 02:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 589
Some of this is new to me, so I take it all this has been in the press before.
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 07-01-2020, 02:25 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katymcwaity View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-article.html

I presume this story is just for clicks as its mainly a rehash?
It seems that she has named the 5 friends that are an integral part of this lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 07-01-2020, 02:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,066
Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 07-01-2020, 03:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security
I read that and found it all deeply unpalatable.

As if she didnt sanction those friends. And she doesn't get it. The wedding is supposed to bring in money. That is why you got a beautiful home, expensive clothes.

Sounds like a petty child. As for the other three working...that is hardly the same. They do not receive 2 mill a year for their work or have been gifted a home. The support the family yes and have a wealthy life because of it but they dont work for the royals.

As for being nominally funded that is just pathetic. Charles has essentially been let keep the Duchy of Cornwall which is run in the public interest really to often give people a change to create a farming life etc.

The royals essentially own nothing themselves. Balmoral and Sandringham. The rest is the states.
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 07-01-2020, 03:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
I read that and found it all deeply unpalatable.

As if she didnt sanction those friends. And she doesn't get it. The wedding is supposed to bring in money. That is why you got a beautiful home, expensive clothes.

Sounds like a petty child. As for the other three working...that is hardly the same. They do bot receive 2 mill a year for their work or been gifted a home. The support the family yes and have a wealthy life because of it but they dont work for the royals.

As for being nominally funded that is just pathetic. Charles has essentially been let keep the Duchy of Cornwall which is run in the public interest really to often give people a change to.create a farming life etc.

The royals essentially own nothing themselves. Balmoral and Sandringham. The rest is the states.
I agree, I don't like the tone this is taking now. Meghan, Harry or both of them are also bringing other royals into it and questioning their role and activities within the family. This will NOT be appreciated by the people concerned nor by the Queen I expect and the papers will have a field day with it.
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 07-01-2020, 03:44 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 645
Iíve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by Ďthe institutioní is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly itís possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when itís Meghan itís the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 07-01-2020, 03:54 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
Iíve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by Ďthe institutioní is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly itís possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when itís Meghan itís the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.
She doesnít care of people in the UK think of her, only the US. Sheís trying to portray herself a victim of everyone that sheís ever come into contact with because she thinks being a victim endears her to the US public
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 07-01-2020, 03:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
Iíve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by Ďthe institutioní is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly itís possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when itís Meghan itís the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.
Is this actually what the Legal team have said, or is it a suppositon?
Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old 07-01-2020, 04:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 953
The friends are referred to by letter but ai even know who most are from the Wedding. No way they spoke without her sanction. Would you?

Most ofnitnin regard to the other royals and the wedding is in quotes so I guess they are quoting verbatim.

Cash cow for the media this.
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 07-01-2020, 04:32 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Is this actually what the Legal team have said, or is it a suppositon?
According to the article above, this is what the legal team is claiming in the filing
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 07-01-2020, 04:38 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,028
I'd like to see a copy of the legal filing to see exactly what was filed.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 07-01-2020, 05:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
According to the article above, this is what the legal team is claiming in the filing
I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 07-01-2020, 05:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,066
BTW all the bits i included in my post were with direct quotes from the legal papers from at least two sources - the DM and the Sun. I'm not biggest fan of either but not many seemed to be reporting it at the time, the DM I take with a hue pinch of salt. But thats why I took direct quotes only.


What confuses me is what does the working royal being paid, wedding bringing in money for the economy or lack of support from the RF have to do with the copyright issue I thought this was about?!? I'm obviously missing something.
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 07-01-2020, 05:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 375
I am, I believe, officially lost for words.
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 07-01-2020, 05:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?
Yes, because the DM never prints anything that isnít 100% accurate, and they have never been known to embellish stories in order to get more clicks.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.Ē

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 07-01-2020, 05:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,066
Okay quotes from the Court docs I can find (I know the sources are all those that are now "banned" by H&M but I think the others are not covering the case, probably until the outcome is known)

"As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself" (Mirror)


[the wedding was]not, in fact, publicly funded, but rather personally financed by HRH The Prince of Wales'.

The submission added: 'Any public costs incurred for the wedding were solely for security and crowd control to protect members of the public, as deemed necessary by Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police. (Daily Mail)

"several member[s] of the Royal Family do ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent". (The Sun)

[Meghan] "was also the founder of the commercially successful lifestyle website The Tig" (the Sun and DM)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 18 (0 members and 18 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
abdication abu dhabi american history bangladesh belgian royal family bridal gown canada castles chittagong cht clarence house coronavirus countess of snowdon danish history diana princess of wales dna dutch dutch history dutch royal family edo facts family tree fantasy movie genealogy habsburg henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha imperial household intro japan jewelry jumma languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail maxima mbs nepalese royal family netherlands northern ireland norway norway history palaces palestine prince daniel random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings shakespeare spain spanish royal swedish royal family thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×