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.