Does anyone know why the royal children aren't pixelated in photos?

[LaurieFairyCake]

I notice that lots of celebrities children are.

[Jackshouse]

Is it not because the royals have given permission to have their children’s photos from certain events (official events) published and other wise their photos are not published in the UK.

[MightyAtlantic]

I think celebrities' children are usually pixelated in paparazzi shots, whereas the royal family know their children will be photographed "officially" when they take them to events.
Plus, it's part of their lives that they appear in front of the cameras, so no point pixelating them when everyone already knows what they look like.

[EdithWeston]

That sounds plausible.

Also, they have state-of-the-art personal protection (yes I know other rich people can buy it in, but I'm not sure private teams can match what specialist police units are authorised to do)

[Knittedfairies]

...but we only know what they look like because their faces are not pixelated...

[WWWWicked]

I think the royals have done some kind of deal with the press - pictures on official or arranged outings are ok, in exchange for not stalking them as they go about their daily private life.

I think with celebs - if they put their own kids out there in the public area (E.g. Katie Price) then the press will print pictures of them, whereas the likes of Holly Willoughby who only posts pictures of the back of her children’s heads are left alone by the press or their pictures, if printed, are pixelated.

[LaurieFairyCake]

I was wondering it because of the normal, taking them to school shots - they're not pixelated. I assume it's fine at official events but just going about their ordinary business it doesn't seem ok.

[lyralalala]

Mostly the UK press don't publish the going to school/playing in the park shots and the RF don't have any control over foreign photographers