Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

A question about Harry and Meghan and photos etc.

118 replies

Moviprep · 21/01/2020 19:38

I know, we have hardly had any threads on this Wink.But I was just wondering whilst reading the BBC.
It says H&M have issued a warning to the media over pics published of her out walking the dogs and baby. ( I had a google, saw the pictures).
Now, apparently the photographers, those sneaky chaps, were hiding in the bushes. She had two security guards with her, surely its their job to keep her safe? This surprised me, I think I’d be annoyed if someone could lurk in bushes and I had paid security with me.
Also, she appears to be looking directly at the cameras and smiling. She is certainly smiling directly in the direction of the cameras. And smiling quite a bit, not just an inane smile as I might have whilst out daydreaming/ walking. It seems as though she knew they were there. If it was Jo Bloggs just taking a photo to show his mum would that be allowed?
Even the security seem to be looking right at the cameras.
Also, is it illegal to just take a picture of people? People take photos of celebrities/ the royals all the time. And sometimes post them/ sell them, and it has never been mentioned. If someone took a picture of me walking down the street and sold it, could I stop them?!
Surely celebs are snapped all the time? When they want and when they don’t want?

OP posts:
DownWhichOfLate · 21/01/2020 19:43

No idea but I just googled. That sling isn’t doing the baby any favours.

PreseaCombatir · 21/01/2020 19:45

She blatantly knew they were there, as she was smiling for them....

Original poster
Moviprep · 21/01/2020 19:47

Pretty sure I didn’t always have the sling on right every time so that doesn’t bother me. Really don’t want a bashing thread. Just wondering whether they can ask people not to take photos. And what the security were doing? And why she is smiling if she didn’t know they were there?

OP posts:
Chocolatehamper · 21/01/2020 19:47

When I saw the photos earlier, my immediate reaction was if they had ‘escaped the UK’ to get away from paparazzi - why then was she smiling happily for them, was it just to rub noses in it?
Seems to me that she’s playing a silly game.

Pipandmum · 21/01/2020 19:48

Security isn't to stop paparazzi. And don't you remember the hoo ha over topless pics of Kate on holiday years ago? She was hounded quite a bit too.

Junie70 · 21/01/2020 19:48

She's playing with fire.

Original poster
Moviprep · 21/01/2020 19:50

If you’re out walking in a park and famous surely people will snap you? It’s the price of fame I would have thought. It’s more the security, what’s the point of them then?!

OP posts:
Needmorecaffine · 21/01/2020 19:53

There is no law that prevents photos being taken in public. I assume it would be the same in Canada.

It's not her security personnel job to stop that. Issues around Wimbledon were made enough.

Needmorecaffine · 21/01/2020 19:53

Bad enough !

BackInTime · 21/01/2020 20:26

Funny how for weeks over Christmas there was not a single paparazzi photo taken of the pair even though their whereabouts was publicised and there were reported sightings. These recent photos are just as staged as the 'low-key' visits to shelters etc. They cannot have it both ways either you want a quiet private life or you want publicity.

derxa · 21/01/2020 20:43

It's a very poor way to live your life.

Oaky321 · 21/01/2020 20:44

She called the paps.

Lordfrontpaw · 21/01/2020 20:46

She didn’t smile at the poor guy at Wimbledon (who was taking a selfie on the opposite direction) and sent security over to tell him to bugger off.

gaffamate · 21/01/2020 20:46

Assume security would step in if the papa tried to grab or physically hurt her in any way.

TheYearOfTheDog · 21/01/2020 20:48

I cannot believe they are being stupid enough to sue the paps in the bushes who took the dog walking photos.

They need to wind their necks in now. are they determined to go down in flames, or whatever the saying.

Lordfrontpaw · 21/01/2020 20:51

You know when your child is on a track ‘look at that man! He’s a naughty man! He is smoking! Bad man - smoking kills you doesn’t it mummy? Is that man going to for mummy...’ and you keep hissing ‘shhhhhhhh, stop talking, please stop’ because they don’t know when to stop. It’s the same here - if they want the quiet life then act that way.

Yes, the shots did look set up - maybe so they could threaten to sue in an attempt to scare other paps away (definitely not a tactic that will work)?

Dobbytheelf · 21/01/2020 20:52

Security staff aren't there to stop people taking photos, it was a public place! They're there in case she was approached, mobbed, someone tried to harm them.

Lordfrontpaw · 21/01/2020 20:53

They did that at Wimbledon though. And the man wasn’t even remotely bothered that she was there (he was taking a selfie of himself with the court in the background)

halcyondays · 21/01/2020 20:53

Yes, anyone can take a pic and sell it. The woman who took that photo of H and M with W and K made quite a bit of money out of it.

I don’t think they normally bother suing paps unless they were taken with a long lens when they were in a private place.

SnorkMaiden81 · 21/01/2020 20:55

Honestly I wish they'd just crawl away quietly now. It's getting worse and worse.

The Meghan Show.

atankofskunks · 21/01/2020 20:58

If they want a quiet life then this is not the way to achieve it. Surely they can appreciate that there's some interest in them right now that, if they get their heads down and live the quiet life they profess to want, will all go away within weeks. Stirring this up today is just keeping them in the news which was allegedly exactly what they didn't want.

trollopolis · 21/01/2020 21:01

I'm amazed that any paps hide in bushes on Canadian parks just on the off-chance that someone recognisable will walk past whilst they're there

Bluntness100 · 21/01/2020 21:01

Yes they can take her picture and sell it, and it can be published. They were in a public place. If they'd photographed in their home it would be different.

I don't understand who the legal warning was too though. It seems s bit silly, they don't know if the paps were German, French, Canadian, British whatever. You can't sue the worlds media. If it's published in one country unless you take an injunction it can be published in others.

The problem they have is that as royals they were protected, there is an agreement in place regarding the royals privacy, it's why no pics of them were published when they had their six week Canadian break. But they loose that protection when they give up royal life, and so become like any other celeb. Hence today's pics. It's open season for the press now, their protection has ended when they walked away.

So their legal warning was just them tantruming. It was pointless and the worlds media know it. As must Harry and Meghan. They can't seriously have expected they will be given the same privacy agreement as the royals have.

atankofskunks · 21/01/2020 21:07

I have to say, having looked again at the pics she looks like she doesn't have the first idea how to use that carrier. Archie is in a dreadful position.

KayakingOnDown · 21/01/2020 21:16

It's open season for the press now, their protection has ended when they walked away

This. They high-handedly dismissed the royal rota system which gave them a degree of protection and privacy.

The UK press was respectful to royal family members in a way the world's media will never be. I couldn't understand why Harry thought there'd be more privacy outside of the UK. It's not what his wife wants anyway, she almost certainly called the paps and made money out it. This will be what it's like from now on.