A question about Harry and Meghan and photos etc.

[Moviprep]

I know, we have hardly had any threads on this .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?

I wonder if you are all the kind of people who tut about bullying and tell your children to be kind as you put the anonymous boot in to a woman who you have never met and who has done nothing to you.

Absolutely toxic and mad.

Growing you sound like you know her? Or are you just making massive assumptions based on what you’ve read in the Daily Mail Etc?

DareDevil
Absolutely toxic and mad.
Indeed! Quite scary really that people can act like this about someone they don’t even know.

Splash are the paps that the Kardashians keep on speed dial.

Funny that they knew exactly where Meghan would be...................

Funny that they knew exactly where Meghan would be...................

Are you really that thick? Stop reading the Daily Mail comments section.

I also think it's Harry that wants total privacy. Meghan is an actress and used to the publicity roundabout.

The RF do have agreements with the press, they've lost that right now so they will be considered fair game. Can't have it both ways, unfortunately, and after making such a drama out of stepping back from their roles the paps will be interested for a bit.

For a couple who want privacy, they have a very strange way of going about it. I think it would be more accurate to say that they want to control their public image. No chance!

Not ANOTHER Meghan bashing thread!!! For pity’s sake 😞

Canada has federal and state laws they can use to get privacy. So in BC they can go after a couple of individual photographers to get them fined and get injunctions against them as a warning to the rest. Incidentally other residents pointed out the press stalking them were British as there are lots of famous people in the area.

Oh - you know in Canada they speak English and they have the web so you could easily find this out yourselves rather than read the Daily Mail comments section.

They can't seriously have expected they will be given the same privacy agreement as the royals have

I wonder if this was what they hoped for with the 'half in half out' arrangement they originally touted. All the benefits (protection) of being royal but without the obligation to do the bits they didn't like or not to pursue earning opportunities.

I’m assuming she wanted to leave the grounds of their home because nobody wants to be trapped in their home like a prisoner?

She does look like she’s smiling straight at the cameras though.

Ok looked at the pictures.

They're clearly taken from a really really long distance, you can tell by the grain.

I've had my photo taken from a distance, totally unaware it was being taken, and youd think I knew the camera was there. I'm looking directly into the lens and smiling. What was actually happening, I was looking accidentally in that direction whilst smiling at something a friend was telling me.

So not necessarily a set up at all.

Also, you can see the carrier shoulder strap has just slipped down her arm. Give her a break.

If she had a miserable face or her/the guards had shouted at the paps it would have made an even bigger story. When they go low, you go high etc etc. New mum takes dogs for walk is the most they can muster up with this.

"but in the UK publications are not allowed to print photos of children without their parents permission"

Thus is not true.

Firstly, UK is not a single jurisdiction

Secondly, it is permissible in England to take pictures in public places (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) and to publish them, regardless of the age of the people in the picture

Thirdly, it is possible to take legal steps to prevent the publication of pics (which wouid be totally legal to publish otherwise) and it is for the courts to decide upon that. So reasons to inhibit the publication of the photos as described here will have been decided on a basis individual to that family, by the courts, not because it is blanket illegal.

"They very obviously did not call the paps. Ludicrous"

So how come the pap was in position exactly where she was walking?

That's a genuine question btw. Because it strikes me as a remarkably ineffective way to seek to get the pix. What if she didn't walk past your bush of choice?

Can I ask a very stupid question (sorry)

Are their dogs just allowed travel with them on planes like that and get off and run around in Canada? Or are they new dogs?

They knew where she was because it’s already been reported that there are media camped outside the house she and Harry are living in. They just followed her.

My thought was, trying to wrangle two dogs on separate leads and a baby into a carrier, and then walk with all 3... I'd be looking pretty stressed...
Seems like an unecessarily stressful way to walk your dogs, unless you had no other choice.

Then when I saw the wider angle with the security behind her. I thought, what a way to live, how could a peaceful solitary walk take place while being followed and watched??

They should have gone to Africa for a few years with the queen's blessing, stopped using Instagram apart from an occasional released family photo, and the UK public would have wished them well and wanted them left alone in peace.

Like will and Kate got in Anglesey.

Seems like they don't want that though...but time will tell.

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

This!
Canada has a LOT of parks, shrubbery, bushes, trees etc - the odds of Meghan Markle just happening to walk past your particular bit of shrubbery are surely too high for any pap unless they were informed in advance !

Tbf to MM she worked really hard for years for her fame and I can see why she wouldn’t want to give it up just because she’s married H. But I can see why H may want more privacy as his fame was thrust upon him, it wasn’t something he pursued.
I don’t think they have made this move for privacy, I think it’s more about having control about how they be famous, which isn’t all the surprising.
I wonder how they are hoping it works out, I’m not convinced it will be in the way the hope but who knows. Hope it does.

In the U.K. the press have a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ with the press. The royal family appear with children for regularish photo shots eg first day at school and in return they leave them alone.

Just dropping by to say we've moved this thread over into the Royal Family section.

That should be with the royals.

I was being sarcastic Roussette - sorry if it wasn't clear.

My god. These threads are so frustrating. The way the often paps work is they follow their intended target when they leave their house and then get their candid shots. They also have arrangements with multiple ordinary people for tip offs.

Seriously some people on these threads are so dim.