Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

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 .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:

SebandAlice · 22/01/2020 15:23

*the paps often work

Cohle · 22/01/2020 15:35

Seriously some people on these threads are so dim.

Yes, dim enough to believe major celebrities don't have a PR strategy and the ability to work the press

Roussette · 22/01/2020 15:53

@pallisers

Sorry, I'm a bit slow today and didn't realise!

Cohle And that's always the case is it? Are you a PR strategist then? You know that 100% every single time someone is papped, they have alerted the press?
Don't be ridiculous

Smellbellina · 22/01/2020 16:45

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.

Well yes, quite, so it’s probably something they’ll need to get used to over there.

Cohle · 22/01/2020 16:57

You know that 100% every single time someone is papped, they have alerted the press?

Every single time? Of course not. This time, in these circumstances, with these photos - I think you'd be incredibly naive to think otherwise.

Roussette · 22/01/2020 17:28

And I think you're incredibly ridiculous to think they have, given it's a long lens and they are suing.

3luckystars · 22/01/2020 17:30

Also staff and neighbours get paid for tipping the press off about things too.

What you see is not all there is.

LaurieMarlow · 22/01/2020 17:35

And I think you're incredibly ridiculous to think they have, given it's a long lens and they are suing.

You’re forgetting the fierce motivation to find these people in the wrong.

Always. And forever.

Smellbellina · 22/01/2020 17:41

They’re not suing regarding these pics of the dog walk, they can’t they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They are threatening to sue re the paps camping outside their home.

GuytheBeagle · 22/01/2020 17:43

The UK media only have been given a warning. They are not saying they are definitely suing.

There is an informal agreement with U.K. media not to publish papped pix , esp of the younger royals, and by and large they have kept to it. In return, we get the staged photo opps - first day at school etc.

It is not illegal to take pix in a public place. Harassment might be a different matter, but she looks perfectly comfortable (unlike the child.)

Now that they have declared UDI, ditched the royal rota and renounced their roles, the gloves are off, especially as they are abroad.

My view is the pix were set up. The warning gives them a plausible deniability argument, the press get two stories in one- the original and the threat of legal action one.

And the pix get out to reach the main target audience (not U.K.) whilst bolstering their story of being hounded by media.

There could have been an arrangement over the money made from the pix, as well as for 'merching' the baby carrier contraption.

It's all very messy.

followingonfromthat · 22/01/2020 17:43

I have a friend in the public eye, and from what I've been told, it isn't much fun being hounded like this.

Paparazzi photographers have extremely powerful zoom lenses and can take pictures from a great distance. They'd be so far away you wouldn't even know they were there.

Cohle · 22/01/2020 17:44

And I think you're incredibly ridiculous to think they have, given it's a long lens and they are suing.

But they're not suing. They've issued a "warning".

Meghan tells a friend, friend tips off the press, Meghan has total deniability.

How someone can look at her choosing today to post weeks old photos on her instagram and not think she is attempting to play the media is beyond me.

Butterymuffin · 22/01/2020 17:53

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.*

This would have been a great idea. It would have allowed Harry to carve out his own role distinct from his brother's, Meghan to do some work on girls' rights, education and other causes she has enthused about, and they could have come back before Archie started school.

LochJessMonster · 22/01/2020 17:56

If the pap was a really long distance away and she probably didn’t know he was there, then what’s the problem? He obviously wasn’t interrupting her walk by being right up in her face. The photo wasn’t of anything obscene or of Archies face, plus she looked bloody beautiful and stylish.

As a former actress and now member of the royal family, she has to expect some paparazzi around her - surely these photos are better than topless ones (Kate) or flashing cameras shoved in her face a la the kardashians.

schnubbins · 22/01/2020 18:19

@Butterymuffin what a great idea.Security may have also been a huge problem but Africa would have been perfect for them as individuals.I grew up in Zimbabwe in the 70's and it would be difficult to recommend it now as it has changed a lot but they could have found somewhere perfect for them and done so much for lovely people somewhere on the continent of Africa.

Roussette · 22/01/2020 18:32

Cohle and how anyone on here can spout stuff like it is facts when they don't know is beyond me.

Difference between me and you is... I have never hated MM and I look at people in a positive light. You do and you don't.

Cohle · 22/01/2020 18:36

I don't hate her. It's not hating a celebrity to expect them to utilise PR to their advantage.

I think it would be very strange in her position if she wasn't trying to take full advantage of the press. She needs to make money now and of so course she has to stay in the public eye.

Aridane · 22/01/2020 19:50

What an unpleasant and bizarre thread. Are all MM threads to unpleasant?

< exits thread >

Flip

1 2 3 4 5