Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

hopefully not. quick google told me all I need.

I've not read it. However, reviews on Amazon are quite interesting. Queens opinion on Meghan oh dear. Still we can't believe all we read can we.

I'm reading it now!
Interesting 🧐 enough some good insight some less so!

But to have someone discussing the Queen's sexual appetite in a book is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. Horrible

Call me old fashioned but I thoroughly agree with you. As a republican I don't even especially care that it's the Queen; I'd say it about anyone, unless the book was a purely medical piece (and even then personal details are rightly private in the UK)

Given her self-declared history this person's prurient interest in other peoples' sex lives is perhaps understandable, but for me some things really are better not said

The only people discussing this are the people saying it shouldn't be discussed.

So Homeboy charity is a client of Sunshine Sachs, the same PR company that H and M have hired. And H and M have copyright over any photos of them taken on Tuesday at Homeboy, therefore only they can profit from the photos and can control what is published, ensuring a good shot of anything being 'merched'. This PR stuff is fascinating, but I hope there is at least some benefit for the charities too.

I do think it's odd that you take along your own photographer to an event and release the photos, so you are in total control. But I don't mix in PR circles, so maybe it is the norm?

Having said that, I love the fact that Kate takes many of her family photos, so she presumably retains copyright. She's also pretty good at it - some great shots.

@ajandjjmum

I do think it's odd that you take along your own photographer to an event and release the photos, so you are in total control. But I don't mix in PR circles, so maybe it is the norm?

Having said that, I love the fact that Kate takes many of her family photos, so she presumably retains copyright. She's also pretty good at it - some great shots.

It’s unusual for the Royal Family and you are right that Kate does it. Understandably they tend to be much better and more marketable pictures so understandable to get those ones out there instead of unflattering paparazzi ones. It’s possibly much more normal in celebrity circles. I can fully understand why anyone in the public eye would want to be able to control what images of them are in the public domain.

I wonder if it deters paparazzi shots because their value will be less in comparison to a well designed and posed (even if pretending to be natural) picture. If so, that must be a win win situation.

The most natural photos I've seen of William, Charles and the three Cambridge children are the photos that Kate has taken, and she is a good photographer, but would she profit from them? I think she puts them on their social media and the press take them from there, so by then they're not exclusives.

@EthelMayFergus

The most natural photos I've seen of William, Charles and the three Cambridge children are the photos that Kate has taken, and she is a good photographer, but would she profit from them? I think she puts them on their social media and the press take them from there, so by then they're not exclusives.

I’m not sure if she profits (or a charity profits) but I think those pictures are supposed to be in exchange for being otherwise left alone by photographers. I think it’s a great deal as people get to see photographs they’ve cooperated with and it also makes them control how they come across to the public.

That makes sense, I don't think I've seen a 'papped' picture of the children, and I can't think of any of W and C since they married (not in the UK, I know there was the one in France). The awful footage of Kate being followed to her car (pre- marriage) in the same way as Diana was hounded doesn't seem to happen any more thankfully. If that's the deal then it's probably worth more than money to them.

i imagine they have good security these days.
I think Kate is clever taking her own pictures. that way she knows only good ones will be used. gives them some control.

Wasn't K 'papped' when she was at Waterstones recently, or was that her own photographer she took with her. Because the narrative what that she was just spotted there.

I do think it's odd that you take along your own photographer to an event and release the photos, so you are in total control.

Also, Sophie took her own photographers when she was 'secretly' volunteering at some kitchen recently.

Do you know if Sophie had copyright over the photos?

[quote BlueTreeBlue]@Institutkarite I was merely asking why you thought it was so cruel and horrible.
I did get the meaning right therefore I don’t understand why you’re being so uppity about it. You sound like a very angry person and a bit ridiculous.[/quote]
I do get a bit pissed off when a poster decides that I don't mean what I've posted and I must mean something else. I read the book and I think it's awful and very cruel.
You think that I'm uppity, you most definitely wouldn't say that to my non white face would you?

@BlueTreeBlue
I'm not going to go into details about why I think it's so awful. I've chosen to read the book but I'm not going to repeat any of the content. That's my prerogative.

but I think those pictures are supposed to be in exchange for being otherwise left alone by photographers
This is true for interviews and photocalls. However I'm sure I read somewhere that the photographers are not happy at all about Kate taking the kid's photos. I agree though that they are nice posed photos instead of the more official ones where they all line up.

That said I have also read on a photography forums that Kate isn't a good photographer. She has the best of equipment and that all helps but they had many criticisms, not only of her photos, but that she is being hailed as an amazing photographer. Personally I think they are nice.

I've no idea if Kate is a good photographer or not. I love her photos, they're really natural. Especially the Father's Day one of Prince Charles and William.

It will be interesting to see if Charles continues to fund H&M after the book published in August and bits have been leaked stating H&M accused both Charles and William of a silent coup to get rid of H&M. Odd though as H&M were already making plans to leave. I can't help wondering when Charles becomes king and William has Duchy of Cornwall with all that money if he will fund H&M or if they will have to fend for themselves like everyone else does.

Won’t Charles have income from the Duchy of Lancaster as king?

I read that Charles's income will be massively down next year. But even so I don't suppose he will qualify for UC. Anyway aren't Meghan and Harry going to be earning multi millions from giving speeches.

Kate got papped in the last year or 2 going to a Middleton birthday. She looked quite pissed off.

Just read this
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8464913/amp/Jessica-Mulroney-concerned-friendship-Meghan-Markle-good.html