Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

More News on Harry and Meghan

999 replies

Viviennemary · 18/07/2020 19:51

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
YgritteSnow · 25/07/2020 00:37

Just read that. It's awful.

noimkaren · 25/07/2020 01:53

Agree that using drones to snatch baby photos is simply wrong, but slightly Hmm at the legal action given that no photos have surfaced. I wonder if any were actually taken or whether it's a wind up for attention?Whether the drone and/or photos are were real, issuing court proceedings against persons unknown is a cheap way of signalling your own 'celebrity status" & getting some column inches, especially when you're not doing anything that's worthy of attention otherwise. According to the Sunday broadsheets, H&M are 'distancing' themselves from the biography and saying they were never interviewed for it. Wasn't it being touted as their way of putting the record straight a few months ago?

TheCraicDealer · 25/07/2020 02:20

I saw the drone picture- wasn't looking for it, just cropped up on the "discover" page on my Instagram. Very blurry image of someone who may or not be Doria pushing the baby on one of those little trikes around the drive. I don't click on it so don't know if it was published somewhere.

It's awful that paps will go to such lengths and I fully support this latest action. It must be really horrible for Harry having left the UK due to alleged press intrusion and what they saw as bullying, only to have to deal with it literally on your doorstep. Perhaps he might now realise how much protection they gave up when they left.

ajandjjmum · 25/07/2020 07:15

According to the Sunday broadsheets, H&M are 'distancing' themselves from the biography and saying they were never interviewed for it. Wasn't it being touted as their way of putting the record straight a few months ago?

It'll be her loose lipped friends again!

FannyCann · 25/07/2020 08:14

A source told The Sun: 'They feel they were owed an awful lot of credit for their popularity and success of the wedding — which led to a public outpouring of support — that they did not get.'

This little snippet stood out for the first prize for deluded entitlement. Where to begin...

It makes me love Beatrice and her low key wedding all the more.

Roussette · 25/07/2020 08:20

Agree that using drones to snatch baby photos is simply wrong, but slightly hmm at the legal action given that no photos have surfaced. I wonder if any were actually taken or whether it's a wind up for attention?Whether the drone and/or photos are were real, issuing court proceedings against persons unknown is a cheap way of signalling your own 'celebrity status" & getting some column inches, especially when you're not doing anything that's worthy of attention otherwise

Yes they are real Hmm. I've seen one elsewhere where it was picked apart and ridiculed and used as a stick to beat them.

So no, they are not doing it for attention, I think that's a pretty awful thing to say to be honest. Your opinion of them must be rock bottom to think they made this up as 'a cheap way of signalling their celebrity status' Shock
Imagine if someone was spying on your child, taking pictures, and then someone not believing you?

This is part of the statement from their Lawyer and it sums it up for me.

"The photos at issue are not news. They are not in the public interest. They are harassment. The sole point to taking and/or selling such invasive photos is to profit from a child. Such sales, in turn, stoke the paparazzi market and lead to ever more harassment. The fact that the images at issue remain in the possession of an unknown adult, having already been shown and shared to hundreds if not thousands of potential buyers, is disgusting and wrong.”

I am glad that the majority of posters on here think it's an awful thing to have done to them and support the court case.

Myimaginarycathadfleas · 25/07/2020 08:25

I am glad that the majority of posters on here think it's an awful thing to have done to them and support the court case.

I think it's pretty much unanimous that people think droning them was a dreadful thing to do. However you're assuming people support the court case. My impression is that most people find their litigious tendencies very tiresome.

Oldbutstillgotit · 25/07/2020 08:30

Where were their very expensive Security people when the drone was flying above the house ?
By the way I too think it was a shocking thing to do, Archie deserves privacy .

Roussette · 25/07/2020 08:32

So they should let it go? And if they did, what would happen then? Open season for drones over their garden.

Any parent would not want that, to feel their child can't go out in their private garden without being papped and pics sold to the highest bidder.

I read it wrong then, I imagined posters on here would support litigation in this instance.

Roussette · 25/07/2020 08:34

Why should a security person be in a private garden with a son and his grandmother? And if there was a security person, what would he do? Shoot it down?!

Nishky · 25/07/2020 08:41

The users of the drone are unknown, so they are apparently taking action against up to a hundred ‘ John Does ‘. I think this means that they can sue anyone who sells the photo.

It seems legal action is aimed more at preventing the spread of the image, not obtaining financial recompense.

Seems a sensible way to nip the use of the image in the bud.

I think non official images of children are used by other countries media mores than the UK. There are images of Prince George when he was a toddler with his mum and grandmother available which are clearly pap type shots. I have never seen then in UK press.

I don’t know if this is an ongoing issue, these days, I don’t go looking for such pics, stumbled across the Prince George ones

Oldbutstillgotit · 25/07/2020 08:44

Roussette

Why should a security person be in a private garden with a son and his grandmother? And if there was a security person, what would he do? Shoot it down?!

Crikey Rousette , you are in a contrary mood ! I would have thought security people would be around whenever H, M and Archie are . I don’t mean sitting beside them but in the vicinity . If one of them spotted the drone , (s)he could have alerted the police and this court case could have been avoided . Yes they are in a private garden but who knows what could happen ? Someone could break in etc . I read somewhere that even when the Cambridge children are playing / running around their garden, security are always hovering in the background . And at least one of them plays football with George .

Roussette · 25/07/2020 08:50

Contrary mood!! Grin Maybe, and I will tone it down I promise Smile

Yes with the security guard...but doubt the security person would be sat in the garden with them, they might just be in the house and drones just hover and they're gone. Look at the closure of Gatwick airport for hours when drones were hovering around, nothing Police could do, and I'm not sure they even caught that person.

My0My · 25/07/2020 09:01

I think wherever they live they will get attention from photographers. It isn’t possible to switch it off. It is possible to try and control the use of the photos. I cannot understand why they thought living in LA would give greater protection from intrusion.

I’m just off to buy The Times!

CallmeAngelina · 25/07/2020 09:02

Given the millions that it is being claimed that their security is costing, I should damn well hope that someone is around when they're in the garden! No, they can't shoot down a drone, but they should be patrolling the perimeter fences and whatever else they're paid for.

I'm not condoning drone footage AT ALL, but I doubt whoever it was was specifically looking for Archie; just anyone who happened to be outside - Meghan sunbathing topless, for instance, which she would be more than entitled to do in a supposedly private garden.

CallmeAngelina · 25/07/2020 09:04

I’m just off to buy The Times!

I just read a couple of snippets of the book online, and I really don't think I could stomach any more. If the intention was to champion their case (with or without their participation), then I think it will sadly fail. I think it will do their cause much more harm than good, as they come across as whingeing and self-absorbed already, I'm afraid.

Rainbunny · 25/07/2020 09:13

I think it's incredibly important that H&M litigate over the drone pictures. They need to shut down this behaviour as soon as possible and send a clear message that there will be no market for illegally obtained drone pictures/footage.

As I've posted many times before, I'm critical of them for many reasons but I have nothing but sympathy for them for being hunted by drones in their own home environment. It must be like living under siege and it no doubt effects their mental health, they probably don't dare go outside in their own backyard most of the time.

I also posted before that drone pictures of other celeberities in their homes are not done, not least because it's illegal in California. So however silly we might think their argument that moving to LA would give them greater privacy, nobody should have expected illegal drones invading their home environment.

FannyCann · 25/07/2020 09:15

Obviously I wouldn't condone gun toting in the vicinity of a small child, but provided everyone is safely inside I don't see why a drone shouldn't be shot down. Going in drone watch would give Harry something useful to do and a chance to relive the excitement of army days.

Original poster
Viviennemary · 25/07/2020 09:16

The time to distance themselves from the book was months ago. But they didn't. It was spun as their side of the story and putting the record straight.

OP posts:
My0My · 25/07/2020 09:19

I think I would have expected it actually. They are the new long lenses. They knew they would be big business and even told us in their submission to court in the case against AN that they had added £1bn to the uk economy with their wedding. So they knew there were dangers. They live in a ridiculously tight bubble with security. It’s a sad way to live.

My0My · 25/07/2020 09:21

The thought had mischievously occurred to me that Harry should get out his army fatigues, buy a gun, and get target shooting! All legal in the USA!

ChicCroissant · 25/07/2020 09:25

I think they'll be criticised for whinging yet again with the book, and Omid will be dropped as fast as everyone else has been.

As for their popularity eclipsing the rest of the Royal Family - no, I don't think that would have ever happened. I've seen that claim before and if they really believe that themselves they are more deluded than I thought!

I don't know how they are going to move forward in the long term. There might have been some interest immediately after they stepped back from the Royal Family but the pandemic has killed a lot of that off. Charles is going to be stuck funding them for years, the poor sod! I hope they find a way to make some income to cover their expenses.

Roussette · 25/07/2020 09:31

Totally agree RainBunny

I don't think even the police at Gatwick airport could shoot down the drones that closed the airport down. Now whether that's because it is illegal to do so, or they tried and failed, I don't know. But I remember at the time thinking why don't they do this and it didn't happen. Obviously US law might be different, no idea

EvilPea · 25/07/2020 10:06

I’ve read that extract in the mail linked above. I’m not sure it’s anything new?

LittleBearPad · 25/07/2020 10:39

Having read the Times, I don’t think Omid’s going to be very popular with the Sussexes or anyone.