Royal Insight Forum

Mr. Arthur Edwards is not amused at the moment.

Britain?s Wedding-Mad Tabloids Feel a Cold Royal Shoulder - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/world/europe/uk-royal-wedding-tabloids.html?smid=tw-share)

QuoteFor decades, when not effervescing over royal weddings and births, the tabloids have castigated the royals as lazy, frumpy, dissipated or self-indulgent. The royals have used all the means at their disposal to curtail access to their personal lives.

Each side is also aware of its dependence on the other ? the newspapers for access, and the royal family for publicity. Stig Abell, who served as director of Britain?s Press Complaints Commission, a regulatory body, described the relationship as ?a hug that was always threatening to become an assault.?

I think that NYT headline is misleading. Britain's tabloids aren't 'wedding mad' about the May 19th nuptials, and have not been 'wedding mad' since the couple known to be dating.

In fact I have never seen a more sour, snide and nasty set of stories about the background of a bride about to marry into the BRF in my life.

I'm sorry Arthur Edwards is upset. He's always been fond of Harry and gets on well with most members of the BRF.

However, if he thought that Harry was going to beam and suck up all the sarcasm, lies and innuendos about Meghan and allow full range to the tabloids on his wedding day, then he must have been extraordinarily optimistic. Harry's extra protective of Meghan. The British tabs must know that, since the November 2016 KP statement. However they still went full-pelt on his fiancee.

And Arthur knows very well why the restrictive access has been put in place otherwise he wouldn't say 'He and Meghan have seen what has been written..and said 'We don't want anyone near the wedding'.

Yes, correct! And if the tabloids had been just a bit nicer, just a bit fairer, a bit more welcoming of a foreigner who is going to marry into the BRF, things might well have been different.

It is a shame about Arthur who has seems to have been universally liked by most members of the BRF, however the tabloids have certainly kept a daily series of articles either praising or damning the family for years now. Is it really a surprise to Arthur that this is happening?

While Arthur is one of the nicer photogs (along with Ken Lennox when he took pics) I think he's upset at missing the chance to have some good snaps, like some of the past weddings, also he's probably due to retire soon and this is his last big royal wedding.

While he doesnt write the stories, I do agree, he has to have some knowledge of what his colleagues and benefactors are writing to go along with his and other ppls pics. Lets not forget he was one of the boys that crawled through mangroves to snap a pregnant Diana. So while hes mellowed with age, and never chased her and swore at her or other royals, they did up the game and help create the system that led to rude paps.

Yes, Duch. I think the photographers have got a muck on the pluck as we say in Oz about being given very restricted access in a pen outside the Chapel, with over a thousand members of the general public milling about. This is not WA but a much smaller locale, and press and photographers are just going to have to suck it up. That doesn't mean they won't get a chance at the money shot with the carriage ride.

The English tabloids are particularly nasty (DM dangerously veers into that mucky territory but they do have wonderful pictures). I sometimes contrast them with the American ones like the Globe and Mail which seem to be mocking the silliness of their readers by coming out with increasingly outlandish stories. There was one talking about how Camilla was fighting with Kate for the throne and they had come to blows (one respondent actually spelled it as "thrown" which added to the comic effect). All very silly and amusing but I don't get the kind of nastiness you get from the likes of DM.

The 'thrown' business doesn't surprise me at all, Royal. I really don't think newspapers employ proofreaders any more, or even spellcheck sometimes. The British tabs are pretty careless in that respect and they also keep referring to Elizabeth II as 'Her Highness'!

This doesn't bode well for H&M.

The digging of her past, mostly pre Suits, and her family. Harry seems to not have wanted all that to be exposed.

Her past is not "sordid." All what? The Tumblr gossip that is unsubstantiated?

I'm referring to the NYT article, and the mentioning of the articles of her past. They didn't mention tumblr.

Harry and Meghan should have expected this, she had blogs and was into Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, which collaborated with pickup her own phrases and pictures, investigative journalism of who she followed, followers, who posted what and she replied, etc.  she made the journalism job easy by her own media accounts.

Her "past" indicates a marriage that broke up and a live in relationship that broke up. I don't se how that's "scandalous."

And the blog picked by the DM sounded bogus because it referred to a stage actress not a TV actress.

Allegedly Harry is pist off with the press pack.  Did you read the article?

Yes, and the ones that complain about Meghan sound like teens or young people  who want to select harry's bride.

Why wouldn't Harry be upset. I see a lot of vicious things said in the DM like her being a "call girl" and having an "extra husband" plus DM has click bait articles.

Harry himself has not exactly been squeaky clean and as I recall, he was upset because he was baited by the paps some years ago and confronted them.

Meghan needs to face the media to win over the doubters (https://news.sky.com/story/meghan-needs-to-face-the-media-to-win-over-the-doubters-11501034)

QuoteCertainly the younger royals rate highly on the popularity charts and Meghan is now an important part of that new generation.

But in my job you also soon realise not everyone is a fan of the monarchy, and that is why they need to reach out to the doubters, not just their dedicated social media followers, to make sure that they continue to stay relevant.

IMHO this article focuses upon the Duchess of Sussex because of the nontraditional manner in which the Hubb Cookbook was launched to the media. KP filmed it and then released it to the press.

Quote"So, I think that there should be a hybrid approach, the palace needs to balance it out with traditional media and social media.

"However they have had their fingers burned quite badly. The palace, with their handling of Meghan's father, for instance, so maybe this is a bit of a fight back from that."

Absolutely,TLLK. There was the same sort of fuss with Harry's Invictus video, and I believe, a few years ago photos of the Cambridge children were released on social media at the same time as to the Press/traditional media. This Media pack, cook book, and video was released without Press involvement at all, and only a couple of days before the launch. So, they're not happy!

What they want, really, really, want, is unfettered access to Meghan so they can ask her all sorts of awkward questions about her father and half-siblings. They will be there at the Thursday launch no doubt, nursing their resentments and still not being given full access.

However, I would be very careful to keep the Press, especially the British tabloids onside. They can be savage, as Meghan has already found out (and Harry has long known) and also they will be needed for this important tour, Meghan's first. She needs a bit of good will from them. They however, could play ball by not giving the Markles a run every time they open their mouths.

I came across an old thread from a few years ago.  Unfortunately it didn?t get any attention but I thought I would introduce it again. 

Can UK royals win battle against paparazzi? - CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/14/opinions/arbiter-royal-photos/index.html)

Paparazzi pictures have plagued the British royals for decades. More than 30 years ago, images of Princess Diana frolicking in the surf were splashed across every British front page. And who could forget the startling images of Sarah Ferguson having her toes sucked. When Prince William and Prince Harry were children, stepladders were regularly propped against school walls in the hope of gaining surreptitious photos.
But the royals are not alone in their fight for the privacy of their children. The British press now blurs the faces of famous offspring, but around the rest of the world, there doesn't appear to be any strict regulation. No doubt, one day, Suri Cruise, Harper Beckham and Shiloh Pitt will have plenty to say on the topic.
The question is, how do you mandate a global press? Given George and Charlotte's positions as potential monarchs, is it unreasonable of William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, to demand privacy for their children?

Royal Family's Paparazzi Problem from Prince Edward to Meghan Markle Explained in New Film (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a33597166/royal-family-paparazzi-lucy-worsley-photo-album-pbs/)
The royals are well-aware of the power of a photograph. A new portrait of a royal baby can easily make the front pages of British papers, but so can an unfortunate candid or an intimate moment captured without permission by the paparazzi.

Harry and Meghan recently filed a lawsuit to ?protect their young son?s right to privacy in their home.? It alleges that drones, helicopters, and telephoto lenses have been used to try and capture Archie's photo, and court documents describe the ?relentless and quite frankly shocking efforts of the tabloid media to profit from serial intrusions on the privacy of a 14-month-old child in his own home.?

My opinion is that the children are a no go.  If the parents choose to have the kids at an event, knowing there will be media, then that is tacit consent. If they release photos then that is giving permission for that photo to be distributed.  But a long lens shot is wrong.

For the adults, again - they are given permission at events.  But a long lens photo of them in their private lives is just wrong. 

But one issue is foreign media - the UK may have restrictions but if another country gets hold of it , they can follow their own rules.  Of course if their own rules are broken there are consequences ie the court case of the photog who took Kates photos in France.

So what are they going to do.  Is it going to be a case of the media pushing and the royals pushing back with letters, lawsuits and appeals?  To each case or just a chosen few.  Does it give a inconsistent message to pick and choose? 

All the senior royals have complained about and to the media for decades. Prince Philip?s dislike of tabloid journalists was well known. ?When he was abroad he said once ?You have mosquitos, we have the Press.? Charles got so fed up with them he gave up reading tabloids. What?s more several royals have threatened or undertaken legal action at times.

The Queen and Charles have launched legal cases in the Courts due to breaches of privacy, and won. Even Albert the Prince Consort sued over likenesses of his children, painted by his wife and himself being reproduced in the Press. The Cambridges have complained several times, sent legal letters and threatened action, as well as sued in France. So it certainly isn?t just the Sussexes who are litigious. And drones going over your home, and in at the windows, as happened at their Oxfordshire home should be a no no under any circumstances.

Continental royals and the Scandic often have arrangements with their Press for their families to be only photographed at certain times such as holidays, birthdays etc. The media there stick to the bargain for the most part. Magazines in republics like Germany, France and Italy don?t and follow the British route. And the British media (although its improved since the Leveson Inquiry which got rid of most paps) is the worst in the world, with lying tabloids and intrusive journalists.

My own opinion is that it would be much more preferable for there to be agreements in place between royals and Press about when and where they are to be photographed in their leisure time. That wouldn?t work with the Sussexes however, as they and the British tabs are at war. And in the US the couple (and Archie) have kept out of the media spotlight for the most part and been photographed only rarely. And that is fine by me, even though I?m hoping for a photo or video of Archie from his parents for his birthday in a couple of days time.

It's almost a dead business since social media. Instant picture share from anyone in the public.

Information on the upcoming BBC program "The Princes and the Press."


The Princes And The Press - Media Centre (https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2021/47/the-princess-and-the-press-ep1)

There are reports that HM the Queen, The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are considering a boycott  due to the BBC's denial to allow the households to preview the program.

Royals could boycott the BBC over Princes and the Press documentary (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/21/royals-could-boycott-bbc-princes-press-documentary/)

Quote

The Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are reportedly threatening to boycott the BBC over a refusal to let them see a documentary about the royals? relationship with the media.

In a rare move, the three households have united to complain to the corporation amid fears that Monday night?s programme, the Princes and The Press, will repeat claims that Prince William and Prince Harry briefed against each other through their aides.

The documentary comes as tensions between the Royal Family and the BBC run high in the wake of the Martin Bashir scandal, where an independent inquiry found the journalist?s interview with Diana, Princess of Wales was obtained by deceit - with failings covered up by BBC bosses. The Duke of Cambridge made a scathing statement following the report.

The Daily Telegraph understands that despite the anger, the BBC will remain steadfast in its refusal to share the contents of programmes presented by Amol Rajan, the BBC?s media editor and a self-confessed republican.

This is thought to be partly due to the fact that the film is going through last minute edits to include details of the Duchess of Sussex?s apology for unintentionally misleading a court over whether she gave authorisation for an aide to brief the authors of a biography about her.

But the Palace is said to have threatened to refuse co-operate with the corporation on future projects if they are not given the right to respond to the full documentary, which airs on BBC Two.

The BBC is also said to be sensitive about its relationship with the royals in the wake of the Martin Bashir scandal. As a result, it is understood they are going through The Princes and The Press line by line, to ensure sensitivity.

Yet despite a series of meetings between the Duke of Cambridge?s aides and the BBC, they are determined that the ?investigation? will not be shown to courtiers.

It is unclear whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have raised any concerns about the show or were contacted before the other households complained.

A senior royal source told the Mail on Sunday that the Queen was ?upset? that the ?tittle-tattle? documentary would air without anyone at the Palace having a chance to see it.

It is the second time the Royals have intervened over coverage of the rumoured feud between the Duke of Cambridge and his brother, the Duke of Sussex.

Earlier this year, just hours before the documentary Harry And William: What Went Wrong? was due to broadcast, ITV removed claims by Omid Scobie, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biographer, that Prince William and his staff planted a story about Prince Harry's mental health.

There is concern that the BBC documentary may repeat similar allegations, which have been consistently denied by the brothers.

The BBC said the show will examine the years in which the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have charted "very different courses" in their relationships with the media.

The first of the two-part documentary covers the ?years leading up to and including the engagement and marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? and provides ?context? for their relationship with the press, by examining the ?illegal activities? of some news outlets in the 1990s.

Mr Rajan, who is tipped to be a frontrunner to succeed Laura Kuenssberg as the BBC?s political editor, has been a vocal critic of the monarchy.
In a 2012 column for the Independent critiquing the media's relationship with the royals, he described the notion of a hereditary monarchy as "absurd" and Prince Charles as "scientifically illiterate".

Any boycott could put under threat joint projects between the Royal Family and the BBC, which have recently included a tribute to Prince Philip and a documentary series Earthshot which was presented by the Duke of Cambridge.

The BBC also films the Queen?s Christmas speech as part of a rota with ITV and Sky.

On Sunday, the Palace refused to comment on the documentary or any complaint to the BBC.

A BBC spokesman said: ?The programme is about how royal journalism is done and features a range of journalists from broadcast and the newspaper industry.?

IF social media was a survey of what people think of the BBC, it wouldn't be tax payer funded today - automatic billing that reaches your doorstep like electricity, water, gas, it would be pay for subscription like Netflix and Amazon.

Second comment (in social media) I've read so far, also in multiple forms is from royalists about BBC lied to Diana, so the above program must be crap too.

Third comment, Omid was interviewed, he lied, talking trash about staff then, but received instruction from a staffer with MM notes. 

Basically, I think a lot of people don't like the BBC?!

I'll watch it when both parts are aired, I hate the ''1 episode per week scheme'.  I usually, mini series or long series, wait until the entire thing is up and running. Binge or drop  :hehe:  ⬅ that's the key, the 1 episode per week, sometimes ends up with the 1st episode great, 2nd onward sucks.

The Duchess of Sussex has also requested that her lawyer(s) refute any  possible claims made in the documentary that she was a "difficult boss."

Meghan sends lawyer to defend her against 'difficult boss' claims on BBC documentary (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/22/bbc-documentary-will-give-credibility-unsubstantiated-rumours/)

Royal Family issue extraordinary joint statement blasting BBC for The Princes and the Press series | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10231911/Royal-Family-issue-extraordinary-joint-statement-blasting-BBC-Princes-Press-series.html)

QuoteThe BBC was accused of giving credibility to 'overblown and unfounded claims' about the Royal Family last night as it broadcast a controversial documentary about William and Harry - which also included a piece to camera from Meghan Markle's lawyer.

In an extraordinary joint statement, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Clarence House said it was 'disappointing' that the broadcaster had chosen to air allegations surrounding Harry and Meghan's departure from Britain.

Lawyers for the Royal Family were on standby over the two-part BBC2 series which included claims by Omid Scobie - a royal journalist dubbed Meghan's mouthpiece - that insiders from other royal households had briefed against the Sussexes.

Buckingham Palace has reportedly threatened a boycott on future projects with the BBC after courtiers were not allowed to view the programme before the first episode was aired last night.

Though the Palace only provided a written statement, the episode featured an appearance from Jenny Afia, a lawyer from Schillings who represents  Meghan, who insisted bullying claims printed about the Duchess were 'false'.

Meanwhile, in a strongly worded joint statement, given to the BBC ahead of last night's broadcast, the three royal households representing the Queen, Charles and William said: 'A free, responsible and open Press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

'However, too often overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources are presented as facts and it is disappointing when anyone, including the BBC, gives them credibility.'

The first episode has aired and it apparently  included the following:

QuoteThe hour-longer episode one of the divisive two-part series, which was aired on Monday night, featured:

    Claims by Omid Scobie - the journalist who co-authored the controversial Finding Freedom biography about the Sussexes - that negative stories about the Sussexes had been briefed by other royal households
    Counter-claims by journalist and MailOnline columnist Dan Wootton that people 'behind the scenes' had come forward to the press after 'getting annoyed' at the behaviour of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry
    An on-camera interview by Meghan Markle's lawyer in which she denied claims that the Duchess of Sussex had 'bullied' royal staff
    An apology by a private detective who admitted he had targeted Prince Harry's then girlfriend Chelsea Davy in 2004
    Claims that Prince Charles had been 'overshadowed' by a decision by Harry's press secretary to release a statement criticising the press's coverage of his relationship with Meghan Markle while he was on a royal trip to Oman

The royal family isn't allowed a reply but Meghan is given the chance to have her lawyer make remarks?

@PrincessOfPeace - From what I gather their main objection is that the three royal households' request to preview the documentary were denied and thus they could not make a reply to the claims in the documentary. However it appears that an attorney representing the Duchess of Sussex was given the opportunity to make this denial in the program. So I guess that she and her legal team had some knowledge of what was going to be covered.

Take a look before it gets taken off.

The Princes and the Press: Episode 1: The New Generation - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eEGQse3xPks)

It didn't get traction/public interest.

Too much lies since Megxit, Oprah, Diana BBC payment, Jason and the latest Ellen shenanigans.

Then we have Omid bringing racism as a royal correspondent, 'I'm the only biracial RR, I'm badly treated'....when you lie and get caught, the public interest in your persona goes down. So he lied about how he got information for Finding Freedom, he lies about being the only non white (his Iranian background are Caucasian), he ignores or lied thinking he wouldn't be caught out about the fact that the Royal Correspondent and Royal Rota member of the Associated Press is BLACK.  :happy17: 

ETA: One in the past 15-20 years hasn't seen Roya Nikkhah moan about her roots. Her parents emigrated from the Middle East. See The Telegraph today: subject of the BBC Omid claim, Rajan the BBC producer admitting to the fact/mistake of interviewing Omid, that Roya and the AP black person, and the 30 years ago AP person Trevor McDonald, couldn't be blacker.

Basically about the BBC, they want ''more'' access to the royals.

@wannable-Yes I did find that interesting that Mr. Scobie considers himself to be "bi-racial" when his racial background is clearly all Caucasian and that he chose to ignore that other members of the Royal Reporters group are either of African or Asian origin.   :unsure:

Thank you @Curryong for sharing the link and I did have the opportunity to view it. Curious to see if the next episode will also be available.
To be honest there was little that was "new" to me though a few revelations or recollections came out:


1. Appalled  that poor Chelsey had to endure those ugly hints about herself ie STDs and question as to if she'd had a pregnancy terminated. I'd also forgotten how often Catherine had her phone hacked-155 times!

2. "Work shy" William was more or less manufactured by the media which the reporters admitted.

3. Happily reminded that for the most part, Meghan received  positive coverage from the British press and that the papers were actively suppressing negative stories for several months. 

4. Surprised at how Meghan and Samantha sound alike. Had I closed my eyes, I might not have known which sister was speaking except for the content.

https://mobile.twitter.com/scobie/status/1462896875615436804?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

For full transparency, the interview I gave for BBC?s ?The Princes and the Press? took place on November 19, 2020.  Omid Scobie

As for the Royal Rota holding back negative stories in the Press about Meghan for months and months after the wedding to Harry, this piece by Richard Kay from December 2018 gives the lie to that. Barely six months after the wedding (May 2018) Kay is going over some of the stories about Meghan emanating from the months following. He?s not explaining every one to his readers so it?s clear that these stories had been out there for some time, being related to the public by journalists.

As I have often said here the negative stories began after the successful tour of Oceania by the couple in Oct 2018 and reached a peak during Meghan?s pregnancy, Archie?s birth (a period of isolation for Harry and Meghan) before the Africa tour and everything that resulted from that.

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions (https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20181217/281994673588499)

If she hadn't lied (and too much, historical evidence for the meghan saga books), she'd probably be sitting this week in DC rather than 🤡 with Ellen.

The proposed bipartisan dinner is coming in December. The invitation to Meghan was extended by Senator K (can?t remember her name) in early November.

Camilla Tominey 💣 London: It was more than a year ago that I agreed to be interviewed by Amol Rajan, the BBC?s media editor, for his documentary The Princes and the Press, seemingly amid much misplaced hype.

Although I have spoken to dozens, if not hundreds, of these sorts of programs in the past, I did go into it with some trepidation, fearing it would be yet another attempt by the BBC to have a go at the ?media? it claims not to belong to (while constantly passing off newspaper exclusives as its own).

We met in a pub in Kentish Town and Rajan, 38, a Calcutta-born, government-schooled Cambridge graduate, was in typical cheeky-chappy form.

Crucially, our chat predated Martin Bashir?s 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales blowing back up in the BBC?s face ? and reports of a bullying complaint being made against Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which hit the headlines days before their bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview in March this year.

Rajan mainly wanted to speak to me about breaking the story of Prince Harry?s relationship with a virtually unknown actress named Meghan Markle.

On October 30, 2016, we splashed the story of ?Harry?s Secret Romance with a TV Star? on the front of the Sunday Express, where I worked for 15 years before joining London?s Telegraph in September 2018.

After blowing some smoke up my backside about the exclusive, which was nominated for Scoop of the Year at the 2016 British Press Awards, Rajan then started trying to find out how I had got the story.

Since a journalist never reveals her sources, I gave him rather short shrift and we then went on to discuss how Meghan was initially very well received by the media, and the relationship between the palace and the press in general.

It was all pretty uncontroversial ? and I get the distinct impression that viewers are going to feel decidedly let down at this new BBC two-part series on the royals, despite the palace?s reported ?fury? that they have not been offered a proper right of reply to potential claims about the relationship between Princes William and Harry.

First of all, I know the second of the two programs has had to be extensively rewritten since the Duchess was forced to apologise for ?unintentionally? misleading the court over whether she collaborated with the authors of the biography Finding Freedom during a Court of Appeal hearing in her case against the Mail on Sunday earlier this month.

So it seems as if it is not a case of the BBC withholding preview copies from the palace ? but rather that it is still being edited right down to the wire.

The palace appears to be worried that Rajan has been told that royal aides purposely briefed the story of Megxit to the press, in an attempt to undermine Harry and Meghan. The Duchess has already claimed, incorrectly, that they briefed against her to me, when I wrote a story in November 2018 suggesting that Meghan had made Kate cry during a bridesmaids? dress fitting.

Cont...Again, without wishing to reveal my sources ? that is not an accurate description of how I came across that piece of information, which I still stand by despite Meghan?s claims it was Kate who made her cry. Perhaps they both cried? We?ll probably never know.

Omid Scobie, who has also contributed to the documentary, may have accused the palace of briefing against Harry and Meghan, but in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, he would, wouldn?t he? The former European bureau chief of US Weekly, who I know personally, took a commercial decision some time ago to become a cheerleader for Team Sussex. Good luck to him.

Do you want to know the real truth about royal briefings?

I can honestly say that in my 16 years covering the royal family, I don?t think I have ever been called by the palace press office and actively briefed a story. Funnily enough, they don?t call us up saying: ?You?ll never believe what Meghan did today.?

That?s not how it works. What happens is a journalist finds something out (which could be from anyone or anywhere), does some digging to stand it up and then calls the palace for a response ahead of publication (or not, if the intel is reliable enough).

Sometimes they offer guidance - but more often than not they decline to comment in line with the Queen?s long held ?never complain, never explain? mantra.

The palace?s role is largely reactive, rather than proactive. Obviously, the PR machine goes into overdrive in response to something like Harry and Meghan giving a 90-minute bombshell interview to Oprah in which they accuse members of the royal family of being racist ? but that?s what they are paid for (and why Harry and Meghan continue to employ spokesmen to brief back).

If you wish to read more, The Sydney Herald purchased the copyright from The Telegraph. Excellent piece from CT.

Quote from: wannable on November 24, 2021, 01:14:40 AM
If you wish to read more, The Sydney Herald purchased the copyright from The Telegraph. Excellent piece from CT.

Well of course it?s an excellent piece by Camilla T isn?t it, because it just happens to be an anti-Sussex article. And as for the snipe by CT at Scobie, every single one of the Royal Rota except him ?made a commercial decision? (driven by their newspaper editors) to follow the Palace party line.

Was Camilla there at the time of the bridesmaids dress thing? No she wasn?t. She took it as read however, as the British Press narrative at that time had turned against the Sussexes. As had the courtiers and aides within the Palaces.

What CT is really saying is that the BBC has the unedited before the apology and had to heavily edit, still editing it. In other words if the three royal households want to sue, a Court of law will request the unedited version.

A statement
Fury
BBC didn't want to provide a copy
They are running editing it

She's going to win another scoop award  :hehe:

That wasn?t a Camilla Tominey exclusive. I read that the BBC were doing some editing of Part 2 of the doco during discussion of the programme Princes and the Press on Aussie media. That was days ago, and it appeared naturally due to the Court case having come after Part 2 had been recorded.

Precisely, because of MM's admission in the court case, the BBC is doing heavy editing.  Today Camilla Tominey confirmed that MM is the only one who colluded with the documentary. All royals were requested to participate in some form, all said no, except her by authorizing her Lawyer to participate, hence my previous comment.

IF the unedited version by any means ends up in the hands of the Queen, Charles and William....I can see it being used in more ways than 1.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE86FysXwAYSKEQ?format=png&name=small)

Camilla Tominey

The DT's review of Part One of the Princes and the Press.
archive.ph (https://archive.ph/T6nnf)

QuoteFor an organisation in need of friends, the BBC doesn?t half like making enemies. Nobody was crying out for a documentary about the Royal family?s relations with the media and yet the corporation decided to make one, sparking a row with the Palace. Cue dark threats about BBC boycotts; the broadcaster, for its part, refusing to let anyone see the contents ahead of transmission.
Well, what a storm in a royal teacup that turned out to be. The Princes and the Press, on the evidence of this first episode at least, contained no bombshells. Instead, presenter Amol Rajan led us through what we already knew, albeit with some canny insider takes from the royal press pack.
The timeline was laid out. Princes William and Harry developed an early hatred of the press after witnessing what happened to their mother, and later became the victims of phone hacking. William learned to play the game, Harry refused. The media?s love affair with Harry and Meghan turned sour, and paved the way for Megxit.
The Sussex Squad, as Harry and Meghan?s fans like to be known, complain that the media is biased. But here was a reminder that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took their fair share of flak at one point, with William dismissed as workshy. Rajan wasn?t here to decide whether that was true or not, he explained, but to find out how those narratives took hold. He wanted to explore how ?the deal? between press and Palace works, and what happens if one side doesn?t keep their side of the bargain.That?s not to say that Rajan didn?t share his own opinions. It is clear, he concluded, that ?in some tabloid quarters, racially charged tropes were evoked and gave a xenophobic whiff? to coverage of Meghan.
One of the factors that marks out Rajan from his peers is his relaxed presenting style. If he leaned back any further in that chair, he?d be horizontal. It makes his fellow news presenters seem stuffy by comparison. He?s also very smart, but this programme wasn?t his finest work. Perhaps he felt under certain constraints, the BBC having a chequered history when it comes to covering the royals. Remember the BBC One controller having to resign after wrongly claiming that the Queen had stormed out of an Annie Leibovitz photoshoot in a huff? I?m sure Rajan would say he shows no fear or favour, but he also knows when not to overstep the mark.
Bar one former courtier, nobody from the royal side of things was involved in the programme, so instead Rajan interviewed various royal correspondents and commentators. Rachel Johnson made a self-flagellating appearance, admitting that her notorious reference to Meghan?s ?rich and exotic DNA? would get her cancelled now and ?rightly? so.
Rajan once expressed republican sympathies in print, but he understands the new BBC mantra: personal politics should be left at the door. His journalistic skills failed him only once, when he allowed Meghan?s cheerleader-in-chief Omid Scobie to paint himself as the ?only? mixed-race royal correspondent. Technically true, but it ignores the fact that a non-white royal correspondent appeared in this very programme (Roya Nikkhah of the Sunday Times), while the Press Association?s royal correspondent is black. A small fact but - as Prince Harry would say in his fight against fake news - truth matters.

Also KP has now decided to negotiate with ITV to air coverage of the Christmas Carol concert at WA rather than the BBC.

William and Kate Christmas carol concert to be shown on ITV | ITV News (https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-24/william-and-kate-christmas-carol-concert-to-be-shown-on-itv)

QuoteITV is in negotiations to host a carol concert involving Prince William and Kate, to be broadcast in the days before Christmas.

The programme ? a new format ? will be recorded at Westminster Abbey in early December but sources at ITV say they were only made aware of the offer late last week.

It comes two days after a documentary on the BBC examining the relationship between the media and Princes William and Harry.

A rare joint statement on Monday from all three royal households ? Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace ? criticised the BBC for giving ?credibility? to ?overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources?.

In an interesting twist, the Christmas carol programme, in which the Duchess of Cambridge will play a key role, is being made for ITV by BBC Studios ? a production arm of the corporation, although that is not unusual in broadcasting.

Considering the awful ratings the Earthshot programme reputedly got I doubt that the BBC are wringing their hands in despair over an Xmas Carol broadcast in WA going to ITV. Very very few royal events get high ratings as people really aren?t terribly interested.

Things are tense between the Beeb and the royals at the moment because the Corporation refused to bend to demands for courtiers to see the programme beforehand and probably try to vet it. The royals however need the BBC more than the Beeb needs them. In times of National crisis Britons still turn to the BBC and have done since the war years.

The documentary Princes and the Press was (a) filmed well over a year ago. And (b) the Palace was invited to send representatives to take part and refused because their will was thwarted.

Sending a lawyer to participate isn?t colluding with anything. It is merely making sure that one?s viewpoint is represented. The usual suspects, Robson, Palmer, Wootton and Roya Nikkah were able to say their pieces. If the whole thing was so pro-Sussex then they wouldn?t have been invited to participate.

Awful

The best 👌 company reviewers to date 4/5, 7.7/10...

The book is also a best seller.

So MM lawyer went on her own with no authorization from her employer...so IF tomorrow the raw tape lands in the hands of the Sovereign, Charles and William, conveniently Meghan will be the victim pointing 👉 her finger to someone else, it wasn't me. And it will land...people are desperate for cash, a junior will blow the whistle so to speak, just like suddenly a piece of bank statement landed to Earl Spencer. Covid19 changed living style for a majority, blue collars.

The BBC already has 2 eggs 🥚 on their face 😳 😐 Diana and now this documentary, if not they'd need not run to edit edit edit. As of today's end of the working hours, they were still editing.   :laugh:

Fact: my family member who is a top manager at the #1 broadcasting Co said if they edit, their own lawyers watch, and say this may get us in trouble, here too, cut this part...

Reviews can be biased and aren't the same as TV ratings. And Covid or not, British people whether W/C, M/C or U/C, wont be hanging out for a Carol service to watch. Xmas is a very busy time. It?s not just me that has stated here that Britons aren?t crazy about the BRF. Everyone who has lived in Britain for any length of time knows it.

The producers have been editing because this documentary has been almost two years in the making and things happened this year (2021) which required cuts, additions, tweaking and a ton of other things. There?s nothing sinister about that. And who says that Meghan didn?t send her lawyer to speak on the doco? It?s obvious she did.

Things happen at the corporation in ways that don?t happen elsewhere. That has been so since the 1920s. We have the ABC here which was established on the British model.  It doesn?t operate in precisely the same way as a business organisation does. Business and other broadcasting companies don?t collect licensing fees from the general public, for instance. .

So any relative working for another broadcasting company, especially a US or non-British one, wouldn?t know how the BBC operates.

Imdb, commonsense reviewer, rotten tomatoes have been and still is the measure of what to watch with their own comments and also letting the public comment and vote.

The editing BBC is because of Meghan's apology. That brings a trail 👣 of other potential lies that an entertainment industry lawyer will tell them cut here, cut there. ✂️

It's not a marvel film with bad scenes...this is a documentary that has implications on real people

Rotten Tomatoes or not, the ratings for the Earthshot show that night were not exactly earth shattering.

There may well be a ton of editing going on with regard to episode 2 of the Princes and the Press. There often is with docos recorded many months before, especially with a long running and swiftly moving story months later. That still doesn?t mean that there is something sinister going on.

And again, viewers in Britain do still turn to the BBC (Covid or not) at times of national crisis. That?s been proved again and again.

And entertainment lawyers at the BBC!!! Ha ha ha! That would be akin to the Archbishop of Canterbury employing Disney attorneys!! Oh well, I?ve had a good laugh today at any rate!

The BBC have their own set of lawyers who are as fixed, certain and conservative as those used  by the RF. And always have had.

There has certainly been a lot of untruths mouthed by the British media, commentators and ?experts? (including RRs) over three years that has had implications for the individuals in one family, the Sussexes. Or aren?t they supposed to have human feelings?

Yes, the 3 have glowing reviews.

For now, Meghan's apology has caused editing. The  documentary of course has to be edited or they will look stupid.

Disney owns discovery Channel so yes they do have lawyers, particularly for their experts who advise or heavily participate anything about nature. For Disney, a panel reads a script to make sure it's balanced woke.

Again, reviews aren?t ratings.

And I?m aware that Disney employs lawyers. What I was pointing out with the Archbishop analogy is that US type lawyers (and the way they approach things) at a place like the BBC would be akin to attaching a blow up mannequin of Mickey Mouse above the main entrance to St Paul?s Cathedral. Just wouldn?t do!

Can you link the ratings you're referring to?

I don't care for analogies...the BBC lawyers had to arrange with Charles William and Harry the amount they'd receive because of the Diana case. And it's a fact that because of Meghan's lies, edit and cuts are being done.  If the BBC wouldn't be editing, easily dragged into the court, loss of credibility and more egg than what they already have.

And William moving to ITV is his right, he's angry.

I?m referring to the TV ratings for the Earthshot PRIZE hosted by William and shown on the BBC on a single evening. I read them when the ratings came out a few days later.

As for the SERIES of Earthshot

The Earthshot Prize: Repairing Our Planet - Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_earthshot_prize_repairing_our_planet/s01)

The tabloid media are the ones that have been pointing to the editing by the producers at the BBC. As they are anti Meghan to a man and woman of course they?re going to highlight Meghan and reference the court case. She?s suing their employers.

Other than that we don?t know what they?re editing and changing as the Journos parroting the Palaces line are hardly likely to print anything unfavourable to Charles or William.

Rotten tomatoes as I said. It takes 3 months to compile, but their own reviews is 👍.  They have to really tell the public what they think. David Atenborough is A++.

Also in reference to William's move to ITV, the anger, time will tell if the move stays in anger or worse, a legal case. That the 3 households wrote a statement, that BBC couldn't give a precopy because they're toast...editing like mad...patience is the best practice to see which way, decisions to go. One remembers the Queen's Christmas speech is BBC.
Latest news, the Queen's speech will be broadcast SKY ITV and who knows BBC

The Express is claiming William and Kate ITV decision has created a public backlash. They want to see Christmas Carol in the BBC because of the mandatory bill like water electricity and gas they pay.

The Express claims dozens of things daily, many of which are untrue. And people only go on Twitter or other platforms about news articles, TV programmes, docos etc if they are tremendously outraged about something of the moment and want to vent their resentment and frustration or are extremely excited and want to share with thousands of others.

But it?s all of the moment. Next day, week, month, something else occupies their minds and fingers. The Twitter mobs posting anywhere don?t represent the vast majority of the population most of the time because people in general are neutral or don?t really care.

And YouGov is skewed too? William and Kate being above 75% favorable with their citizens.

It's time to move on from popularity ratings and the back and forth bickering. If the bickering continues, then this thread will have to be closed.

That Express article you were referring to in your last post didn?t mention YouGov polling at all. It was quoting and referring to what people were saying on Twitter and other platforms about the Cambridges? decision to switch from the BBC to ITV for the Xmas Carol Concert. At the moment, on Twitter, the mood is ?Shouldn?t have done it!?

Tomorrow, next week, next month, it will be some other point people on there will be venting about. As for the Cambridges, as they continue in their public lives, until death presumably if the monarchy survives, there will be other points at which the Twitter mob (or whatever comes after it) the British public and yes, even the media, will not be 110% in agreement with their actions and decisions. That?s just life in the public eye, and public discourse.

So social media wants it aired in the BBC. Lovely.

Quote from: TLLK on November 24, 2021, 11:45:16 PM
It's time to move on from popularity ratings and the back and forth bickering. If the bickering continues, then this thread will have to be closed.

IMO a healthy discussion of opposing views. If unpopular there wouldn't be a 'mob' wanting Christmas Carol at the BBC or worse requesting to defund the state channel.

:flower3:

Thread is reopened.

Clip from one of our morning breakfast shows here, in which RR Robert Jobson states that, in spite of denials from people like Camilla Tominey  the three Palaces do brief reporters personally at times. He also says he doesn?t know what the Palace is getting into a flap about.

Royals BLAST BBC for documentary about Princes William, Harry and Meghan Markle | Sunrise - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNDYn2wsXTE)

Not sure why Robert Jobson negates Camilla Tominey. Two different perspectives. But just as a reminder Jobbo has been one of the most vocal critics of Harry and Meghan.

Jobson had access for his Charles book, the famous lines; what MM wants MM gets, tiara gate...following Charles in his cc duties, the POW would throw him a bone rather than 'is it true' or 'I have this, do you have any comments', which is Tominey's style, as stated by herself.

Amanda Platell participated in the documentary but now criticizes the BBC for its slant and claims that she was conned. I'd be curious to know how other journalists who participated in the recent documentary feel, but perhaps they're waiting for the second episode.

PLATELL'S PEOPLE: How the BBC's golden boy Amol Rajan conned me into royal hatchet job  | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10247499/PLATELLS-PEOPLE-BBCs-golden-boy-Amol-Rajan-conned-royal-hatchet-job.html#reader-comments)

QuoteEight months ago, I was introduced to the BBC?s rising star Amol Rajan who asked me to be interviewed for a TV documentary he was making.

It was about Princes William and Harry and their relationship with the media after the death of their mother Diana. He said the working title was The Princes And The Press but, he went on to say, delphically, that it didn?t ?capture what we?re doing?.

Indeed it didn?t. The first part of the resultant series, broadcast last Monday, was, in my opinion, a hatchet job on the Palace and the Press . . . and a hagiography of Harry and Meghan. It was so biased against the royals the Palace has since threatened a boycott of future dealings with the BBC.

Clearly, being party to such a calumny was not what I signed up for when I submitted myself to at least two hours of filmed conversation with Rajan, who it must be said, was charming, self-deprecating and made me feel everything was on the level. When I saw the programme, my two hours had been reduced to less than two minutes of selective quotes. I felt utterly conned.

To avoid further ghastliness, I asked Rajan to show me any other edits of our chat that might appear in the second episode on Monday, given that six months has passed since the interview. He replied: ?Alas impossible to share: we are still working on the programme. I?m so sorry as always want to be fair.?

I think viewers have already made up their mind about how ?fair? the series is.

The producers allowed Meghan?s lawyer Jenny Afia to speak with the duchess?s approval, at length and unchallenged. Most shamefully, they seem to have failed to offer the Royal Family the same opportunity.

What?s more, they gave disproportionate prominence to Omid Scobie, a Meghan super-groupie who was co-author of a fawning biography. He had free rein to claim the Palace briefed against her because she was too popular. Yet the national broadcaster, set up by Royal Charter, refused Palace staff the courtesy of a preview to see what the Queen and her family were accused of.

I?m deeply ashamed to be associated with The Princes And The Press and feel let down by Amol Rajan, who I believe misled me.

During Monday?s episode, he highlighted two of my Daily Mail columns that were critical of the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William ?even though I?ve written any number in their favour. It seemed I was being used to bolster Meghan?s case. I should have known better.

However badly treated I feel, Heaven knows what the royals feel about being trashed by the BBC.

🤷🏻‍♀️

A journalist feeling duped.

Camilla Tominey shares her perspective on the "deal" between the British monarchy and the media. Which IMO is more or less what occurs in other European Constitutional monarchies. While her view is focused on the British, it's truly no different with what we see occurring in Spain, Denmark, Belgium etc...
The royals carry out their official and charitable duties and the press covers them. On occasion there are issues over privacy particularity with tabloid coverage, so there's an attempt to try and exercise some control over this ie: Dutch Media Code. It's not a written pact but a delicate balancing act between the royals and the press.

The truth about the Royals' "deal" with the press | Royal Insight - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2W1VVn3gk)

QuotePrince Harry and William's relationship with the press has been put under the spotlight once again after the first episode of the BBC documentary The Princes and the Press aired.

The two-part film explores how ?the deal? between press and Palace works, and asks the question what happens if one side doesn?t keep their side of the bargain.

But the reality of this "deal" is far more nuanced, according to The Telegraph's Associate Editor and veteran Royal commentator Camilla Tominey.

"The deal goes wrong when Royals think that they can turn off the tap of publicity when it starts to get critical and negative", Camilla Tominey said in the latest episode of the Royal Insight video series.

And the Daily Mail's royal reporters: Rebecca English, Richard Kay and Richard Eden share their perspective on the BBC's recent documentary and their concerns about the best journalistic practice that they feel was lacking in the program most notably why were certain claims not challenged or followed up ie: Omid Scobie's claim about being the only mixed race reporter in the royal press pack and why Ms. Aifa was able to make her claim regarding the Duchess of Sussex and the inquiry into accounts of bullying behavior.

The latest on the royals vs the BBC after THAT documentary | Palace Confidential - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYk7_xDKoA)

.Here's additional preview information on the second part of the Princes and the Press.
https://archive.vn/KcXla

QuoteIt might have upset the palace, caused soul-searching at the BBC and reignited the worst of the Royal brothers-at-war rumours.
But a controversial BBC documentary about The Princes and the Press has delivered one clear victory for a member of the Royal Family: its name.
The Duke of Sussex will be able to celebrate a triumph in his mission to end the use of the term ?Megxit?, with the BBC choosing to instead call its second episode ?Sussexit?.
The Duke has recently argued the more popular term of ?Megxit?, used regularly in the media, is sexist, having been created by an online troll to put his wife at the centre of their departure from the working Royal Family.
?Maybe people know this and maybe they don?t, but the term Megxit was or is a misogynistic term, and it was created by a troll, amplified by royal correspondents, and it grew and grew and grew into mainstream media,? he said.
The second episode of The Princes and the Press, called Sussexit, is due for broadcast on Monday night and is expected to air claims about briefing from within the palaces, a lack of support for the Sussexes, and a senior member of a Royal Household helping a tabloid newspaper in its court case against the Duchess. The palace, which has only been in recent contact with programme-makers through its lawyers, has dismissed the contents of the two-part documentary as ?overblown and unfounded?, disappointed by what it perceives as failure to offer a proper right of reply.

The Duchess of Sussex?s lawyer will appear again in the second episode, which covers the period of 2018 to 2021, including the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and royal tours of the Cambridges and Sussexes.Examining the ?circumstances around the decision of the Sussexes to step down from their senior royal roles?, it details the various legal cases served by Prince Harry and Meghan, and discusses how the relationship between Diana, Princess of Wales, and the press affected her two sons.

The Sunday Telegraph understands it will include coverage of the Martin Bashir scandal, in which the disgraced BBC journalist was found to have used falsified documents to convince the late Princess to give an interview to Panorama.

The programme was being edited until the last minute this week to take in developments in the Duchess of Sussex vs Mail on Sunday case, in which the former working royal apologised for failing to remember she had authorised her then-press secretary to brief her biographers.

It could include an overlooked detail in the evidence, in which the Mail on Sunday?s editor Ted Verity said that in 2020 he ?had a meeting with a senior member of the Royal Household? with ?direct knowledge? of how a letter from the Duchess to her father was drafted. This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me,? he said in a witness statement.

Lawyers for the newspaper group later confirmed to the court that the source was not Jason Knauf, the Sussexes? former press secretary who eventually provided on-record evidence revealing the couple had authorised him to brief the authors of their biography.

The BBC has not confirmed which elements considered for the documentary will make the final cut.

No previews of the show were made available to the palace, which was asked to respond to a series of allegations in it but believes it did not have enough information to do so.

One palace source said the approach amounted to little more than a ?fishing expedition? aimed at getting aides to give credence to stories they had never commented on before, calling the content ?unfounded conjecture?.

?These are speculative rumours,? said another, of tabloid stories covered in the programme.Here's additional preview information on the second part of the Princes and the Press. The BBC is fully standing by the programme, made by Amol Rajan, with sign-off for the final episode to be broadcast going to executive level.This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me,? he said in a witness statement.

Lawyers for the newspaper group later confirmed to the court that the source was not Jason Knauf, the Sussexes? former press secretary who eventually provided on-record evidence revealing the couple had authorised him to brief the authors of their biography.  It is thought to include unverified claims that a leaked story about the Sussexes leaving the Royal Family came from someone within one of the Royal Households.

The Duchess of Sussex's lawyer will appear on screen to insist she is not a bully, following an internal palace investigation into her treatment of staff, which is yet to deliver its findings.

Rajan has said he will not tackle the ?culture wars? into which the ?younger royals have been conscripted?, but instead hopes to ?bring light where there is heat?.

A joint statement provided by Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace in response to the show said: "A free, responsible and open press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

"However, too often it is overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources that are presented as facts and it is disappointing when anyone, including the BBC, gives them credibility.?

A BBC spokeswoman said: ?The programme is about how royal journalism is done and features a range of journalists from broadcast and the newspaper industry.?

Placing this article here as it involves print media and more than one royal/public figure.

The images of royal women doctored with  bruises and cuts featuring Spain's Queen Letizia and the UK's Duchess of Cambridge have been used without their permission in a domestic abuse campaign. Other public figures featured include the VPOTUS Kamala Harris and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.

While I do understand that need to highlight the serious issue of domestic violence, IMHO it is wrong to use the doctored images of these public figures  as battered women without their permission. IMHO the photos  suggest that this crime was inflicted upon  them by their equally high profile partners/spouses which is very unfair to them.

Doctored image of 'abused' Kate Middleton was used without Palace permission  | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10250159/Doctored-image-abused-Kate-Middleton-used-without-Palace-permission.html)

QuoteKensington Palace was unaware that the image of the Duchess was being used as part of the campaign, according to The Sun.

It is understood that the images are intended to shock, rather than suggest any of the individuals are victims of domestic violence.

Italian artist and activist Alexsandro Palombo, who edited the pictures, said he wanted to ?draw attention to the poor responses from politics regarding the problem of gender-based violence? and underline ?ineffectiveness of the support and protection system to the victims?.

But some comments on social media were critical: ?You are not funny. Don?t use images of women who didn?t give you their authorisation,? said one.

I think it would be much better if this very much needed campaign had used some high profile and respected internationally known celebrities for this, rather than royals. Celebs, especially perhaps singers and actresses, would have been more acceptable and people would still have taken notice. A prominent European  politician or two, (Angela Merkel?) wouldn?t have gone astray either! Always of course, with their permission and those of their partners/spouses.

The people in charge must have known that Queens Consort etc wouldn?t have agreed to their photos being doctored. It?s simply being used as shock factor. If it hadn?t been then surely, out of the British royals anyway, Camilla, who is patron of several anti sexual assault  and anti DV charities, would have been an obvious pick. That however would certainly have caused outrage. Something has gone awry here in this campaign and the main message is sadly getting lost.

Tominey, Palmer, English and the rest seem to have all got their proverbial knickers in a twist about the fact that the BBC hasn?t got the memo that the Sussexes are irretrievably evil, wicked, irresponsible, lying traitors, the line their newspapers and they have been peddling for at least three years.

?Best journalistic practice? to them and their cohorts seems to consist of ?Attack the Sussexes as much and as often as you can? fine, attempt even in some small way to try and understand some of the motivation behind why the Sussexes left, BAD, BAD.

And Tominey especially is always reiterating ?Oh the Sussexes only wanted good stories written about them, only wanted good PR?, while ignoring the literally thousands of articles attacking, degrading and insulting the couple, especially Meghan, that appeared in the tabloid and broadsheet British Press in a virtual tsunami from 2016 onwards. Articles which the Sussexes sucked up and never referred to.

And it might be a very good idea to always remember that the vast majority of these RRs are employed within a newspaper group that is being sued by Meghan. It?s this newspaper group that holds the enormous balance of power in this situation, not the Sussexes. 

 :

Quote from: Curryong on November 28, 2021, 06:15:54 PM
I think it would be much better if this very much needed campaign had used some high profile and respected internationally known celebrities for this, rather than royals. Celebs, especially perhaps singers and actresses, would have been more acceptable and people would still have taken notice. A prominent European  politician or two, (Angela Merkel?) wouldn?t have gone astray either! Always of course, with their permission and those of their partners/spouses.

The people in charge must have known that Queens Consort etc wouldn?t have agreed to their photos being doctored. It?s simply being used as shock factor. If it hadn?t been then surely, out of the British royals anyway, Camilla, who is patron of several anti sexual assault  and anti DV charities, would have been an obvious pick. That however would certainly have caused outrage. Something has gone awry here in this campaign and the main message is sadly getting lost.

I agree with you 100% and am disappointed that what would have been a very effective campaign has now been diluted by not approaching these women to gain their consent to participate.

The behaviour of BBC and the Sussexes, they equally deserve to be as they are.  The first has a growing defund the second being isolated not only publicly but little by little by their own circle, ghosted.

The BBC won?t be defunded. That would be ridiculous. Impossible for the Govt to allow the prestigious national broadcaster to go down. It would mean the Govt would have to be the sole financial support and that wouldn?t ever happen. It, and the Sussexes will carry on as usual. The Sussexes have shown no appetite for returning to the UK at all. And nobody knows what communication there is between them and the Queen, Charles etc.

It's a form of pressure, a change of management may happen or not.

Quote
Meghan Markle's lawyer tonight issued a technical and bizarre denial the Duchess had ever bullied staff - but then accepted 'She wouldn?t want to negate anyone?s personal experiences.?

Of course, the lawyer (via MM) don't know yet (or know or are exercising prudence) what Jason Knauf, Simon Case (the ex boss of JK who works for #10 since months ago) and at least 7 ex staffers have said to the BP investigating team in Ref. to the Bullying and to improve the HR rules within and most importantly, the above had to be changed in a way to not be sued by mainly the Queen, Charles and William.

Quote
The BBC last night appeared to back down on claims that Buckingham Palace briefed against Harry and Meghan after being accused of peddling 'overblown and unfounded' allegations. A BBC2 documentary presented by Amol Rajan examining the relationship between the royal households and the media also stepped back from suggestions that William allowed aides to brief about his brother's mental health - which was categorically denied by, and deeply offended many in, the royal household. The two-part documentary series had already drawn unprecedented censure from Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. The royal households believe it contains a slew of unsubstantiated and categorically inaccurate accusations about collusion with the media, particularly in connection with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the tumultuous period of their decision to quit royal duties, dubbed 'Megxit'. The households' lawyers had been preparing to examine the final programme with a fine-tooth comb and had not ruled out a formal complaint. But last night's prime-time offering had seemingly been watered-down at the 11th hour, with editing going on up until the last minute. Plans for an accompanying podcast have also been postponed by the BBC. A royal source said: 'It is unlikely the matter will be taken further.'

👍🏻

Jason Knauf gave evidence for the newspaper group in the latest round of Meghan?s case against them. He still works for the Cambridges Royal Foundation until next month. It?s hardly likely he would have done so without William?s permission and even encouragement. That is plain unvarnished fact.

And the Sun (Wootton) got their scoop about the Sussexes leaving Royal duties and leaving for Canada from someone senior (either Royal or otherwise) within the Royal Households, a scoop which spurred Harry and Meghan to their statement and actions in 2019 and stymied the tabloid article. The Palace may believe they?ve won this round but the truth about such things almost always has a nasty way of making its way to the surface eventually, one way or the other. .

I for one don't blame Jason, William and Dan. The lies of the Sussexes must be exposed, both are dangerous people.

There's a deadline permitting real bad behavior, it broke 💔 😪 payback time.

Quote from: wannable on November 29, 2021, 10:19:40 PM
It's a form of pressure, a change of management may happen or not.

BTW, it's GBP 4 billion a year tax payers 💰.  So basically the BBC has to be like 👍 by art least above 50%, if not management may be replaced.

Quote from: wannable on November 30, 2021, 01:33:38 AM
I for one don't blame Jason, William and Dan. The lies of the Sussexes must be exposed, both are dangerous people.

There's a deadline permitting real bad behavior, it broke 💔 😪 payback time.

I so agree with you, I was reading an article about Meghan wanting to *rebrand* herself* and thought that it is  *Way toooooooo late to rebrand yourself as you made a lair out of yourself with Oprah and a fool out of yourself on Ellen......that is on the internet for all to see forever.........LOL*.....if she and Harry don't read the
tabloids or any media articles then they are fools for sure.  Just *lying* in public which can be *fact checked* is plain stupid and as my sister says, you can not cure stupid ......

Quote from: wannable on November 30, 2021, 01:36:37 AM
BTW, it's GBP 4 billion a year tax payers 💰.  So basically the BBC has to be like 👍 by art least above 50%, if not management may be replaced.

The above sentence beginning ?So basically??.doesn?t make any sense in English. ?By art at least above 50%? What?? The BBC as a corporation doesn?t live or die by its ratings. Nor does it?s management. It was set up from the beginning to be operationally free from governmental (or royal) interference.

Charter and Agreement - About the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter)
^
*****

Quote from: Nightowl on November 30, 2021, 04:14:12 AM
I so agree with you, I was reading an article about Meghan wanting to *rebrand* herself* and thought that it is  *Way toooooooo late to rebrand yourself as you made a lair out of yourself with Oprah and a fool out of yourself on Ellen......that is on the internet for all to see forever.........LOL*.....if she and Harry don't read the
tabloids or any media articles then they are fools for sure.  Just *lying* in public which can be *fact checked* is plain stupid and as my sister says, you can not cure stupid ......

Meghan hired a Reputation lawyer, previous to Schilling , she was in Reputation Management.  So the Sussexes have spin doctors sunshine Sach and now Reputation lawyer.

Where I work, background check, if individual or company contractor had to spend in Reputation...it's a no.

The couple carry too much drama and baggage.

So, Meghan's lawyer Jenny Afia said on the BBC there were 'massive inaccuracies' in my Meghan bullying story. How odd. Perhaps she would care to let me know what they were.

- Valentine Low

https://twitter.com/valentinelow/status/1465723115896553481?s=20

They never sued Valentine nor The Times...that speaks volumes, me thinks the Sussexes are afraid of the full extent of proof.

Has anyone found a video of Part 2 the program?  In the article below Times journalist Valentine Low discusses his article regarding the alleged bullying claims against the Duchess of Sussex. In turn the Duchess' attorney Jenny Afia responds to those claims. As @PrincessOfPeace posted earlier, Mr. Low questions Ms. Afia's comment in his Twitter remark.

Reporter denies William tacitly approved leak of Meghan bullying claims | Monarchy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/29/reporter-denies-william-approved-leak-meghan-bullying-claims)

QuoteAllegations that the Duchess of Sussex had ?bullied? two members of staff at Kensington Palace were ?absolutely not? leaked with Prince William?s tacit approval, according to the journalist who reported them.

The final part of a controversial BBC documentary on the relationship between Prince William, Prince Harry and the media examined allegations of a briefing war between the brothers.

The bullying claims, which the duchess has denied and which are the subject of an ongoing inquiry at Buckingham Palace, emerged just days before Harry and Meghan?s interview with talkshow host Oprah Winfrey.

The BBC presenter Amol Rajan asked the Times journalist Valentine Low if he believed the people who leaked the bullying allegations to him had been licensed to do so by the Duke of Cambridge. ?Did you think that the people speaking to you had his tacit approval?? Rajan asked. ?Absolutely not,? Low replied.

The Sussexes? lawyer, Jenny Afia, told the documentary, The Princes and the Press, that the bullying story was untrue and had ?massive, massive inaccuracies?. But, she said, it was difficult to refute. ??It is really hard to prove a negative. If you haven?t bullied anyone, how do you show that you haven?t ?? she said.

She also defended the Sussexes against newspaper criticism that they demanded privacy, and fought for it through the courts, while at the same time speaking out to others. She said: ?It?s not them who have said they want privacy. It?s something that the tabloids have said about them that?s latched on.

?They have taken steps when there have been blatant violations, unlawful violations of privacy, of course. Then they have challenged it,? she added. ?Because that?s in line with their values.?  But that did not mean they had to take a vow of silence, she said, adding that privacy was the right to choose what information they shared.

Rajan?s documentary had been hugely hyped in some newspapers, who alleged it could reveal if royal households, in particular the Duke of Cambridge?s, supplied negative briefings against his brother and sister-in-law, an allegation that is firmly denied by aides.

Newspapers also criticised the BBC for reportedly not allowing senior royal aides to view the programme before it aired.

In the end, when the first part aired last Monday, it included just one quote on the rumours that anti-Meghan briefings were conducted by royal aides, when Omid Scobie, the Sussexes? biographer, told the programme: ?From my own reporting and research, that is exactly true.?

The BBC came under further attack following a joint written statement from Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace, shown at the end of the programme, which said: ?Too often overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources are presented as facts and it is disappointing when anyone, including the BBC, gives them credibility.?

Headlines interpreted the statement as a direct attack on the BBC. Shortly afterwards, William and Kate?s decision to give ITV the broadcast rights to their charity Christmas carol services was seen as his revenge on the corporation. William has previously been vocal in his criticism of the BBC following the controversy over how Martin Bashir obtained his world exclusive Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales. There has also been sustained attack on Rajan in some quarters of the media, who questioned his impartiality to host the documentary by referring to a 2012 article he wrote for the Independent in which he declared: ?I?m a republican because I?m a patriot.?

Just found the second episode of The Prices and the Press. See below. I searched yesterday but nothing. This copy isn?t very good though, so be warned. Just listen rather than view would probably be best as the audio is OK.

[BBC] The Princes and The Press S01E02 - Sussexit - Prince Harry Documentary - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4lQ_q8GoU)

Quote from: wannable on November 30, 2021, 11:59:01 AM
Charter and Agreement - About the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter)
^
*****
Meghan hired a Reputation lawyer, previous to Schilling , she was in Reputation Management.  So the Sussexes have spin doctors sunshine Sach and now Reputation lawyer.

Where I work, background check, if individual or company contractor had to spend in Reputation...it's a no.

The couple carry too much drama and baggage.

It must be daunting to spend all that money on *all the lawyers and lawsuits* that the Sussex's have.  Just time consuming to say the least and money being spent when it could be spent elsewhere to help others as they say they want to do.  And yet they have TV interviews when it suits them to rebrand themselves as important to the world so that we all know just who they are, de-funked royals with no monarchy to back them up if they go broke or things go very wrong......oh time will tell as there is no way of stopping time .......just waiting for the next show of how to degrade yourself in public by the Sussex's.   

QuoteThe death of Diana,Princess of Wales,in Paris while being chased by paparazzi in 1997 influenced the Duke's attitude towards the media. The Duke and his wife have asked that, when off-duty, their privacy should be respected.

After Diana,Princess of Wales?s death but paparazzi and media tried to selling pictures of Diana for million pounds but in London really upset kept Diana?s legacy after Diana?s death her two boys have rightful privacy no pictures or media without consent or permission by Dukes of Cambridge or Sussex this is not photocall!!

QuoteOn 13 November 2005, an article appeared in the News of the World written by royal editor Clive Goodman, that claimed that Prince William was in the process of borrowing a portable editing suite from ITV royal correspondent Tom Bradby. Prince William noted that another equally improbable leak had recently taken place regarding an appointment he had made with a knee surgeon.After some discussion, the Prince and Bradby concluded it was likely that their voicemails were being accessed.An investigation under Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke concluded that the compromised voice mail accounts belonged to Prince William's aides, including Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton,and not the Prince himself. However, Clive Goodman later stated that he had hacked William's phone on 35 occasions.

QuoteIn June 2022, a three-minute video of William confronting Terry Harris, a paparazzi photographer, was posted to Harris's YouTube channel.It was recorded by Harris in January 2021 and shows William arguing with Harris as he attempts to film his family on a bike ride near Anmer Hall.Kensington Palace described the video as a breach of the family's privacy and asked for it to be removed from public websites. The couple's lawyers also contacted the photographer, who claimed he was on public roads and had filmed the video after hearing about allegations that the Duke and Duchess had broken the "rule of six" as they toured a public attraction at Sandringham while William's uncle and aunt, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, and their children happened to be in the same spot.

Princess Diana have no private and paparazzi and media been selling pictures of late Diana,Princess of Wales for 15 years since 1981-1997 Diana told 1995 interview about that and its well and without permission or consent of Princess Diana to publish the pictures in the tabloids,newspaper,media and magazine when Diana travel for her duty in London and overseas Diana told 1995 interview says about 50-100 photographers taking pictures of Princess Diana

Before Diana?s death Diana told paparazzi and media don?t taking pictures of her Diana told paparazzi and media back off during her trips to Angola,Africa and Bosnia also

When Diana was vacation in St.Tropez,France with her two boys William and Harry with Fayeds have permission from HM Queen Elizabeth II but Diana been back and forth St.Tropez,France and Sardinia for summer vacation with Dodi Fayed without her two boys when her two boys stay with dad the Prince Charles at balmoral tradition vacation with royal family

Eve of her death Diana and Dodi try to escape to Paris away from paparazzi and media but paparazzi and media is there where Diana stay there but no security or police protection for Diana because of her divorce from Prince Charles but Dodi?s security and bodyguard with Diana and Dodi eve of her crash and death paparazzi and media is responsible for the Diana?s death when she was alive and tried to target the Princess but police in France arrest the photographer and media and fined up to years in jailed

QuoteA Paris court has fined press photographers a symbolic one euro each for invasion of privacy on the night that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were killed in a car crash while being pursued by paparazzi in 1997.

Three photographers - Jacques Langevin, Christian Martinez and Eric Chassery- were acquitted in 2003 of invading Princess Diana's privacy by taking pictures of the couple on the night they died. The three men were originally among nine photographers investigated on manslaughter charges which were dropped.

Their acquittal in 2003 came after a civil suit filed by Mr Al Fayed's father, Mohammed Al Fayed who said that under privacy laws, the pictures should never have been taken. Following an appeal from the Harrods owner, a partial retrial was ordered on the basis of the possible breach of privacy laws by the three photographers, who were among the paparazzi following the couple after they left the Ritz Hotel in Paris.

But a disagreement in French law as to whether Princess Diana and Mr Al Fayed's crashed vehicle was a private space or not saw the case sent back to court.

In September 2004, the Paris appeals' court had found that a crashed vehicle on a public highway was not in a private area. But France's highest court disagreed and ordered a review the decision relating to the car, saying the Mercedes should have been considered a private space.

As a result the three photographers were fined the symbolic one euro sum each on Friday, a ruling that was not made public until today. They were also ordered to pay for the announcment of the convictions in three newspapers or magazines.

The main investigation on the causes of the accident was closed in 2002, putting an end to formal manslaughter inquiries brought against the nine photographers and a press motorcyclist.

QuoteAt 00:23, Paul lost control of the vehicle at the entrance to the Pont de l'Alma underpass. The car struck a Fiat passing by and then swerved to the left of the two-lane carriageway before it collided head-on with the thirteenth pillar that supported the roof.The car was travelling at an estimated speed of 105 km/h (65 mph)? over twice the tunnel's 50 km/h (31 mph) speed limit. It then spun and hit the stone wall of the tunnel backwards, finally coming to a stop. The impact caused substantial damage, particularly to the front half of the vehicle, as there was no guard rail between the pillars to prevent this.Witnesses arriving shortly after the crash reported smoke.Witnesses also reported that photographers on motorcycles "swarmed the Mercedes sedan before it entered the tunnel".

With the four occupants still in the wrecked car, the photographers, who had been driving slower and were some distance behind the Mercedes, reached the scene. Some rushed to help, tried to open the doors and help the victims, while some of them took pictures. Police arrived on scene around ten minutes after the crash at 00:30 and an ambulance was on site five minutes later, according to witnesses. France Info radio reported that one photographer was beaten by witnesses who were horrified by the scene. Five of the photographers were arrested directly.Later, two others were detained and around twenty rolls of film were taken directly from the photographers. Police also impounded their vehicles afterwards.Firefighters also arrived at the scene to help remove the victims.

Still conscious, Rees-Jones had suffered multiple serious facial injuries and a head contusion. The front occupants' airbags had functioned normally. Diana, who had been sitting in the right rear passenger seat, was also still conscious.Critically injured, Diana was reported to murmur repeatedly, "Oh my God", and after the photographers and other helpers were pushed away by police, "Leave me alone."In June 2007, the Channel 4 documentary Diana: The Witnesses in the Tunnel claimed that the first person to touch Diana was off-duty physician Frederic Mailliez who chanced upon the scene. Mailliez reported that Diana had no visible injuries but was in shock. After being removed from the car at 01:00, she went into cardiac arrest and, following external cardiopulmonary resuscitation, her heart started beating again.Diana was moved to the SAMU ambulance at 01:18, left the scene at 01:41 and arrived at the Piti?-Salp?tri?re Hospital at 02:06.

Fayed had been sitting in the left rear passenger seat and was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.Paul was also pronounced dead on removal from the wreckage. Both were taken directly to the Institut M?dico-L?gal (IML), the Paris mortuary, not to a hospital.Paul was later found to have a blood alcohol level of 1.75 grams per litre of blood, which is about 3.5 times the legal limit in France (equivalent to about 2.2 times the legal limit in Canada, the UK, and the US).
Despite attempts to save her life, Diana's injuries were too extensive and resuscitation attempts, including internal cardiac massage, were unsuccessful: her heart had been displaced to the right side of the chest, which tore the pulmonary vein and the pericardium. Diana died at the hospital at 03:00. Anaesthetist Bruno Riou announced her death at 06:00 at a news conference held at the hospital.

Later that morning, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chev?nement visited the hospital.At around 17:00, Diana's former husband, Charles, Prince of Wales, and her two older sisters, Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Lady Jane Fellowes, arrived in Paris.The group visited the hospital along with French President Jacques Chirac and thanked the doctors for trying to save her life.Prince Charles accompanied Diana's body to the UK later the same day.They landed at RAF Northolt and a bearer party from the Queen's Colour Squadron transferred her coffin, which was draped with the royal standard with an ermine border, to a hearse. Her remains were finally taken to the Hammersmith and Fulham mortuary in London for a post-mortem examination later that day.

Initial media reports stated Diana's car had collided with the pillar at 190 km/h (120 mph), and that the speedometer's needle had jammed at that position; it was later announced that the car's speed upon collision was 95?110 km/h (59?68 mph), about twice as fast as the speed limit of 50 km/h (31 mph). In 1999, a French investigation concluded the Mercedes had come into contact with another vehicle (a white Fiat Uno) in the tunnel.The driver of the Fiat was never conclusively traced, although many believed the driver was Le Van Thanh. The specific vehicle was not identified.

It was remarked by Robin Cook, the British Foreign Secretary, that if the crash had been caused in part by being hounded by paparazzi, it would be "doubly tragic". Diana's younger brother, the Earl Spencer, also blamed tabloid media for her death.An eighteen-month French judicial investigation concluded in 1999 that the crash was caused by Paul, who lost control at high speed while intoxicated.

Quote14 AUGUST 2015
Kensington Palace has today sent the attached letter to leaders of media industry bodies and standards organisations in the UK and in other international markets.

In recent months, there have been an increasing number of incidents of paparazzi harassment of Prince George. And the tactics being used are increasingly dangerous. This letter is being published now to inform the public discussion around the unauthorised photography of children. It is hoped that those who pay paparazzi photographers for their images of children will be able to better understand the distressing activity around a two-year old boy that their money is fuelling. We also feel that the readers who enjoy the publications that fuel this market for the unauthorised photos deserve to understand the tactics deployed to obtain these photos.

The vast majority of publications around the world ? and all British publications ? have refused to fuel the market for such photos. This is an important and laudable stance for which The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are hugely grateful. They have enjoyed sharing an increasing number of photos of their children and look forward to continuing to take them to more public events as they get older.

From: Jason Knauf, Communications Secretary to TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH Prince Henry of Wales, 14th August, 2015

I am writing to provide an overview of the current challenges facing Kensington Palace as we seek to protect Prince George and Princess Charlotte from harassment and surveillance by paparazzi photographers.  I hope our experience will inform the ongoing effort to uphold standards on the protection of children in a rapidly changing media landscape.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have expressed their gratitude to British media organisations for their policy of not publishing unauthorised photos of their children.  This stance, guided not just by their wishes as parents, but by the standards and codes of the industry as it relates to all children, is to be applauded.  They are pleased also that almost all reputable publications throughout the Commonwealth ? in particular Australia, Canada, and New Zealand ? and in other major media markets like the United States have adopted a similar position.

The Duke and Duchess are glad that leaders in the media industry share the view that every child, regardless of their future public role, deserves a safe, happy, and private childhood.  They have been delighted to share official photographs of Prince George and Princess Charlotte in recent months to thank the public for the thousands of kind messages of support they have received.  News photographers have had several recent opportunities to take photos of the family and these will be a regular occurrence as both children get older.

Despite this, paparazzi photographers are going to increasingly extreme lengths to observe and monitor Prince George's movements and covertly capture images of him to sell to the handful of international media titles still willing to pay for them.  One recent incident ? just last week ? was disturbing, but not at all uncommon.  A photographer rented a car and parked in a discreet location outside a children's play area.  Already concealed by darkened windows, he took the added step of hanging sheets inside the vehicle and created a hide stocked with food and drinks to get him through a full day of surveillance, waiting in hope to capture images of Prince George. Police discovered him lying down in the boot of the vehicle attempting to shoot photos with a long lens through a small gap in his hide.

It is of course upsetting that such tactics ? reminiscent as they are of past surveillance by groups intent on doing more than capturing images ? are being deployed to profit from  the image of a two-year old boy.  In a heightened security
environment such tactics are a risk to all involved.  The worry is that it will not always be possible to quickly distinguish between someone taking photos and someone intending to do more immediate harm.

This incident was not an isolated one. In recent months photographers have:

? on multiple occasions used long range lenses to capture images of The Duchess playing with Prince George in a number of private parks;
? monitored the movements of Prince George and his nanny around London parks and monitored the movements of other household staff;
? photographed the children of private individuals visiting The Duke and Duchess's home;
? pursued cars leaving family homes;
? used other children to draw Prince George into view around playgrounds;
? been found hiding on private property in fields and woodland locations around The Duke and Duchess's home in Norfolk;
? obscured themselves in sand dunes on a rural beach to take photos of Prince George playing with his grandmother;
? placed locations near the Middleton family home in Berkshire under steady surveillance

It is clear that while paparazzi are always keen to capture images of any senior member of The Royal Family, Prince George is currently their number one target.  We have made the decision to discuss these issues now as the incidents are becoming more frequent and the tactics more alarming.  A line has been crossed and any further escalation in tactics would represent a very real security risk.

All of this has left The Duke and Duchess concerned about their ability to provide a childhood for Prince George and Princess Charlotte that is free from harassment and surveillance.  They know that almost all parents love to share photos of their children and they themselves enjoy doing so.  But they know every parent would object to anyone ? particularly strangers ? taking photos of their children without their permission.  Every parent would understand their deep unease at only learning they had been followed and watched days later when photographs emerged.

The Duke and Duchess are of course very fortunate to have private homes where photographers cannot capture images of their children.  But they feel strongly that both Prince George and Princess Charlotte should not grow up exclusively behind palace gates and in walled gardens.  They want both children to be free to play in public and semi-public spaces with other children without being photographed.  In addition, the privacy of those other children and their families must also be preserved.

Rest assured that we continue to take legal steps to manage these incidents as they occur.  But we are aware that many people who read and enjoy the publications that fuel the market for unauthorised photos of children do not know about the unacceptable circumstances behind what are often lovely images.  The use of these photos is usually dressed up with fun, positive language about the 'cute', 'adorable' photos and happy write ups about the family.  We feel readers deserve to understand the tactics deployed to obtain these pictures.

We hope a public discussion of these issues will help all publishers of unauthorised photos of children to understand the power they hold to starve this disturbing activity of funding.  I would welcome constructive conversations with any publisher or editor on these topics.  And I would ask for your help as we work to encourage the highest standards on the protection of children in every corner of the media.  The Duke and Duchess are determined to keep the issues around a small number of paparazzi photographers distinct and separate from the positive work of most newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and web publishers around the world.

The text from this letter, which has been sent to a number of people in leadership positions, will be placed in the public domain to raise awareness of the issues discussed.

Jason Knauf,
Communications Secretary, Kensington Palace

From seven years ago in 2015 not happened since late Diana,Princess of Wales back in 1997 but when William and Harry have rightful privacy no release the pictures of Cambridges and Sussex kids also without permission or consent from Cambridges and Sussex or authority Without permission from Kensington palace,Buckingham Palace and Clarence House to release the pictures

Did the Leveson Inquiry stop unwanted attention by paparazzi and the Press?  Well, eventually, but not straight away. The offspring of celebs were still being targeted in England for months afterwards.

Leveson inquiry puts paparazzi in the frame | Leveson inquiry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/25/leveson-inquiry-paparazzi)

As for royals, there has long been an agreed pact between the RF and the Press with regard to the photographing of royal children. This didn?t operate during Diana?s lifetime, obviously, but in the years after her death a rather chastened Press pack and photographers agreed to cooperate during the school years of William and Harry, loosening in their very early twenties. I can remember dozens of paps and press photographers hanging around popular clubs waiting for some shots of Harry and Chelsy emerging after a night out.

It now seems that the Press/media are becoming impatient with restrictions on their stalking activities with regard to the Cambridge children. Welcome to the digital age, where photos and stories can whizz around the world in seconds. The print media is fighting for its survival and so the gloves are off. Pacts don?t appear to be effective any more, and agreed photo opportunities seem to be only successful with Continental royalty. It?s likely to get even worse in another ten to fifteen years when George and Charlotte begin dating.

Quote from: Curryong on August 17, 2022, 02:17:38 AM
Did the Leveson Inquiry stop unwanted attention by paparazzi and the Press?  Well, eventually, but not straight away. The offspring of celebs were still being targeted in England for months afterwards.

Leveson inquiry puts paparazzi in the frame | Leveson inquiry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/25/leveson-inquiry-paparazzi)

As for royals, there has long been an agreed pact between the RF and the Press with regard to the photographing of royal children. This didn?t operate during Diana?s lifetime, obviously, but in the years after her death a rather chastened Press pack and photographers agreed to cooperate during the school years of William and Harry, loosening in their very early twenties. I can remember dozens of paps and press photographers hanging around popular clubs waiting for some shots of Harry and Chelsy emerging after a night out.

It now seems that the Press/media are becoming impatient with restrictions on their stalking activities with regard to the Cambridge children. Welcome to the digital age, where photos and stories can whizz around the world in seconds. The print media is fighting for its survival and so the gloves are off. Pacts don?t appear to be effective any more, and agreed photo opportunities seem to be only successful with Continental royalty. It?s likely to get even worse in another ten to fifteen years when George and Charlotte begin dating.

Yes but paparazzi and media got attention on late Diana,Princess of Wales for 15 years since she got married to Prince Charles and Diana have no privacy but Diana have bodyguard and security with her when she on events in London,ballet,international trips and mores and Diana not expect paparazzi get pictures of her anywhere she told paparazzi no pictures when she holidays with her friends in Spain 1994
1.no private of Diana,Princess of Wales
2.no private of William and Harry till after Diana?s death and the brothers got protection privacy due their mother?s death in 1997 but paparazzi and media aren?t invite

Princess Diana reportedly fooled paparazzi on ski trips by befriending lookalike guests and wearing identical outfits whenever they left the hotel (https://sports.yahoo.com/princess-diana-reportedly-fooled-paparazzi-165445687.html)

How Princess Diana's Death Changed the British Media | Time (https://time.com/4914324/princess-diana-anniversary-paparazzi-tabloid-media/)
After Diana?s death and change Diana?s privacy and included her two boys but William and Harry have rightful privacy after Diana?s death but no paparazzi and media this is no photocall

Prince Harry blames paparazzi for Princess Diana's death - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-harry-and-william-on-princess-diana-death-paparazzi/)

As I said in the Archewell Foundation Sussex thread, I am almost 99.9% sure the Cambridges will have that picture with the children taken by Chris Jackson, Getty. come 8th of September. The Cambridges and the children feel comfortable with Chris as the long term photographer of the family and he is deemed trusted person in their circle, married also to Kate's stylist Natasha Archer

It's not a written media agreement with the Royals, but a silent one to keep ''balance'' and both parties involved happy. Thus 'controlling' possible paps 'selling' pictures to the media, which in turn the media reject with a silent agreement.

These silent agreements of giving information to the press is basically to respect the BRF and at the same time the media's need for royal news.  IF they hadn't done these silent agreements, the media may push the 'boundaries' of seeking it in a 'dirty' way. Although some subjects are just so bad, they make their own bad news, enter Harry left stage, he blurted his resentment with the BRF's silent agreement, thinking everyone would praise him and loathe the media, but it is a universal practice with VIP public figures. Anyway, the Sussexes seem to be never satisfied or happy with what they have, receive, always wanting more more more, turning into a impossible situation with anyone involved with them.

ETA also the paparazzi business is almost dead, out of business. Facts: 80% retired or moved on to other career options that have nothing to do with papping. The other 20% work for an agency and go where the celeb, VIP, politician PR marketing firm send a ''schedule of appearances'' so they can knowingly get papped.

Source of information: BBC, Vanity Fair, NY Times, Fortune 500, The Economist.

Everyone has a smartphone, want to see a 'papped amateur' picture/video, go to youtube or social media. The big media will only publish violent happenings taken by random citizens at a 'scene' of violence. Pay 10K

Note: I am in FAVOR of sending a Schedule of Appearance, media pen barrier/control area versus hiding behind a bush or running towards the subject to try to get a picture. It makes a lot of sense whilst I'm sorry not sorry that the paparazzi business has died to most of the people who had this way of life/career. I am also in favor of the other 20% who decided to register with an agency and be sent to take pics via schedule rather than hit a road and wait it out, i.e. like what they did with Kate during her single days, at her doorstep. To make it more of the recent 20 years ago! 20 years ago is a long time ago. Rather than using paparazzi examples of 35 years ago, Diana. As one can see the paparazzi business was good for 30 years plus, but not any more. There is probably 1 or 2 percent lingering paps that are in dire straights for money, but usually a controlled schedule of appearance is what is used now a days.

So after saying this, my I am almost 99.9 in re to the Cambridges, is because they know it's smart to take that picture with the children in their brand new school, brand new uniform rather than fighting it and making things uneccesary sour with the media.  Everyone happy, children are left alone to their year schooling, Kate takes their bday pictures, special day outing picture, per usual thing to do rather than create DRAMA.

Quote from: wannable on August 17, 2022, 02:36:57 PM
As I said in the Archewell Foundation Sussex thread, I am almost 99.9% sure the Cambridges will have that picture with the children taken by Chris Jackson, Getty. come 8th of September. The Cambridges and the children feel comfortable with Chris as the long term photographer of the family and he is deemed trusted person in their circle, married also to Kate's stylist Natasha Archer

It's not a written media agreement with the Royals, but a silent one to keep ''balance'' and both parties involved happy. Thus 'controlling' possible paps 'selling' pictures to the media, which in turn the media reject with a silent agreement.

These silent agreements of giving information to the press is basically to respect the BRF and at the same time the media's need for royal news.  IF they hadn't done these silent agreements, the media may push the 'boundaries' of seeking it in a 'dirty' way. Although some subjects are just so bad, they make their own bad news, enter Harry left stage, he blurted his resentment with the BRF's silent agreement, thinking everyone would praise him and loathe the media, but it is a universal practice with VIP public figures. Anyway, the Sussexes seem to be never satisfied or happy with what they have, receive, always wanting more more more, turning into a impossible situation with anyone involved with them.

Yes im agreed with that

Quote from: wannable on August 17, 2022, 02:59:08 PM
ETA also the paparazzi business is almost dead, out of business. Facts: 80% retired or moved on to other career options that have nothing to do with papping. The other 20% work for an agency and go where the celeb, VIP, politician PR marketing firm send a ''schedule of appearances'' so they can knowingly get papped.

Source of information: BBC, Vanity Fair, NY Times, Fortune 500, The Economist.

Everyone has a smartphone, want to see a 'papped amateur' picture/video, go to youtube or social media. The big media will only publish violent happenings taken by random citizens at a 'scene' of violence. Pay 10K

Note: I am in FAVOR of sending a Schedule of Appearance, media pen barrier/control area versus hiding behind a bush or running towards the subject to try to get a picture. It makes a lot of sense whilst I'm sorry not sorry that the paparazzi business has died to most of the people who had this way of life/career. I am also in favor of the other 20% who decided to register with an agency and be sent to take pics via schedule rather than hit a road and wait it out, i.e. like what they did with Kate during her single days, at her doorstep. To make it more of the recent 20 years ago! 20 years ago is a long time ago. Rather than using paparazzi examples of 35 years ago, Diana. As one can see the paparazzi business was good for 30 years plus, but not any more. There is probably 1 or 2 percent lingering paps that are in dire straights for money, but usually a controlled schedule of appearance is what is used now a days.

So after saying this, my I am almost 99.9 in re to the Cambridges, is because they know it's smart to take that picture with the children in their brand new school, brand new uniform rather than fighting it and making things uneccesary sour with the media.  Everyone happy, children are left alone to their year schooling, Kate takes their bday pictures, special day outing picture, per usual thing to do rather than create DRAMA.

Absolutely agreed

Quote from: sara8150 on August 17, 2022, 07:28:56 PM
Absolutely agreed

Totally agree with you, this way Catherine does not create headaches, drama or problems with the media!

It's keeping a balance rather than fighting them. I would think if KP doesn't release a picture, for sure it will trigger a ruthless pap to take a picture, even if the media agrees to not purchase it, the pap will post it in social media (eventually), like the stalker in youtube who sits all day at the KP garden fence and films the family when they fly out, he filmed William(last week) in a private none BRF seal burgundy helicopter, but a blue and white larger one flying himself back, probably some practice or hours needed to keep his pilot license.  So the Cambridge's have been balancing it by Kate or Chris as photographer of the family.

As I said, there's 1 or 2% of paparzzi that still are stalkers. 20 years ago, i.e. the KP garden fence had a dozen or two paps with very expensive equipments and zoom like if it were as seen on TV a football game with enormous lenses, today there's only 1 loner who films himself whilst tourists are wakling the walkway/payment around the fence.

I am posting this here as it applies to not only the British Royals but most other European Constitutional Monarchies. Monarchies in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa frequently have more power than their European counterparts and can exercise more control over their respective nation's press.

How the 'deal' between the monarchy and the media really works (https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/secret-relationships-royals-media-work-2089456)

QuoteThe task of reporting on the royals is a fraught, fascinating process. After all, how do you write news about an institution that stems from the ancient idea of divine right, subject to no earthly authority? And how should the media report on a family who receive public funds and require coverage of their charitable work, but also, as humans do, transgress and become newsworthy for their behaviour?

The way it works on an official level is via the Royal Rota, launched 40 years ago, which sends one reporter, broadcaster and photographer to taxpayer-funded engagements and then pools the exclusive output to rota members, which includes the broadsheets, tabloids, BBC and ITV, among others. But not the i: this newspaper is not part of that system.

?The Royal Rota exists,? explains a former royal correspondent, ?because you can?t have every single reporter and photographer at every single royal engagement because there isn?t enough space for everyone. So there?ll be a royal reporter there to cover it from all angles, and reporters in the royal press pack take it in turns to cover a job and on royal tours too. Then you all share what you?ve got so that everyone has got everything when they need it for their articles.?

How will this work with a new reign?

QuoteAfter King Charles is crowned on 6 May, his relationship with the press is likely to continue to have its tensions and complexities. The new King has had legal run-ins with the media, and earlier this year, a 2002 letter written by Charles to a maid of Princess Alexandra went up for auction, which gives an insight into his thoughts. ?Unfortunately,? Charles writes, ?we [royals] are now to be treated as mere pawns in a terrifying and ongoing media circulation war where the actual facts are totally disregarded and vast sums of money are offered as bribes to former and current members of staff to exercise their pathetic jealousies and vendettas in public.?

During a 2005 photo call in Switzerland, Nicholas Witchell, then a BBC reporter, called across to Charles, William and Harry, asking how they felt about the Prince of Wales?s upcoming wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Charles answered: ?Well, it?s a nice thought. I am very glad you have heard of it anyway,? before saying under his breath to his sons: ?These bloody people. I can?t bear that man. I mean, he?s so awful? he really is.?

Yet it is unlikely that King Charles will significantly alter the Royal Rota in years to come ?although he made waves this year by having the BBC cover his first Christmas speech rather than ITV, despite it being the channel?s turn.

Jennie Bond, who spent 14 years as the BBC?s royal correspondent, says:  ?I don?t blame the royals ? Charles included ? for finding it difficult. Who wants to be scrutinised like that? Yet I?ve always sensed that the royals see the press as a necessary evil, because

^ Very interesting articles, yet I think lots of the issues is *jealousy* on the parts of the media for they just do not have the way of life that the royals do......and therefore they do not understand the royal way of life.  How anyone wants their every move detailed in the media by reporters must at times really lose it in private as I know I would.  Human nature in wanting what someone else has is part of it I believe.  I think that Catherine has learned how to handle the media/tabloids with kid gloves made of steel, at first it was difficult yet she took her time and watched and learned from others and  has made the best of it.