The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack

[wannable]

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.

[wannable]

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.

[Nightowl]

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 ......

[Curryong]

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.

[wannable]

Charter and Agreement - About the BBC
^
*****

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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

[wannable]

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

[TLLK]

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

Allegations 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.?

[Curryong]

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

[Nightowl]

Charter and Agreement - About the BBC
^
*****
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.   

[sara8150]

The 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!!

On 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.

In 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.

[sara8150]

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

A 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.

At 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.

[sara8150]

14 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

[Curryong]

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

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.

[sara8150]

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

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

How Princess Diana's Death Changed the British Media | Time
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

[wannable]

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.

[wannable]

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.

[sara8150]

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

[sara8150]

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

[Nightowl]

Absolutely agreed

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

[wannable]

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.

[TLLK]

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

The 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?

After 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

[Nightowl]

^ 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.