Hello! deal controversy--All articles here

Stix Chix · May 21, 2008, 11:02:28 PM

It's a royal sell-out: Anger over Hello! pictures of Queen at Peter Phillips' wedding--Daily Mail
Outrage over royals' 'WAG' wedding--The First Post
Royal wedding: it really is a royal knockout--Telegraph
Royals accused over wedding photos--Press Association

yikes. :blink: granted, had they been given public funds for the wedding it would be an even bigger outrage. Peter isn't on the civil list. he and Autumn both work for a living. they could have had a smaller wedding...but then people would say they were letting the side down by not going all out and having a proper royal wedding. they just cant win.

Jenee · May 22, 2008, 01:18:35 AM

QuoteLiberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb, said: "If you want to maintain the institution and people's regard for it, then you actually have to avoid commercialising it and shifting it in the direction of celebrity footballers."

I disagree. The Royal Family is already commercialized - they appear in tabloids as often as any WAG or celebutante. Why not use their wedding to stir up a little more interest in the Royals (like when they're not stumbling out of bars drunk), put the romance back into it and get some good PR?

Stix Chix · May 22, 2008, 03:00:50 AM

^ i think the issue isn't that they were in Hello! (when aren't the royals? ;) ) but the fact that Peter and Autumn were paid for the privilege of an exclusive. but it's not like they were the first or only members of the RF to do that....and get into trouble for it. didn't Andrew and Sarah do something similar?

but still....i think its being blown way out of proportion. these articles are actually starting to feel like a snobbish attack against Autumn. like all those "doors to manual" articles that came out after Kate and William broke up.

king aurthor · May 22, 2008, 03:11:06 AM

what does that mean" doors to manual"?

Varya · May 22, 2008, 03:34:38 AM

It was in reference to what Air Hostesses supposedly say on the job, it was a jab at Kate because her mother was an air hostess.

Rasta Watermelon · May 22, 2008, 05:47:55 AM

It keeps on changing to which member of the RF was meant to be annoyed with the Hello deal. Now its apparently Pr William & Pr Harry being unhappy because they were not informed allegedly of the Hello deal according to the sun and Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020860/Its-royal-sell-Harry-Williams-anger-Hello-pictures-Queen-Peter-Phillips-wedding.html

Which is the same Daily Mail article that Stix Chix posted.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/article1194085.ece

The Sun have got in to the so called row now.

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 07:47:22 AM

In the Sun article it says:

Quote"There is no way that Princes William and Harry would have agreed to allow their girlfriends to be pictured in this way at what was supposed to be a private family event."

What a nerve! Talk about regarding women as chattel!

Mind you, I can't see why there is a problem with the Queen appearing in Hello, since she already appears in the tabloids regularly. They're printed for commercial gain, too.

lurker · May 22, 2008, 08:09:00 AM

Isn't it interesting that the DM claims to know how William feels about all of this when he wasn't even there and noone seems to know really where he is right now? Do they have a medium at the DM that can read his mind? They truly must think their readers are stupid! :wait:

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 08:19:05 AM

Of course it could be the thing we least suspect - William himself may be a tabloid blab!

PopppyDaisy · May 22, 2008, 08:46:52 AM

I read in Kays column that he reckoned Willia didnt attend the wedding so he could stay out of the hello debated.outrage.

Orchid · May 22, 2008, 08:49:34 AM

Telegraph: Queen Halts Celebrity Magazine Deals

I'm starting to feel a little sorry for Peter and Autumn. What a terrible affair to follow what should be a happy occasion.

PopppyDaisy · May 22, 2008, 08:55:23 AM

The whole thing I reckon is just the daily mails stirring. They claimed that Harry wasn't aware that about the hello photographers - when even the public were well aware how exclusive the hello deal was, I doubt theres a shred of truth in the DM article.

The way I see it is good on Peter/Autumn. On one had he's not allowed to have the deal as it 'cheapens the royal family' then they go on to say 'as he's not a member of the royal family he's just cashing in on his connections.'
It seems he can do no right and is stuck in some sort of limbo :gaah:

I just hope on the honeymoom Peter and Autumn aren't reading this and when they return it will have all blown over, because as Orchid says it could ruin the memories of the couples big day.

And if Harry and Williams mutterings are true then shame on them for doing so, we all know there going to get bi fancy weddings paid for by the state and their girlfriends came close to stealing the day from Autumn, and the pictures of them in hello were needlessly unnecessary a few maybe but 19!

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 09:10:27 AM

Strictly speaking though, if Peter Philips is considered a private person, and the bride's mother could not afford a wedding of the type the Queen normally attends, then she should have done what she would have done if it *wasn't* a royal wedding and have it at the local church in Canada and book the upstairs room of a pub for the reception. She should have said how many people each of the couple could invite - say 50 each - just like all normal people do.

*Then* the royal family could have had the option of going to Canada for the wedding, not going at all, or offering to *entirely finance* a wedding and reception at Windsor at no extra cost to the bride's mother.

It should have been a simple case of Mrs Kelly stating what she could and could not offer and setting about providing it. She should not have tried to throw a wedding that was outside her means.

PopppyDaisy · May 22, 2008, 09:19:42 AM

But IMO I can't see Peter being allowed a wedding in a simple church with a pub outside - hell they might have both prefered it. But the press, public and no doubt HM would've wanted something a bit more I reckon, so this is how we end up in this situation. Press and public and HM want big royal wedding, all good so far. Except Peter's not a 'proper' RF member, so who'll pay for this big wedding.We hit a snag. Then along come Hello with this half a milllon deal.

Now I'm willing to bet Peter asks the Queen at this point whether he could take it, and I bet you she says yes with the agreement of the rest of the family. Peter knows the rules and I don't buy that the rest of the family including HM were not consulted.

So everything is looking rosy.

Except the rest of the press get angsty because they didn't get in there first. DM leads the pack, doing what they do best and making up some cock and bull story about them all bring unhappy with it and boycotting. The low and behold the edition rocks up and the entire family are all pictured getting their groove down and no sign of boycott. So what do the DM do, make up a load more lies that they 'didn't know about the photographers' and are all so upset about it all.

Just my take on things. Makes more sense than what the press who already have a chip on their shoulder about the whole thing would have us believe.

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 10:17:04 AM

Quote from: PopppyDaisy on May 22, 2008, 09:19:42 AM
But IMO I can't see Peter being allowed a wedding in a simple church with a pub outside

Quite! And that's my point. Once Mrs Kelly had said "well this is the wedding I can afford - sorry if you don't like it" the palace would have gone into overdrive and probably provided the whole thing at no expense to the couple, and with no need for Hello. If they didn't, then upstairs room in a pub it would be. The Queen only has a veto on marriage partner, not method.

Orchid · May 22, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

So has it been reported that Autumns Mother took sole financial responsibility for the wedding?

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 11:12:02 AM

It was reported in print that Autumn's mother could not afford the wedding and reception that Autumn and Peter wanted (or felt they should have), and that Princess Anne didn't want to pay for it.

I remember being in a similar situation with my daughter's wedding. I outlined what I could offer within my means, and it wasn't good enough for her fiancee's family, so they topped up the funds to make it possible. Had they not done so, they'd have got the wedding I was offering and would have had to lump it :)

Lila the Flirt · May 22, 2008, 11:17:16 AM

IMO the deal they made with Hello! was a very bad idea. Now, they could no longer complain of having their privacy violated in future because people would always come back to this. :fool:

Trudie · May 22, 2008, 11:23:32 AM

Quote from: Inge Jones on May 22, 2008, 11:12:02 AM
It was reported in print that Autumn's mother could not afford the wedding and reception that Autumn and Peter wanted (or felt they should have), and that Princess Anne didn't want to pay for it.

I remember being in a similar situation with my daughter's wedding. I outlined what I could offer within my means, and it wasn't good enough for her fiancee's family, so they topped up the funds to make it possible. Had they not done so, they'd have got the wedding I was offering and would have had to lump it :)

Well I just wonder if Autumns father offered funds. He had an equal responsibility as to the cost.

As for the RF I'm sure they were well aware of Autumns family finances as to what sort of wedding they most probably could afford and it what they wanted was a fancy royal type wedding then they should have chipped in. Now it is not unheard of for the grooms parents to chip in and PA could have upped the ante. :snob:

Inge Jones · May 22, 2008, 11:54:03 AM

I am taking the excuses with a pinch of salt however, as surely if the venue was provided by the Queen, it didn't cost them anything?

Lila the Flirt · May 22, 2008, 11:59:28 AM

What about the two of them? I thought both worked? Couldn't they afford the cost??

lurker · May 22, 2008, 12:26:55 PM

I don't buy that they couldn't have afforded the wedding otherwise. If I understood correctly they got the venue from HM for free and Peter has a trust fund of some 6 Mio. They surely should have enough money to pay for this.
Thinking of it, 500.000 doesn't seem all that much for all those exclusive pictures when actors etc. get millions out of a deal like that. Peter and Autumn alone might not be worth a lot but all the pics of Harry, Chelsy and Kate can surely be sold by Hello to other magazines as well. The issue seems to sell extremely good already. Looks like Peter and Autumn got bamboozled.

Jenee · May 22, 2008, 12:38:12 PM

Quote from: Lila the Flirt on May 22, 2008, 11:59:28 AM
What about the two of them? I thought both worked? Couldn't they afford the cost??

:shrug: Weddings are expensive and they certainly went all out on theirs. I'm sure they could have afforded a beautiful wedding, but maybe not so much on the scale that they actually had. It was probably a case of it sounding like a really great idea at the time, and then not so great in practice... retrospect is 20/20!

PopppyDaisy · May 22, 2008, 12:58:28 PM

The average UK wedding is something ridiculous like 17, 000 so goodness knows how much theirs cost!

Orchid · May 22, 2008, 01:19:37 PM

Weddings are enormously costly. The wedding of a family friend two years ago cost a little over £60,000 and I can assure you there was nothing flash about it. It was a beautiful yet reserved occasion. The costs seem to spiral when taking into account dresses, flowers, catering, venue, cars and carriages, staff, photographers, guests accommodation, church costs etc. But considering Peter and Autumn were 'gifted' use of Frogmore and the Chapel I can't imagine their costs to have been unsightly - certainly not out of their reach. I'm not convinced the Hello deal was necessary from a financial perspective. Between Peters personal wealth and Princess Anne's private wealth, I'm sure both could have made any necessary top-up's to the Kellys investment.