Saturday, 15 August 2015

The Palace Appeals Against "Increasingly Dangerous" Paparazzi Activity & Your Dream Looks for Kate (Part 2)

Hello, and Happy weekend to you all!

We have quite a lengthy post today covering two topics. Yesterday Kensington Palace issued a letter of appeal to publications purchasing paparazzi pictures of Prince George and to inform the public of the measures used by photographers to obtain these images. Below a look at the letter that was sent to the media and made available to the public from Royal Central's Twitter Feed:

Kensington Palace / Royal Central Twitter Feed

The letter - entirely different in language and style from the Palace formality we're used to - was penned by the Cambridges' new communications secretary, Jason Knauf. Mr Knauf began by expressing William and Kate's "gratitude to British media organisations for the policy of not publishing unauthorised photos of their children" and noted the couple are pleased to share photos of Prince George and Princess Charlotte.

'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 the increase in recent photo opportunities which included Prince George's balcony appearance at Trooping the Colour, "paparazzi photographers are going to increasingly extreme lengths to monitor and observe Prince George's movements". Describing one recent incident Mr Knauf wrote:

'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.' 

The letter goes on to describe the settings of several such incidents in recent months.

'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'

Acknowledging the paparazzi are always keen to capture images of the Royal family, the Palace feel George is being specifically targeted:

'Prince George is currently their number one target.'

A decision was made to discuss these incidents now as they are becoming "more frequent and tactics more alarming. A line has been crossed and any further escalation would represent a very real security risk". The letter expressed William and Kate's "concern" whilst appealing to other parents who would also object to strangers taking photos of their children without permission.

'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.'

Mr Knauf continued:

'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.' 

The letter also appeals to the public.

'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 have seen an incredible rise in demand for paparazzi photos of Prince George on outings with Nanny Maria or with Carole Middleton. We saw quite a bit of the prince over the summer - no doubt a strategy carefully chosen to deter paparazzi photos. It seems obvious from the letter this is an issue of deep concern for the Cambridges. Taking these photos is not illegal, so they feel they must appeal to the morality of media organisations and the general public.

Mario Testino / Kensington Palace

It is most certainly worth noting Jason Knauf did a splendid job in composing the content of the letter, appealing to readers from the perspective of William and Kate as parents, and not members of the Royal family. Unfortunately, therein lies the crux of the issue: this letter will no doubt appeal to many - I was personally quite struck reading a detailed description of a pap stalking out George. We see these photos with such frequency, depicting a happy Prince George playing, one forgets the efforts used to take them, however, I do not believe it will do anything to deter demand for these photographs.

Hearing terms such as "tactics", "increasingly dangerous", "security risk", "covertly" and "target" to describe increasing efforts to take photos of a two-year-old boy are worrisome - reminding many of the harassment the late Princess Diana endured at the hands of the media.

Prince George and Princess Charlotte will have to bear the burden of a watching media for the rest of their lives. What can be done to alleviate this? Several royal photographers have suggested regular photo calls, similar to those held by European royals, which would lessen the value of candid photos. The publication of photos of celebrities' and royal children is increasingly becoming a talking point. Obviously, nobody wants to see Prince George or any child harassed going about their daily activities; it would be a nightmare situation for any parent.

Why are we seeing this letter now? One wonders, has there been a serious security threat? Seeing the Met Police issue a statement made me consider the likelihood of this:

'At a time when the national security threat level from international terrorism is at 'severe’, all officers are at a heightened level of readiness. Photographers are potentially putting themselves at risk from armed intervention where our armed officers perceive a risk to the personal safety of their principal, the public and themselves.'

It was interesting to note early reaction on social media particularly from Kensington Palace who thanked several Twitter users for their support (it is very much a rarity for the Palace to reply individually).

Kensington Palace Twitter Feed

From royal reporter Emily Nash:

Emily Nash Twitter Feed

Royal reporter Richard Palmer:

Richard Palmer Twitter Feed

What are your thoughts on the letter? Were you surprised to see such an open, informal letter penned by the Palace? Would you like to see laws enforcing a ban on the publication of photos of celebrities' and royal children? Do you think the letter will do anything to reduce demand for these photos? Should the royals expect to be photographed in public places such as parks?

You can view the letter in its entirety here. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject!

************

For the second portion of our post, we're continuing to share looks you all suggested from our "Choose your Dream Look for Kate" post. August tends to be the quietest month on the royal calendar and it has been such a fun treat to see your stellar suggestions - you are a very stylish bunch!

H.E. -  "I'd love to see her in more button downs. They work well with ponytails and long soft curls, her favorite hair styles and she can vary with colors and prints. She might layer with a cardigan or a blazer, depending the event's casual nature." Below we have separates from J Crew including the Stretch Perfect Shirt in Classic Stripe, the Stretch Perfect Shirt, the Cashmere Cardigan and the Ludlow Blazer. H.E. would team the pieces with Kate's much-loved J Brand 811 Mid-Rise Skinny Jeans. Stuart Weitzman Corkswoon Wedges in metallic and her Cartier Watch.

H.E.

Marci - styled a look for the Duchess to wear to her sister Pippa Middleton's wedding (no, there's no announcement as of yet, but our stylists are preparing for all eventualities :)). Marci chose the Jenny Packham Lilya gown with  the Guiseppe Zanotti "Cruel Summer" sandals and Kate's Catherine Zoraida Spread Your Wings Bracelet and Double Leaf Earrings. Marci noted the Papyrus tiara would work well with the look.

Siddhii - also chose a dress for Kate to wear to Pippa's wedding; the beautiful DVF Maio Lace Gown (reduced from $998 to $499 at present). For a day-wear dress Siddhii spotted the DVF Layla Chiffon Tunic Dress.

Marci/Siddhii

Sabrina - styled looks for Kate to wear to a gala. First up, it's the floor-sweeping blue J Mendel Halterneck Gown. Sabrina would pair it with a simple black clutch, strappy sandals and Kate's Links of London Bubble Stiletto Earrings. For the second look, we have the timeless Gucci Silk-Georgette Gown paired with Kate's Double Leaf Earrings.

Sabrina

Shoe Shopping Girl - shared her choices via Pinterest which included the very princessy Carolina Herrera Embroidered Tulle Gown accessorised with Kate's blue topaz Kiki McDonough earrings and her silver clutch and diamond bracelet.

Phyl -  put her choice together on her blog. It comprises of a blue and white dress. Kate's Russell & Bromley Park Ave shoes, Asprey Button Pendant  and Links of London Hope Egg Earrings.

Shoe Shopping Girl/Phyl

Lize -  would love to see Kate wear the shoes Rebecca Hunt designed for her with a blue and white stripe top, Alexander McQueen carrot-leg cropped trousers and a Zara clutch,

Di in OZ -  chose her dream look for Kate featuring the Beulah London Porcelain Backless Full-Length Evening Gown, the Jimmy Choo White Lace Almond Toe Match pumps, the Jimmy Choo Cayla Bag, and Kate's blue topaz Kiki hoop earrings.

Lize/Di in Oz

Joanne in CA - styled an evening look for the Duchess featuring the Dillard's Patra Matte Chiffon Beaded Gown, the $98 Nina 'Kerstin' Ankle Strap Sandals, the dazzling Andrea Fohrman Crystal Earrings with Diamonds and the Sondra Roberts Crystal Mesh Clutch.

Paola Magi - We have three chic runway looks beginning with suits from Giorgio Armani and Versace. We also have a floral gown from Giambattista Valli from his Paris Haute Couture Spring/Summer 2014 Collection. Paola would team it with Orecchini Chanel earrings.

Joanne in CA/Paola Magi

Claire Finet - our Parisian Kate fan selected an ensemble for a wedding: a dress from Etam worn with the Scarlett Crin hat by Mademoiselle Chapeaux and a pair of Pinelli pumps.

Katie - A beaded v neck gown from Jenny Packham's unforgettable SS15 Collection.

Claire Finet/Katie

Gabriella, Malta - opted to style day-wear looks for the Duchess. Take a look at the Chunky Boucle Blazer, Pencil Skirt and Flowing Blouse by Espirit. Look two and three are also by Espirit apart from the blazer and top in look two which are by ZARA.

Grabriella, Malta

Maria from Germany - styled the Duchess for a wedding choosing a dress from one of her favourite British brands Beulah London. Below we see labels blue roses print Lily Dress,  The look is completed with Kate's L.K. Bennett Harper Pumps, a Russell & Bromley Clutch and her blue Rachel Trevor Morgan hat.

Sonja from Bavaria - decided to put a casual look together for Kate. The $65 eShakti Fit-and-Flare Dress with a Bolero,  Converse, Kate's Cartier Watch and a ponytail.

Maria from Germany/Sonja from Bavaria

Erika - Similar to many of our readers Erika would love to see Kate wear pants. She would style her in L.K. Bennett's Elodie Double Breasted Jacket and matching Tapered Trousers. For footwear it's the printed Florita Slingbacks and the Bella Suede Buckle Clutch. The look is completed with a ponytail Kate's Kiki Morganite earrings.

Paulyne - also turned to L.K. Bennett for her look choosing the brand's Lupin Jacket (reduced from £250 to £150 at present)  and Fern Suede Pumps. The Reiss Era TrousersPalm Ruffle Detail Top and a Jenny Packham clutch complete the stylish ensemble.

Erika/Paulyne

Audrey Mango - For a casual summertime look it's the Jigsaw Tinted Bloom blouse, the  Linen Cassidy Flared Pants by The Limited, the Kate Spade Wedding Belles Love Owls ClutchRoyal Glass Earrings  and Kate's Stuart Weitzman Corkswoon wedges. For a wedding; The L.K. Bennett Occa 50s Dress, the BCBGMaxAzria Emerson Jacket, Kate's navy Anya Hindmarch clutch, L.K. Bennett Art shoes and a Silk Bow Fascinator.

A gala look includes the Theia Cap Sleeve with Watercolour Long Skirt, Kate's diamond and emerald earrings and bracelet and her L.K. Bennett Agata sandals. And for a daytime engagement we have the Refined Suiting Blazer and Pants from Rebecca Taylor with  the Equipment Sailboat Print Blouse.

Audrey Mango

Francis - "I am very happy with what Catherine chooses to wear so far. If she’d wear even more fair /ethical /organic /eco-friendly clothes than she currently does, I would appreciate. My suggestions reflect this.". Below we see the Sika X Asos Ballet Dress, the People Tree Fiona Flared Dress and the Sika X Strapless Full Prom Dress. For a vintage dress Francis liked the 1960s Maroon Day Dress.

Francis

Courtney from NC - put together a look appropriate for a black-tie event. The Claire Pettibone Eloquence Gown  is a gold eyelash scalloped gown. It would be accessorised with Kate's diamond and emerald jewels (it's no surprise to see they are popular with our stylists) and the Jimmy Choo Addison pumps.

German Girl - "This look is a bit autumnal - perfect for Kate when she returns to her duties in September :)". The Ted Baker Cascading Dress in Floral Print, with a fiery red coat, tights. boots and the L.K. Bennett Raffia Clutch.

Courtney from NC/German Girl

Hope - compiled a casual outfit with the J Crew Shirt in Dash-Dot Ikat, True Religion Becca Bootcut Jeans and the Pikolinos Verona Buckle Boots - reduced from $230 to $125 at Nordstrom Rack.

Katie, Chicago - styled an alternative to Kate's sporting uniform choosing the Burberry Diamond Quilted Jacket with J Brand grey skinny jeans, casual tops and Leopard Print flats from J Crew.

Hope/Katie, Chicago

Couch Potato - "So, this is my look for a daytime engagement. I would love to see Kate wear trousers for visits to her charities more often - she is so tall and can definitely wear them! I've paired them with a blouse with a nice flower print and pumps with a floral pattern and a pretty plum-coloured scarf." The look includes the Ted Baker Torchlit Floral Top, grey trouser from Banana Republic, Ted Baker Neevo pointy toe pumps and a silk scarf.

Maria from Germany - The gala look consists of Erdem's Lucetta Hibiya Orchid-Print Gown accessorised with a sapphire choker and a red clutch.

Couch Potato/Maria from Germany

Thank you for your wonderful looks! There's been so many submissions, we will share all remaining looks in a couple of days in our 'Part Three' post :)

189 comments:

  1. Audrey,

    LOVE the watercolor skirt gown. So unique and Kate would look so pretty in that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tammy from California15 August 2015 at 17:19

      I agree Anon. The pink shoes with the colors on the dress just give it such a beautiful finishing touch! I think Kate would look beautiful in that.

      Delete
    2. Thank you! It was such fun to pick out. :)

      Delete
  2. I agree with what the Royal photographer, Ian Pelham Turner, said in the video interview by The Guardian paper.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did he say?

      Delete
    2. Can you provide a link to the video you are referencing?

      Delete
    3. Julia and Rona,

      That link is at the end of the comments section.

      Delete
    4. That man owns a website called theroyalchild.com he makes a living on the cult of personality surrounding royal children, what a strange advocate!

      Delete
  3. Thank you for telling us Charlotte, because now I will stop supporting these awful paparazzi and their buyers and I urge you and everyone here to do the same. I this is unacceptable, no excuses. We do not need to wait for someone to get shot or for a child's life to be ruined before we do our part.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eve from Germany15 August 2015 at 07:59

    Thank you so much, dear Charlotte, for this post, especially on the topic of "unauthorized" photographing. I´m afraid no letter or pleading will help as long as WE ALL buy magazines or click on websites showing such photos. As long as there is a market someone will make these photos - simple market law.
    I think this letter should be made much more public. It got me thinking, I have to say. I must admit I took a look at this kind of photos. I never bought a magazine because of them but I took a look and, yes, enjoyed them. It´s different now, after reading the letter. I just hope that granting more "official" photo opportunities will help decrease the importance and therefore value of "unauthorized" photos. I myself will definitely see any private shots of especially the children in a different light from now on and avoid any "gratification" (e.g. by clicking on websites showing them) as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's getting worldwide press attention. It's on the front page of CNN and Huffington Post. So it's not being ignored at all.

      Delete
  5. i know its wrong but I love the duke and duchess protecting prince George I think its been awful and its wrong to snap a child without permission I applaud the duke and duchess letter to protect their children to those awful paparazzi I think right time for that given to crazy magazine that feature prince George last year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bluefire, I'm a bit confused by the start of your comment. Can you explain why you said "I know it's wrong...protecting prince George."? I don't think its wrong for them to protect George and the rest of your comment is in support them doing just that.

      Delete
  6. I definitely agree that photos of George with his nanny or his granny should be out of bounds, but photos of him with Kate are different in my opinion

    ReplyDelete
  7. Julia from Leominster15 August 2015 at 09:13

    Random thoughts.
    This letter is too long to have any appeal for the general buying public of magazines that publish photos like that. It should have been much more concise.
    It should not have contained any mention of threats - implying a photographer could be mistaken for a terrorist and attacked by security forces. That's just my feeling - never put even an implied threat in a letter.

    The timing of the letter is bad, at a time when there is little other royal news, particularly on the part of the Cambridges. They should have waited until they could argue that there were official photos that the public should be looking at instead and which these foreign magazines could be publishing instead.

    Never demand without giving. (Just as I suggested the Kate stylist subject to encourage positive discussion at a dull time.) They should have released photos around the same time as the letter - see, you should be looking at this!

    There should be NO ambiguity about what is an authorised versus unauthorised photo. Were those photos taken on the way to Mustique authorised or unauthorised - they were published in Hello! How about that massive amount of photos taken of Carole on the beach - was there really no awareness that photographer was there? It makes it hard to know what is acceptable and what isn't.
    Some shots of George in public are going to have to be acceptable - I'm thinking back to the past - William walking to the Christmas pageant as a little boy - on a public street - acceptable or not. School runs? Airports?

    There has always been massive interest in royal children. I'm just reading a biography of Princess Margaret which talks about the Queen Mum's worries about the amount of attention focused on royal children.
    I would suggest more "active" photo opportunities such as some of the European royals use for their summer holidays. This fills a void in a clearly authorised way.
    The trouble is even if all of us stopped looking at pap photos, there's still going to be a huge demand from countries all over the world and the type of magazines that publish outlandish claims such as Kate is pregnant again. The people who publish and buy this sort of thing aren't going to be impressed by this letter and are probably outside the reach of privacy laws.
    I'm happy to stop looking at such photos but realistically, I mostly don't anyway. Sometimes, I'll go over to Popsugar to see what everyone is talking about but I think. at least on this blog, we all would be delighted to have something else to talk about.
    And that's the problem. There is so little Cambridge news that it gives huge motivation for unauthorised photos. I don't think anything will stop the demand altogether - but it could be diluted considerably.
    Even if you stop the paps, there's still the problem of civilians taking snaps since every mobile has a camera these days. I don't know what the answer is to that.
    At the end of the day, I think it will sort itself out. I remember a huge fuss about Caroline Kennedy when she was small - she turned out fine and today, photos of her are rare. As George is a future king, there will always be more attention but it helps to remember this is not a new subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a bit saddened at the overall tone of your comment. It seems to me that you are basically saying that this issue is never going to resolve itself so why bother making an appeal at all. That may not have been your intent but that was the overall message I walked away with from your comment and random thoughts.

      I agree that the letter is too long and either people will look at the length and never bother to read the content or they will start to read it and never finish. I like the way that Charlotte broke it up and made it easier to consume the information.

      You made a good suggestion about releasing the letter with photographs to change the focus. However, it might have had an opposite effect of the focus being shifted from the letter to the photos. I think anytime is the right time to speak up if you feel your and your family's safety is at risk.

      The Cambridge's have already made the statement earlier this summer that George will be more visible, invited public to Charlotte's christening, etc. They probably feel they are extending the olive branch and instead of the media accepting the offer, they are digging up the entire olive tree.

      Delete
    2. From what Jason Knauf has told the Guardian, an increase in photo calls may be out of the question.

      “The Duke and Duchess simply expect publishers to do the right thing when it comes to protecting their children. They are happy to provide official photos, but it is not part of a deal. We don’t buy into the argument that giving out official photos stops the paparazzi problem.

      “Gentleman’s agreements are a thing of the past. They don’t work when you have overseas publications ready to print anything they like.”

      The Guardian also seems to lift the veil on the Mustique-like Hello photos, describing photos like that as "images shot by trusted freelance photographers who are deemed to “play by the rules”, usually at polo matches or other informal events once or twice a year."

      Delete
    3. I agree with Julia. :)

      Delete
    4. I agree with the lack of news fueling in part the drive for photos such as these. I feel like we saw more pictures of William & Harry, even early on, than we have of George and Charlotte. Maybe that will change as they both get a little older, maybe not. I do think that William & Kate's desire to be so private most of the time helps to fuel the drive for any photo, that doesn't make it right, but it is what it is.

      Even the way this information was presented, through a long letter, fuels it in my opinion. Can you imagine if as part of a TV interview, William & Kate, as concerned parents, voiced some of these thoughts? It would have to be carefully done of course, but they could manage that and hearing it straight from them would have made the entire world take notice. But at this point, I can't imagine them doing an interview together. Maybe they are saving that if things get worse, who knows. Difficult topic for sure.

      Delete
    5. Julia raised a noteworthy point here more actually but I find this quite intriguing. I think it is very difficult to differentiate btw authorized/unauthorized pictures. Sometimes I had the feeling there are some photographers who are closer to their hearts.
      I would also remind everybody here, that I read earlier after the christening debacle. Where they invited the media but only allowed 6 photograhers to take photos. After that one of the royal correspondents heard paps saying the gloves are off around Anmer this summer.Here we are.
      I am not saying it is their fault. But if one uses media for its own benefit, it can backfire.

      I also read a comment earlier from Claudia and made me think "The great irony is that Diana tried to control the press by feeding them, William is trying to do it by starving them. Both quite foolish strategies."

      Delete
    6. Sorry Julia, but your sentence "The timing of the letter is bad, at a time when there is little other royal news" sounds rather inopportune when all the media on the world are reporting about the Jihadist plot against the Royal Family members, the Queen and Prince Charles. It's time to think about what "behind the scene" could mean.

      Delete
    7. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 22:59

      Blue27. The press that was at the christening all posted their pictures to the Press Association and did not have it as an exlusive, just like is done at MANY events. What they REALLY are complaining about are lack of exclusives....

      Delete
    8. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 02:38

      Julie - I have no problem with them making the appeal - although I think the letter should have been shorter and more focused to appeal to the general public. To my mind, it was not a particularly good letter - not so much in the tone, but that it was too long and convoluted. Even if it is intended as a legal document to warn paps, it was too involved.

      Yes, I would have waited until there were some royal duties - if nothing else, to draw a distinct line between public and private life - something hard to do when there is no active public life. I don't really count the Jihadist threats as they were made against other family members - and threats (it used to be the Irish) have been part of royal life ever since I can remember.

      But if my tone is a bit pessamistic - no, I doubt the letter will do much good. Perhaps, it can be used as a warning of potential prosecution but since most of the editors involved are in journals outside the scope of British or even EU or European laws - and most photographers are freelance, as I understand it, I doubt it will do much to stop anything.
      It is rather like poaching -in a way, it is poaching. The finanical incentive is there - take some paps out of the mix and others will appear as long as there are buyers - and stopping foreign publications is going to be very difficult.
      I see a couple of other problems too. There is something of a gentleman's agreement with the British press - and to sound so high and mighty about the press doing "the right thing" while giving little in return is not wise. After all, the home press of the Cambridges are losing profits, where there is a market. William and Kate are getting a reputation as complainers and being querulous - I think there is justification here with the children -but they've complained a lot in the past - but inconsistantly. For instance when Kate went to church when she was pregnant - local press was banned but Reuters published the photos.

      What worries me more than the paps, is the feeling from Palmer and Pelham that the local press is getting sick of the Cambridge's demands. They're being good - and getting little for it. Should they decide to, they could do major damages to the Cambridges - without privacy issues or libel or unauthorised photos. Look how the press helped destory Margaret and Andrew. I've mentioned Andrew before but he should be a cautionary tale - once he was a handsome war hero and idol of women - now... Much fault was his but even before these latest scandals, the press turned on him (I suspect they didn't like him.) He may be the queen's favorite son but there is no going back.

      All of us deal with people we don't like or even detest - but have to tolerate - banks, the Inland Revenue and Internal Revenue, bosses. The royals and the press have had a problematic relationship for as long as there has been a press - George IV cartoons! and always will.

      So what would I productively suggest - the best I can come up with is to offer the British press an exclusive photo session of the Cambridges with their children at a playground - get good photos out there of that subject - get the mainstream press on their side and then hope there will be less market for bad photos from the international press. Would it work? Apparently the Cambrdiges think not, but their judgment hasn't been flawless so far. It might be worth a try.

      Delete
    9. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 02:52

      I agree that it would be in the Cambridges best interest to do something for the British press, if for no other reason than to keep them happy... Because there seems to be alot of grumbling.

      Delete
    10. Rebecca

      I must disagree. Certain photographer was complaining because he didn't get the license from KP, although they said they would welcome everybody. He wasn't complaining about exclusives. He is a respectable one so I suppose he wasn't lying. I know what I read, sorry. But at the end of the day, it matters not, they have this situation now, they played their part too.

      Delete
    11. Courtney from NC16 August 2015 at 08:11

      If there wasn't a royal name involved in the incidences listed in the letter, especially the person in the car hiding out and taking pictures like a creeper, everyone would be screaming stalker. Catherine chose this life, will was born into as were George and Charlotte. However the children cannot give consent or even understand the situation. If someone had been hiding out to take pictures of my child or sent other little kids to try and lure him out I would be livid. Can you imagine how damaging it could be for a child of 2 to have someone jump out at him, say from a car or the bushes, who they do not know? The fact that they had to release a letter about that type of pap stalking is sickening and says a lot about the majority of media willing to purchase photos from people such as that.

      Delete
    12. Julia - thank you for your well thought out reply. The lack of cooperation with the press on the part of William and Kate don't justify the tactics highlighted in the letter. Remember we are talking about stalking George, a 2 year old boy. It is a scary situation for him and could have much different consequences if not addressed by the appropriate means. Some lines have been crossed going after a child like this and to me this is inexcusable.

      Having a photo call with George at a play ground is a great idea and it would also help for him to get comfortable with the press being present. They did it in New Zealand, why not in England. If you remember back to the hospital he acted shy and scared when walking beside William and asked to be picked up when he saw the large number of press present.

      If the article had been focused more on the treatment of William and Kate I would have a different opinion on it but when it comes to the kids, they have a right not to be stalked. William and Kate have the right to control information and access when it comes to their children as parents.

      Delete
  8. I absolutely love the white and blue dress suggested by Phyl! Very much Kate but still new and fresh. So much fun looking at everybody's outfits! Regarding the photo's, looking at pap photos will not feel right knowing the anguish it causes Kate and William and hearing their direct appeal to us as the public who show an interest in their lives. As a mom I can fully understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No child should be pursued regardless of who they are. The beach shots were unacceptable. A private time on a deserted beach invaded. I am sure there are other public places where there is an expectation that there will be photographers such as the polo match , which is very different from the stake out in the dunes. we all need to remember the reason for the photographs is to increase corporate profit and if we don't click we wont feed the profit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My heart weeps for George. When I learned that some teenage boys have been taking stolen shots of girls in my daughter's school I was mortified. So the letter spoke loud and clear to me. I will also stop looking at these photos. It is a sorry excuse to continue clicking on the links just coz we don't think it will make any difference. Will and Kate have begun showing us more of the kids so I think I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rona,
      I know what you mean. One thing some of us here do to help is to include these situations/people in our daily prayers/devotions. That might help relive your understandable angst somewhat. :)

      Delete
  11. This is quite a controversial issue, I'm sure!

    Firstly, I am personally a little shocked that KP would issue such a letter at this time. Yes, there obviously have been several issues with photographers "stalking" George, and they definitely should not be doing that. But it seems most of the media have been co-operative with Will and Kate's wishes so far, and there's always going to be the odd one who won't listen, and this letter won't deter them from that anyway. Also, it seemed Will and Kate's relationship with the media was getting better, so I don't understand the reason for this letter now.

    Furthermore, anyone who steps foot in a public park, beach, plaza, etc, could be photographed, including kids. If Kate and Will wish to use public spaces they are going to be photographed - any "normal" person could be photographed too. Even if the paparazzi agree to not photograph them at the park, someone else could - just on their mobile phone - and publish it online. This has happened many times with Kate being spotted here and there.

    They have plenty of outdoor areas at Buckingham, KP, Amner Hall and Bucklebury for George and Charlotte to play. I do think that George and Charlotte have a right to protection because they are children, but Will and Kate need to face the reality that if they, their children, or ANY public figure is in a public place they are likely to be photographed, and it is likely to be published. If they don't like that reality, they should renounce their titles and become normal citizens. This letter is very well written, and they do thank the public and various countries' media outlets for support, but all it will do is place emphasis on an issue that is not likely to change any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Anon 12:13 and I think this is what frustrates many in the press corps, the Cambridges are quick to criticize and complain about some instances with paps or photogs, but rarely acknowledge and reward the press photographers who do follow the rules.

      I'm also amazed that so many are taking this letter at face value, instantly believing the KP version of events. Any responsible journalist/organization should of course question incidents where security may be breached and in the Met Police's own words.. a photographer may be shot!

      Where did this happen? Who was the photographer? What kind of car? (Clearly the boot or trunk of a sedan seems more sinister than a wagon or SUV where back seat and boot are one and the same) If there are security issues concerning the future monarch these questions and more are quite valid and should be easily answered.

      Maybe they can't corroborate their story? Is the letter the truth? Maybe. Is it close to the truth? Probably. Did the "heavily involved" Cambridges use creative license to make a point? Likely.

      For all the criticism of Richard Palmer, he was the only one that I know of who reported that the Cambridges' complaint on low lying aircraft at Anmer Hall was dismissed outright, largely because the evidence/claims couldn't be authenticated. That initial complaint got a lot of press and hand wringing, but when it amounted to nothing, only Palmer reported back.

      As I've said before, KP needs to worry more about developing a healthy, fruitful relationship with its press corps, and less about cultivating followers on Twitter.

      Claudia

      Delete
  12. Thanks Charlotte for another interesting and thought provoking post. First, the looks for Kate continue to be fabulous. I enjoy looking at all the suggestions and pieces people have picked out. I've frequently clicked onto the designers website to look at all their clothes, not just the ones that were picked for Kate.

    Now for thoughts on the letter from the palace. The informality of the language is quite striking and the examples provided quite alarming . I can tell it was influenced by an American. Like Julia from Leominster stated it quite long which can work in favor of the message by providing specific examples of unacceptable behavior and against it because people have a short attention span and getting to the point in a quick and concise manner helps get the point across. However, it does highlight real concerns from loving parents who have the platform to highlight this issue.

    Unfortunately this is not new, we have had several celebrities here in the US (Holly Berry and Jennifer Garner) go to court over paps basically stalking their children for photographs. Kate and William have to walk that fine line of being in the public eye and guarding against their privacy. I think it is important to note that while William and Kate have accepted the public side of their lives, George and Charlotte are too young to understand what that means and can't speak up for themselves. Remember they are young children, whether or not they are royal, future king, etc. that means nothing to them at this age. They are children and should have a higher level of privacy until they can better understand the dangers of the world.

    My husband and I watch a lot of true crime shows on TV as well as a lot of scripted police dramas and the tactics highlighted in the letter are so reminiscent of stories that we have seen on those shows. Some of the behavior of the paps to get photos is the same as kidnappers, serial killers/murderers, sex offenders, and yes terrorists. I would be quite freaked out to know I had my kid at a park, had the unique experience of meeting George, and then find out that someone in a van with sheets over the window had staked out the park to get a photograph. This scenario had a positive outcome (unauthorized photos and being caught by the police) but that unfortunately is not always the case and there are sick people out there that wish to do harm.

    I do like seeing photos and while I don't actively seek them out, I do look at them when they are in the news. Next time I see a picture, I will think about the story behind it. I'll be more diligent about resisting the urge to look at the photos and contributing to this behavior. While my change won't stop the paps, it won't help to promote them either.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been commenting a lot on this letter and here I go again!

    First, I was caught off guard by the number of people on Twitter who routinely share these very pap pics, expressing outrage yesterday and siding with the Cambridges! If nothing else, be honest with yourself. If you've ever clicked on a blog, a link, a tweet, or bought magazines with these images, do not then feign outrage. The "blame" for this lies squarely on the audience, news editors chase what their audience wants it's that simple. They register sales, or more importantly today, clicks and traffic on a website.

    That said, this was not a particularly effective way to address the issue and makes me think again, that William just refuses to accept the reality of his life. And if Kate wanted a quite, upper class country life, she married the wrong man! Press and photogs and even these handful of paps are always going to be part of their life, it may not be right it may not be fair but that's just the reality of this world.

    Paparazzi stake out famous people. That's hardly shattering news. They use covert tactics. Again, ho hum. When they cross the line, there are laws to swiftly deal with them. As someone tweeted yesterday, if security can't tell the difference between a camera and a gun they shouldn't be personal protection officers.

    If PPO's see a suspicious vehicle/person, if they are truly concerned, they would or should leave location immediately. If they go to investigate and see it's a photographer, they kick him out and tell him to move on. Such covert behaviour at a playground is clearly inappropriate and harassment, royal children present or not!

    Why did William and Kate not complain when covert pics of Kate and George were taken in Australia? Of them getting off a plane in Mustique? Clearly paps were hiding in the bushes and behind cars on the tarmac there, again, as paps are likely to do. And really, are they truly surprised that if they go into parks in the busy city of London they may be photographed? That when Carole takes the heir to the throne to a public beach in July, on what happens to be his birthday, photogs will be around waiting to take pics? They are some of the most famous people in the world, they should expect to be photographed. Say good morning and carry on with your day.

    A better strategy? The Cambridges should have sat down for a relatively brief, informal interview at home or in one of their kitchens :) Talked about how much they enjoy and appreciate this family time, but express concern as new parents about protecting their children. An appeal from Kate especially would have had enormous impact, gotten a lot of play and would have resonated. Saying "I understand people want to see my children, I could look at them all day too! But there are instances that really concern us for their safety and the safety of our employees and other members of the public" That would have had a better impact and frankly, gotten them some good will which I think they could use.

    Paps have been around since the term was coined. First Princess Margaret, Charles' girlfriends, Andrew, Diana of course.. not to mention celebrities who have come and gone. As long as there's a global audience they will exist. I frankly don't know who would want that kind of attention, and there was an excellent article recently that modern royal life will be unlivable, with iphones and social media making every citizen a paparazzi of sorts.

    William needs to find a way to strike a happy relationship with the press. He could learn a lot from his father and Camilla who have grown into an excellent relationship with their press corps. He is not a young man anymore, not a student, he's into his 30's. When he's Prince of Wales this will only increase. The more he tries to put it off the harder it will be to transition.

    Forgive the length, I enjoy the discussion!

    Claudia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For god sake people we are talking about a little boy who is just 2. Put aside him being royal. At this time in his life he is a little boy growing up.
      How would any of you like it if your child was stocked at every move you make. It is very dangerous for George at this time. There are crazy people who would not think twice to try and kidnap or kill him because of his family. He did not ask to be born into the royal family.
      And Willi and Kate wanting to protect him is not wrong. Willi had a very good reason to hate the media.

      Delete
    2. Sure Anonymous 23:45 - but what does that have to do with someone taking a photograph? Stop taking photographs doesn't stop the threat.

      Delete
    3. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 02:48

      No but it makes the threat more destiguisable which makes the reaction time faster which can make all the difference.

      Delete
    4. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 02:56

      You are quite right Claudia - I'm not sure if it has done as much good as they might hope - public feelings on Camilla are strong and many of us aren't prepared to be persuaded - but Charles and Camilla had been given remarkably good local publicity which certainly has helped them. Some of it is pretty silly - Camilla's beauty secrets - hello!!! but some of it is proving effective.

      I'm no believer in stalking children but George is very well protected - probably better protected from dangers than the average child - he has some of the finest security in the world. I'm not persuaded by the danger element - but I do very strongly feel there is a need for privacy, balanced with a reasonable amount of controlled publicity for people in their position.

      Hating people who are important to you - and the press is vital to William and Kate - is not productive. There are many complicated reasons for what happened to Diana - it was a perfect storm of errors - and the press isn't entirely to blame - she didn't have the best security out there - she was in a city known for paps, she (or those with her) tried foolishly to outrun and outwit the press - and she wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

      Somehow, a reasonable balance has to be achieved - but don't ask me how this should happen. Maybe William should talk to his father or more importantly - his father's press officer. My feeling is right now the Cambridge's are taking public favour too much for granted. as if it will always be there.

      Delete
    5. Julia 02:56- I, for one, would be very interested in reading about Camilla's beauty secrets.99

      Delete
  14. Charlotte, I wasn't able to comment on Dream Looks for Kate Part One as there were too many comments for my computer to download! That's good though. What I did want to say is that I thought this was the most fun post I've ever seen. It gave us all the opportunity to dress a royal! Thanks for being so creative in this "down time". I couldn't pick a favorite look as they were all gorgeous. What fun!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 14:40

    First of all, warning for a LONG post(s) :P

    My first point will be, I'm disgusted. I have been on the fence (leaning towards it not being ok) because people have kept saying how it's staged, that the phtographers have been seen, that George takes no harm etc. But now knowing the specifics I myself have taken a "pledge" to avoid paparazzi pictures and have seen otheers do the same.

    My second point is that I don't think people are understanding that in this case they are not actually complaining much about the privacy part, they are pointing out real security threats. And the reason I think they did it now is because of a recent incident plus the highten threat level in the UK at the moment. Considering that the police made a statement (that can sound like a threat but is a honest risk. Now when it is a highten security threat, and they see a man hiding in a car with something pointed at George, the paparazzi is in a real risk of getting harmed. Them doing stuff like that is seriously hindering the work of the protection officers) I think the timing of this had more to do with protection and security since the police never make comments about the people they protect. I think it has gone to a threat level that they are really afraid of.

    Also, they don't complain about a shot here and there. What they complain about is the stalking. Stalking of their personel, hiding in cars and sand, trespassing on neighbouring properties etc. It's not just a "they hung out outside KP for a few days after the birth", it is constant stalking and using of other children to take photos. It doesn't get more clearcut stalking than that but if you say your paparazzi you get a free pass?!?! How insane is that!? If it was another person they would either be pedophiles and/or stalkers. But just because they sell the pictures they are untouchable?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 14:40

    Also, I've seen arguments made (in other places) about the polo matches and tourist snaps. These are my thougths on that. The tourist snaps have a BIG difference. One is taking a chance shot, the other is stalking. It's big difference of a tourist taking a chance shot happening to see a royal, than a pro searching for it. And the polo game, let's take 3 examples. This happens to you and your kid:

    1. You win/buy tickets to the local premiere of the new kids movie. On the invitation it is told that it's a red carpet. If you go to this event and take your kids on the red carpet you give consent to have them photographed. This is the polo event. They knew there would be photographers there taking photos of the match, hence they knew they would be photographed going to this specific event.

    2. You go to your local park and there happens to be a photographer taking pictures of the playground and childrens park for the tourist pamphlet of your town. You either choose to stay and "risk" having your kids in the picture or leave because you don't wan't your kids in the picture. This is the equivilent of a tourist snapping a photo when they happen to run into a royal.

    3. You are in the local park/your garden playing with your kids. When you go online two weeks later you happen to see that someone has been hiding in the bushes and taking pictures of your kids playing. This is the equivalent of the paparazzi stalking.

    Also, first day of school, arriving after births, christening, all these things have been INVITED media with a cordination from their press department. Hence, it's consented situations.

    Christmas walk = public and press INVITED to watch them walk = consent

    Watching charity polo-match = Event with expected media = Consent

    I've seen the point about photocalls. First of all, that is victim blaming. "If you have your kids shown more they will not be stalked, if you lock them in the palace they will not be stalked". Second of all, I don't belive it for a second. They have been seen more and more pictures released and the paps have just escalated. Prince Charles and Princess Diana routinely had photocalls with William and Harry and that didn’t do anything to stop the paps from stalking them... and that was in the 80s and 90s, way before social media. Others make a link between other royal houses doing photocalls and not being stalked. They miss a big difference though. 1.The other houses are not as internationally sellable 2.we barely even HAVE paparazzi in Sweden for example. Plus, the market for the UK royals is so much bigger. Agreements are in place exactly like with other royals. And all british media follows them.. But what do you expect them to do?! Make a backroom deal with every little magazine in Australia, US, Germany etc? It's just not doable. That's the difference between them and other royals. If the Swedish royal family makes a deal with the Swedish media that chokes the demand (except for an odd picture here and there in Germany) but if the BRF does the same they only choke the British media and make them angry for having to follow different standards. The only 2 ways I can see to hinder this kind of stuff is 1. people stop watching the pictures and 2. they make legislations on when a picture taken of a child in a public place is unlawfull. That way number 1 chokes the demand = no money value = people don't go to those lengths and 2. hinders kids (especially of celebrities) from being stalked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 03:04

      I've heard that the Swedish royal family do have a lot of demands - and censorship but in return, the press does get more - there seem to be a lot more photo opportunities of Estelle - we've seen a lot of her and her parents.

      And there does seem to be international interest - I've seen those staged photos in many journals. And when Charles and Diana did have photo opportunities - there was less pap attention - the problem grew much larger after the divorce. There were deals struck on ski holidays and when William and Harry were in school. To me, this sort of arrangement, is still the best way.

      It's going to be hard to pass legislation as it would affect so many people.

      Delete
  17. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 14:41

    I don't think we can (and should) stop photos all together. I mean, a single mobile phone on a turist is Ok I think. But where I think the legal system can step in is HOW the pictures are taken. For ex, include paparazzi in some stalking laws. And that photographs from hidden views are illegal or something. Or photographs from closer than x meters etc.

    The law is continiously changing and with the growth of media and technology there have to be laws that follow that development. And the laws won't change until someone speaks up.

    I know there is a growing movement in the US where celebrities go together and have actually "made" media lessen their publishing of pictures of children meaning children are fair game at the red carpet etc where the parent is giving the media a councious OK to take pictures, but paparazzi is not accepted. They have started that debate and it's going slow but things are actually happening. So if alot of UK celebrities latch on to William and Kates claim they might actually be able to get some traction. I hope some british celebrities take this oppurtunity and join forces with the cambridges. Other celebrity parents are already starting to stand up to the paparazzis. Paparazzi laws in California for example has been changed since celebrities started rallying against it. Is there any known celebrities in the UK that is behind this question that can help "promote" a change in the law? And also, shouldn't some of these "tactics" the paparazzi use already fall under stalking/trespassing laws? Just some random (long) thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  18. That J Mendel gown is AMAZING. Kate would look fabulous in it, but I would love it if someone would wear it on the red carpet!
    MV

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think so long as they use the titles, money, and privileges of being "royal" they can expect being monitored - no matter their age. George has no idea he is being photographed as the photographers are quite crafty at being hidden. The "harass" never happens. This was a warning/threat to the photographers - in the event we mistake you for an enemy and shoot/harm you.

    It is possible this is just a way for Will and Kate to express themselves since they really have no control over it -- it is rather melodramatic to use the argument - we are at constant threat by enemies of the state and lets share the tactics of photographers (presumably untrained at covert operations) to show how easy it is to come at us. It is not the photographers that are putting the children in open places where they are exposed. Their annoyance at photographers seems misguided. It seems to me THEY would do well to think - if it so easy for photographers to locate us and take photos - perhaps WE need to change OUR behavior in the event the next person isn't a photographer.

    Those photographers and pictures are not harming the family in anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 19:59

      Oh yeah, horrible Cambridges who DARE to take their kids outside the palace walls so they can play with other people and get a change of scenery!

      Delete
    2. That is the risk they take, Rebecca. And it's a risk they take whether there's a guy with a long lens there or not. If they want their children in the public arena, then they will need to deal with that. And it's not just professional photographers either. Anyone with a phone and twitter account will be posting shots of their kid playing with George, or hanging with Kate at the play area.

      I think it was a warning to the photographers too, Moxie, and I suspect (with nothing but a gut feeling) that it was aimed directly at one or two of them, and I bet one of them is Niraj Tanna. He's the one banned from royal parks isn't he? The one who was following George and his nanny? Frankly, I wonder why they don't shame whoever it is by name. Imaging the ire of parents everywhere thinking he'd stoop to hiding in cars to take long lens photos of a child.

      Delete
    3. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 01:55

      I agree bluhare. But having someone with a camera hiding is easier to mistake for a perpetrator than a mum with her cellphone. And every pap they have to check leaves room open for an attack. And because of them being photographed like that it's a longer reaction time for the RPOs to asses if it's a photographer or a terrorist. That's my point.

      Delete
    4. That is a typical response from our resident nay sayer Moxie. You must take into consideration that a camera could easily be replaced by a gun. Yes the photos are intrusive, but a sniper hiding in the sand dunes would be detrimental. Look outside the square for once, we know you can.
      Betty

      Delete
    5. Hello Betty,I've not seen your name before so perhaps you don't know the cast of characters here. We are trying to be more polite these days and attempting to not make personal comments about posters and stick to the topic instead. Not sure if you were aware of that.

      Delete
    6. Victoria, Oregon16 August 2015 at 03:18

      Yeah, I wonder why they don't publicly name/shame the particular photographer stalker, or bring a law suit against the few (sounds like?) who are stalking. All I know is that I don't know the full picture (no pun intended) as the royals and police do at this point.

      Delete
    7. And if something happens to a royal in a public place - it is because photographers take pictures?
      You seem to think photographers not taking pictures somehow magically protects royals in public.
      You seem to think there aren't any threats in public, except photographers.

      Photographers do not equal a threat, or protection, to royals in public.

      Delete
    8. bluhare - I think what they desire is to aim for the emotional response as well - and they are getting it to some degree. Folks who feel passionately about the royals love looking at all pictures of them and they drive the pap economy - if you can get them to react emotionally and scare them into thinking what they are doing is wrong and harming people then you can possibly change their behavior. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time a pap photo surfaces - how it trends, who publishes, who shares, who doesn't, and if there is any change in traffic.

      Also, I think William hasn't spouted off in awhile and we were overdue.

      Delete
    9. They've done it before and I think that there's a flurry of people agreeing it's bad, but then it dies down and people go back to their old habits.

      Celebrity children are photographed in public all the time -- look at the hullabaloo over Harper Beckham last week and Brad and Angelina's children. The only thing that will stop free lancers from taking these kinds of photos is to make it illegal to publish them without parental consent but I don't know if you could ever enforce it on an international platform.

      Delete
    10. Maggie - Minneapolis16 August 2015 at 06:41

      If the security threat is so high and their rpo's are so incompetent that checking out one potential threat could lead to another, then they really need better/more security. Security has to be able to deal with multiple things and possible threats at once. Otherwise they are useless.
      Also Kate and other royals ask their protection officers frequently to ask people nearby not to take pictures of them. Under the logic presented here, isn't that also distracting them from protecting their charges?
      I just feel like this argument aboutpaps looking like a threat means they are putting the royals in danger is like saying a person who accidentally drops a large toy and makes a huge noise that causes the rpo's to investigate is now at fault if something happens to a royal while their protection officer is elsewhere. The paps are not connected to terrorists or other Security threats. They do not help them plan an attack and willingly distract rpo's. They don't pursue ways to in its acts of terror on the royals. Its not on them that there are bad people out there who may be trying to hurt the subjects of their pictures. They are not the people trying to hurt the royals. If terrorists or other criminals get close enough to attacking the royals that the only thing stopping them from succeeding is the lack of a photographer to distract rpo's, then I think the royals have bigger problems lol.

      Delete
    11. Maggie-hard to understand how a stalking photographer in a duck-blind type hide can equate in
      distraction to a dropped stuffy.99
      Why is it difficult, on the other hand, to understand that, while paps themselves may not be 9/11 type
      terrorists, the real terrorist can take advantage of a policy that allows such practices. The next stalker-pap
      you see could be a terrorist. Who's to tell the difference?
      Mr. Palmer has become a bit of a celebrity, it seems. If he had children or nieces and nephews, would he
      think paps popping out at them with flashing lights or concealing themselves behind a sand dune
      while the children run about in sunsuits- I assume if this is ok for the Cambridge children then it is ok
      for his family. Does he want to be allowed to publish pap photos in UK, or what?

      Delete
    12. bluhare 03:12- I originally wrote a comment further down, following Elizabeth's remarks referring to
      commenters on this blog "worshipping" William and Catherine. Perhaps you saw my comment before it got deleted.
      I asked how Betty's calling a commenter a "nay-sayer" was more objectionable to the point that you
      lectured Betty about the kind atmosphere of this blog etc.Of course, both your comment and Elizabeth's were allowed, mine not.
      I may be supportive of the Cambridges, but I only worship my Creator. I find the use of the word "worship"
      to describe Kate supporters offensive.99

      Delete
  20. Julia from Leominster15 August 2015 at 15:38

    Again, I want to say a huge THANK YOU to Charlotte for putting together these fashion slides and to say the looks are amazing once again. There are some more fabulous gowns, all of which look like just the sort of thing Kate could wear - Sabrina's, Di's and Maria's choices really strike me as so Kate, but all the choices are fantastic and I love the fairy princess blue choice of our shoe shopper.

    And I would be thrilled to see an engagement announcment for Pippa = it's time, she has a great partner and Kate now has some glamourous bridesmaid dress choices to rival her sister's famous one.

    I'm also dazzled by the number of really smart day looks - some lovely dresses and some really great hats picked by Claire and Audrey while Marion has done a great job of pairing an old hat with a striking new dress.

    I love Francis's idea of choosing dresses from Africa and Asia for Kate to wear on a prosepctive royal tour there. That is such a great idea and would be a dashing young look for Kate and would bring a lot of attention to those brands.

    But most of all, I'm struck by the wonderful suggestions for variations Kate could strike on her "uniform" - a lot of really cute tops and cool jackets Kate could use while still maintaining a comfort level. And some cute little dresses that would really be perfect for casual engagements.

    And I'm glad Lize remembered the shoes Rebecca Hunt designed - I wondered what on earth Kate could wear them with but Lize has found the perfect outfit. And on the subject of shoes - our stylists have shown court pumps don't have to be boring and even wedges can be "kicked up a notch". I've never been a wedge fan but those metallic ones of H.E. almost convince me - especially with the pairing chosen.

    It's too bad the letter had to intrude on our fun about the Cambridge's being intruded on themselves - I have no answers except what I suggested above to make the situation a little better.
    As all of us have given here, for William and Kate to give just a bit more to the established press and to loyal fans who don't want to encourage that sort of photography wouldn't make the problem go completely away but would help lessen the value of such snaps.

    But what does strike me here are the effort and caring of really dedicated fans from all over the globe who are putting forth their interest and loyalty to the Cambridges in a constructive way - rather than reading the lastest silly gossip accompanied by blurry intrusive snaps. That and Charlotte's great work is what makes this blog a winner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Julia wholeheartedly.
      I loved the whole collection. Especially Siddhii, Shoe shopping girl, Phyl, Lize,Linda, Annaparr's choices.
      I loved the new suggestions for a "uniform"too.
      Finally huge applaud to Charlotte who let this happen and to Julia who came up with this magnificient idea!

      Delete
  21. Just coming back to add there is an interesting article online from The Guardian today (Saturday) that gives more detail about the letter, since this was a point of discussion. Quote "Knauf told the Guardian the letter was prompted by a sharp increase in paparazzi incidents this year and that the duke and duchess had been "heavily involved" in its writing."

    This was obvious to some of us from the beginning. Again, if there are problems with this "handful" of photogs, deal with them, don't do these blanket "warning" letters. If they are as serious as they claim, stop with the letters and head to court or file a police complaint. That would put an end to the "handful" of photogs that they claim are crossing the line. Even Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had a restraining order on one particular pap. These blanket warnings that come out sometimes, but not at other times, are what's frustrating the press corps and public frankly, and rightfully so.

    Claudia

    (if you don't mind me saying as a postscript, combining this security/privacy issue with the "Kate's dream looks" in one post seems a little odd/awkward?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charlotte is a good journalist; she covers the news. It is too bad that the letter appeared while we were having so much fun. And I regret it for Julia's sake as well as because of the disruption and extra work for Charlotte. But she could hardly ignore the issue, and I'm not sure whether two separate posts would work. One might get all the attention, to the neglect of the other.

      Delete
  22. Thank you Charlotte so much for always doing such a great job! I enjoy reading your posts, they are very well written and informative. Thank you sharing the letter from KP. I would want to protect my family as well, and reading this helps to see things from their perspective and brings more understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Julia from Leominster15 August 2015 at 16:19

    For those who want a pleasant article rather than unhappy Cambridges and that truly nasty-sounding book supposedly about Diana and the queen - here's an article worth reading from Clementine Hambro who was that little bridesmaid. It's charming. Clemmie is just a big older than William and Kate - what fun if her children could be friends with George and Charlotte - and, can I dream for just a moment, one fun if her Kit would grow up to be a hubby potential for Charlotte.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3198877/Enchanting-secret-Diana-s-cuddle-cutie.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Last year when photos of George and his nanny were released and William complained, I suggested on here that Charlotte refrain from posting paparazzi photos of the kids/WK and was met with a resounding "No" by fans.

    I sincerely hope this will change. Other blogs who make cutesy edits of paparazzi photos are following suit, thankfully.

    No shade to you Charlotte - you have only worked as hard as you do to make fans happy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The amount of fuss made about Caroline Kennedy (or any other person royal or not growing up in the mid-twentieth century) is hardly comparable to the attention now given Princes George, William, Harry or Diana Princess of Wales after she joined the royal family.

    First, technology and the proliferation of gutter presses which hack people's phones and invade their lives in what ought to be intimate moments have changed the game. Second, the threat of terrorism and the technology which take it to another level did not enter the equation 50 years ago as it does today. Security details around the royals can no longer assume that a photographer with a long lens only wants to sell photos. Wait until silent drones enter into it. It's only a matter of time. Third, there seems to be no moral centre in people when it comes to any opportunity to make money or any opportunity to gawk. Depravity rules the day.

    I also don't believe that creating regular photo opportunities or being more visible would alleviate the situation all that much or that it will sort itself out. Not for the worst of the photo offenders. They'd still be going for that money shot. Even giving George a cell phone and letting him tweet daily selfies wouldn't assuage that public mania for more. (Though if I were W & C I might be tempted to do both--fight fire with a controlled burn.)

    Because of an accident of birth all royals, but more especially the most popular ones, are on constant display and demand for their photos never abates. Because of very real threats from amoral political regimes and unhinged whackos, royals basically have bulls-eyes on their foreheads. Every moment is of their lives is lived under a very real threat of harm and death. Because Diana died the way she did, I can't imagine the dread William and Catherine must feel when they sees their son stalked and hunted. It's no wonder that he would wish to be invisible.

    Call me cynical. I don't see any solution to this situation. It is what it is and someday someone else will die. It's merely a matter of who and when.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victoria, Oregon16 August 2015 at 03:10

      Unfortunately, Philly, I tend to agree with you. It's a changing world (isn't it always?) and William and Kate have to be some of the first royals to navigate the implications of social media and 24/7 coverage. I don't envy them. I hope at least the situation can improve a bit, but I really don't know how.

      I'd never thought about the "stalking" aspect of it... the security aspect of it. Scary. I'm sure it's that way for political leaders, but they're only in office for a set amount of time. I can't imagine living with that for an entire lifetime!

      Delete
    2. Courtney from NC16 August 2015 at 08:16

      I also tend to agree. A child, whether royal or with a celebrity parent, should be able to play at the park without all the drama. I honestly am pretty disappointed in the majority of the world pretty frequently.

      Delete
  26. I would just like to say that I think Audrey Mango nailed it. And I would have thought so even if she didn't have that absolutely fabulous net hat on the wedding outfit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tammy from California15 August 2015 at 17:53

    GOOD FOR THEM! While I understand that they are royal and much of their job comes with paparazzi, I really feel for William. As a teen, losing your mother in such a horrific way and then reliving it to some degree in fear for your child: I can't imagine.
    I agree with something that Julia said: what is acceptable in terms of taking pictures should be very clearly outlined. While there is less to lose for international paparazzi, maybe they could come up with a consequence that would deter that. For example maybe they could suspend visas for individuals caught. High fines for paparazzi, confiscation of cameras and lenses if caught, impounding cars.... A few thoughts that may or may not do much.
    On a different note- Richard Palmer sounds like he's having a big temper tantrum. Gimme a break Richard, you're being overly emotional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 20:04

      Haha, I agree about Richard Palmer... He's sounding more and more like a big baby :P

      Delete
    2. Maybe it was Richard hiding in that car...lol

      Delete
    3. Maggie - Minneapolis16 August 2015 at 06:24

      Richard Palmer was having a temper tantrum simply because he was posing a possible argument against the Cambridges? I like that he's one of the few reporters who is willing to call out royals - most never do it unless it gets really bad. Even if I'm this case he's wrong, I think the general sentiment is a good one.

      Delete
    4. Tammy from California16 August 2015 at 21:45

      "Our surest way of disappointing him will be to ask him nothing about it."
      -Elizabeth Bennet

      Delete
    5. Tammy from California16 August 2015 at 21:46

      Anon 23:53: you gave me a good laugh! Good one!

      Delete
  28. I was very much surprised to see such an informal letter by the palace but I think it is absolutely one that needed to be written. I feel for Kate and Wills and this letter has made me respect them even more. They have acknowledged many times that they understand the public interest in George and Charlotte and will do their best to give the public what they want (which is completely their prerogative and how much they should share of their 2 year old and 3 month old should be entirely up to them.)

    I can't believe that paps go that far to photograph a small boy. Using other children to lure him? Hiding in his car all day? Disgusting. And it is absolutely true that it must be hard to distinguish between real harm and a photographer getting a picture. They are off their game for one second and serious damage could be done.

    What I think is interesting is that people seem to forget how much we actually have seen of George. This boy has been alive for merely 25 months and we have seen him many, many times. His birth, his christening, many times (with his own engagements) over a 19 day tour, 2 polo games, Charlotte's birth, Charlotte's christening, birthday photos, christening photos, charlotte's birth photos, christmas photos, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some... we have literally seen him grow up and I think the Cambridges are doing a fantastic job giving us many pictures of their children. Could anybody read the situations we've seen him above and say it isn't enough?

    I just think that photographers need to recognize the harm from the past (I'm sure Wills is just furious, and with good reason) and realize this is a small boy they are potentially stalking. Hopefully this will fix some things but I'm not quite sure it will, which saddens me greatly.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As always thank you for your very informative posts. I think the Royals and especially the children should be able to go about their day without having to worry about paparazzi being intrusive. I know I wouldn't want random people taking my picture and selling it for profit. Instead, the media was access to them 24/7. That should never happen. The Royals should have control over all aspects over their lives. If the media doesn't stop their relentless pursuit of pictures, we will never see them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The outfits selected by everyone are fantastic! Great job everyone hopefully Kate is playing close attention:) especially tailored pants & coloured Blazers .

    ReplyDelete
  31. About the timing: nobody heard about the Isis project to attempt on Queen's and Prince Charles' life? What do you think about it? Do you really think that the letter is completely unconnected with it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they're connected. I think they may have timed the letter to coincide with the publicity of that plot, though.

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 01:51

      I think it can have a connection since the police actually commented on it. They rarely comment on people they protect so the timing of them commenting on it now is probably because of the threat level.

      Delete
    3. Thing is, they know these guys. That's just it. It's not like it's a constant parade of strangers. So I do think there's some hyperbole going on to make the point.

      Delete
  32. I don't understand what harm is coming to William and Kate by letting some photographers (far less wealthy and often in borderline poverty) take some pictures to make a living. They are, after all, just pictures of their children playing in public places. I understand that sometimes it can be inconvenient and it may seem intrusive, but what is the actual physical concrete harm it does to anybody? Can someone expain that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 23:05

      The problem? The photographers are following cars, following houselhold staff, using kids to lure him into sight. Also, they are imposing a security risk because the RPOs have to determine if the man hiding in the trunk of a car is a paparazzi or a person staking out for an attack, all which takes attention away from them protecting from real threats. Also, physical harm is not the only legit harm. Can you imagine the psychological effect of realizing a few days later that you were actually watched the entire time?

      Delete
  33. I feel for them as parents but the reality is this is the life they live. Yes it wasn't chosen but they live it none the less.

    I think much of the pap pictures is fueled by a desire of people to see the real kate, will, george, etc. the photo ops are nice but it's polished.

    I have often wondered why they don't take more advantage of their social media to cut into the paps revenue. Release their own snaps of everyday life.

    And as for security. Stalking is illegal...there security team needs to deal with that for these individuals that cross the line from snapping a photo in a public place and stalking them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 23:06

      Probably the same reason we havn't seen pictures from inside their house etc. In a life that is so much public they need a sphere that is soley private. Also, the park pics were accused of being staged, can you imagine what people would say about pictures published by them?!

      Delete
    2. I think people would say thank you to photos published by them. Sort of like we did when Kate took photographs of Charlotte and George.

      Delete
    3. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 01:50

      Probably, but it still wouldn't satisfy people wanting to see "natural and unstaged" George.

      Delete
    4. If they were released on their twitter page like the duchesses other photos I don't think anyone would accuse them of anything.

      And I get that they want a private sphere but it is still private. They control the access. They aren't bringing in outsiders to photograph them. And I think people would love it as it's a look at the real them.

      Delete
    5. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 02:47

      Well.. The press have complained when KP releases pictures on social media, saying they're cutting of the press by doing it. Richard Palmer had a whole ramble about that...

      Delete
    6. Then nothing will satisfy people except paparazzi shots, Rebecca. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. On the one hand it's bad, and on the other no one will be satisfied?

      And they can release the photos through the media to keep the mainstream press happy, then release the photos on twitter. Or have an instagram. Or whatever. It can be done, and they can release candid photos that will please people who want to see natural and unscripted George and Charlotte.

      This isn't rocket science. Nor is it about terrorists. It's about getting people's hackles up, and frankly I didn't care for that tactic. I think anyone can figure out that descending on a small boy with an army of cameras would be traumatic. And most of us can also agree with them that their children deserve some measure of privacy and a childhood. But there is a quid pro quo, and there they do not deliver and even said they won't do it. So the alternative? Free lancers who'll sell the photos to the highest bidder for those people who want to see natural and unscripted George.

      Delete
    7. Maggie - Minneapolis16 August 2015 at 06:22

      Rebecca - even if the media complained (and it would be an easy fix to let them release the pictures instead of Twitter), that's not a complaint that would gain any kind of traction in the general public. Most people aren't going to be too bothered by the media being cut out. I feel like when people here mention it, it's not that they are personally super mad or offended, but just that they are critical of the choice to exclude the media (if that's what Twitter release is). I certainly think there are downsides to angering the media but if they maintain public popularity, I don't think anyone will care.

      Delete
    8. I agree Rebecca @2:47.

      And I certainly don't recall quite the same level of gratitude expressed over the photos taken by Kate.

      Delete
    9. Tammy from California16 August 2015 at 21:49

      Jennie: I really like your idea of taking advantage of social media. I think you are on to something there.

      Delete
  34. First off, I've thoroughly enjoyed the fashions selected here! What a great idea, Charlotte, and a fun way to pass the time until the Royals return to the scene.

    Secondly, I respectfully disagree with most of the comments here. I think the letter was over-the-top. Stating that for photographers "Prince George is currently their number one target" in a letter that mentions international terrorism and threats was unnecessarily inflammatory, in my opinion. William is the future king; his children are heirs to the throne. There is great interest in them and that interest is valid. William's whinging and scowls are getting tiresome. We live in a media-driven, digital age unlike his ancestors. I certainly don't condone scaring a child or interfering with his/her ability to enjoy everyday activities. However, part of the blame must be placed at the feet of William and Kate. They have severely restricted the number of photo calls and release of official photos, unlike other royal families in Europe, thereby enhancing the value of paparazzi photos. When you are the future ruler of Great Britain there are tremendous benefits to be had and numerous sacrifices to be made. One of those losses is the expectation of privacy when you or your family are out in public. Historically, it's always been important for the Royal Family to be seen in order to maintain support for the monarchy. The Queen has done an excellent job of this. The Cambridges and their team should be discussing ways to better balance the genuine public interest with their desire for greater privacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 20:55 - I agree. Prince George is a target and Kate is on maternity leave. The language they use does not fit the circumstances. I wonder what they expect to happen with this letter? Is their intent to use emotional appeal to get "fans" not to patronize the media that publish pap photos? To then hope there is no financial benefit to a photograph if demand decreases?

      I will tell you this - if something happens to George - it is not because a pap takes a picture and I look at it. It's because Will and Kate gave him the title Prince and then put him in an unsecured public place.

      I'm really looking forward to the next unauthorized photo of George! I will look and describe it for folks!

      Delete
    2. Carmen from Texas16 August 2015 at 04:10

      I really appreciated your comment, Anon 20:55! It is very well stated and I agree wholeheartedly. It seems the Cambridges want to "have their cake and eat it too".

      Delete
    3. His parents did not give Prince George his title. It came with his position in the royal family.

      Delete
    4. The letter refers to George being the number one target as in the most sought after member of the RF (by the paps). And in today's increasingly crazy world, all potential possibilities must be considered; therefore the link with terrorism.

      The whining isn't coming from the Cambridge's; it's from the folks who totally dismiss their concerns.

      And I hope W&K never read half the comments here - especially the idea that if anything happens to George it's because W&K gave him a title and put him in an unsecure public place. What a stone cold statement.

      Delete
    5. 03:05- "It's the victim's fault for being so attractive." Where have I heard that idea before? Oh, yes....99

      Delete
  35. There is a 3rd page of the letter, you can download it directly for the cambridge's website. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/our-view/letter-kensington-palace

    ReplyDelete
  36. Maggie - Minneapolis15 August 2015 at 21:37

    I'll probably have a longer post later (we know how much I love those! :P) but for now I just have a quick question - for those who used to look at the pap pictures but are now expressing outrage and saying you won't look anymore...how did you think those pictures were being taken? I don't mean this snarkily...I'm honestly curious. To me, it always seemed fairly obvious that some degree of hiding/following had to be taking place; otherwise they wouldn't be able to get as many pictures of George as they have over the past year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 23:09

      I thought that since they weren't hounded (like in the courting days) that they stood a while away but visible and that Kate descided to go about her day anyways. I did NOT think they were camping out in cars with a bottle for a toilet. Naive? Maybe. But not hypocritical as some have accused us.

      Delete
    2. Good question! I don't understand the surprise.

      Delete
    3. Excellent question Maggie, I'd like to know the answer as well, because forgive me, but word that paparazzi have been hiding out to take photos of famous people isn't exactly breaking news. And again, right now we can only rely on the Cambridges' version of events as to how much covert action was going on. Their claims have been quickly refuted in other instances. I'm not saying this case isn't accurate, but just recognizing past complaints have gone nowhere - meaning William is more in danger of being the boy who cried wolf than his children are from any real threat.

      Claudia

      Delete
    4. "But not hypocritical as some have accused us."

      Even after fans know they used long lenses to photograph Kate nude, and even though WK have complained a number of times in the recent past about harassment of their children and paparazzi hiding etc? Did you all need full, sordid details to get it? At no point before, did it occur to you that Will and Kate would not like the market fans created for paparazzi photos? They sure let us all know how they felt, a number of times.

      No, fans have to take partial responsibility for creating a market for these things, creating cutesy edits and bombarding tumblr with re-posts.

      As I said before, I posted here less than a year ago due to WK complaints about harassment and following not only of them, but of George. I suggested Charlotte (and other blogs), vow not to post or refer to unauthorized photos of the children. My suggestion fell on deaf ears, as many here argued against the very idea.

      So I do not empathize with those trying to say "Oh but we didn't know it was this bad." You did.

      Delete
    5. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 00:59

      I didn't say I don't take responsibility, I take FULL responsibility on my part. I never viewed the topless pics and avoided for long the pictures of Kate and George in australia because I knew they were longlens and that Kate wasn't aware of the photographers precense. But the ones where the picture seems "closer" I've just assumed that they were in view but not up in their face and that Kate just went about their day. And I have always been on the fence, but people were so adement in how Kate was aware they were there, he wasn't getting harmed etc so I stupidly belived it. But nowhere do I not take responsibility. Just showing that it doesn't have to be hypocritial to change your mind.

      Delete
    6. I'll just jump in here and say, that not everyone recognizes the difference between pap's photos and the official ones i.e those taken by legitimate photographers because they simply are not looking for a difference. Those who of us who follow royals as a hobby, do recognize them and can tell the difference. Further, many don't even care.

      Delete
    7. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 03:27

      I consider myself a reasonably experienced royal watcher - but there have been times I've been a bit puzzled - polo photos are clearly acceptable - but those Mustique photos - I thought they must have been planned but I couldn't be sure. They weren't put forward as being official. And at least in one set of those playground photos - it was clear a child saw the photographer - Kate must have known she was being photographed. Did she decide just to ignore it or were those photos - there was a whole series of them - semi-authorised too. So I don't think the boundery is a clear as it might be.

      Delete
    8. You say that the Duchess must have known that she was being photographed? Maybe, maybe not and if she does realize she is, then her option is to leave. Well, she is there to have her child play in the dirty and roll in the grass and play with other kids, his age, of course she is not going to high-tail it out of the park. I think, the Duke and Duchess are being reasonably, they asked that the paps back off and give the child space which I think is a reasonable request. Having read the things that these people do to get photos of the prince in order to sell them to the highest bidder, it is scary. Following staff, bribing small children, staking out in-laws, these acts are outrageous --one could call them predatory.

      Delete
    9. I may also be naive but it wouldn't have crossed my mind that paps are parking a car next to a park and hiding it in like in the example or using other children to lure George into view for a picture would be part of their tactics. And I say again the subject is a 2 year old, not an adult but a child.

      Climbing near by trees, using long lenses from a distance yes, in a parked car for a day of surveillance sure. But not in total concealment like some kind of stalker. In all things, there are degrees of behavior. Those more extreme behaviors is the one I'm concerned about and has made me take a look at my own behavior to make changes.

      Delete
  37. Maggie - Minneapolis15 August 2015 at 21:40

    Also regardless of whether or not what the photographers are doing is okay, I am already uncomfortable with the idea that the royals get special treatment from the press that no one else receives (only people in Britain who don't have off duty pictures published by the local media), and if paps are punished for following children and taking pictures, I hope that that is applied across the board and not just to royal children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden15 August 2015 at 23:10

      I don't think they are asking for special treatment. They mentioned "like all children" many times. Plus, they can only speak for themselves. They can't make any general claims because then they would be accused of being political.

      Delete
  38. How often should pictures of the royal children be released do you all think - daily weekly monthly?????? Do we all expect a blog type ongoing saga? Is that the problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 03:32

      I think looking to the European royals would give an example of a good balance - more photos of the young children at home then has been true of George. No one, I hope, is suggesting instagram, but there could be a bit more given to the established press.

      In the past, royals have also used private photograhers - there are actually a lot of pictures of the queen as a toddler - a lot more than we have seen of George - and she wasn't theimmediate heir at the time. Using an official photographer is one way to do it.

      Delete
    2. The Queen's father was often the photographer, that's why there are lots of pictures. But were they released to the public then, or have they turned up as illustrations in various books since?

      Delete
    3. Julia,

      I am surprised they haven't had a photographer like that. You know how they archive clothes, etc.
      You think they would be doing photo essays for archives also and for sharing with the media.

      Delete
  39. Courtney from NC15 August 2015 at 22:29

    Paulyne -- I absolutely adore the look you put together. The modern cut of the blazer/jacket with the breezy red shell under it is beautiful. Mixing the timeless look of the shell with the modern jacket would work beautifully for Catherine. The shoes and clutch just polish the look. Love it!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Courtney from NC15 August 2015 at 22:31

    Audrey Mango - Love the gala look you came up with. The skirt is so beautiful and I love the cap sleeve top. It is different than what we have seen Catherine in before but it would be so lovely on her.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Courtney from NC15 August 2015 at 22:34

    Couch Potatoe - Love the look you put together. The more youthful trouser look paired with the top you chose would be stunning on Catherine. The print on the top is something I could see Catherine wearing in dress form so the top wouldn't be too much of a departure for her. The shoes are so beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As public figures, it's my opinion that TRH have every right to express their fears for their children publicly and to allude to possible consequences for intrusion into anything they see as an invasion of their privacy or that of their children. As much as I would hate to see it happen, shooting photographs from a "duck blind" set up in a car is pretty much asking to be taken for a terrorist. I sincerely hope that TRH have an "internal"policy about these kinds of things and are willing to implement it when they feel it's appropriate. Certainly I cannot blame the Duke of Cambridge or Prince Henry for their attitudes about the press or paps as there's little doubt that they were (at least) a contributing cause of their mother's death. Allowing this kind of publicity feeding frenzy to accumulate is both a real security threat (yes, I think some terrorist might think it was in their best interest to shoot a small child) and an intrusion into the privacy of an otherwise normal (however wealthy) family. I applaud the efforts of the Duke and Duchess to walk a very fine line and keep smiling as they do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you see a picture of Will and Kate walking together and smiling? I haven't seen one since the Christening - they have such private lives...

      Delete
  43. Charlotte is it possible to add different earrings to the floral gown from Giambattista Valli? The Kiki hoops are really nice but I would prefer the Chanel http://moda.pourfemme.it/foto/orecchini-chanel_9473_6.html or http://moda.pourfemme.it/foto/orecchini-chanel_9473_28.html.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Paola,

      No problem at all. Those earrings are beautiful!

      Delete
    2. The name of the earrings is not Orecchini (it's just the Italian word for earrings): they are 1932 Chanel diamonds white gold pendant earrings.

      Delete
  44. The King of Sweden (on behalf of his daughter) and Princess Caroline of Monaco have successfully sued the German press to prevent unauthorized or photoshopped pictures taken in public from reaching the market. William and Kate took court action over nude photos, which stopped their spread to a large extent. But they were photographed on private property.

    I am wondering how often other Royal children are taken to public places to play. Are they in public only on officially sanctioned occasions, or do they frequently visit public parks, farms, or beaches? Do their parents believe these children should be able to go about freely to these places, or are their lives lived mostly in private places?

    It seems to me that Kate as well as Diana and even the Queen Mother have tried to loosen up the Royal system in order to give their children more normal lives and more knowledge and feel for their contemporaries. But can they really expect to do this without generating too much public interest and encouraging intrusive cameras and cellphones? What happens on the Continent?

    I remember that the Queen as a child made friends with a little girl she met on a playground, and I believe they continued to correspond in later years. Royal children have been photographed in their prams with their nannies.
    But In the case of Elizabeth and Margaret, the war intervened, and they spent their later childhood and teens at Windsor Castle. There were occasional pictures.

    It seems to me the Queen's children were photographed mostly at the start of school and with their parents and siblings at photocalls, usually at Balmoral. Charles would have largely followed that pattern, but Diana thought adventure and public exposure were important. In Kate's case, I sense that she wants to go about freely, but wants respect for hers and George's privacy. I am not sure how much William can ever accept the intrusions that are always going to be the result of allowing his children to be visible, as much as he is obviously deeply loving and proud of them..

    It is a real conundrum, but the result of public play and the beautiful pictures that have been released is a strong appetite for more. The Cambridges are probably going to have to accept the reality of this, and protect their children themselves by keeping their lives essentially private.

    The Queen herself has been threatened by Isis. In such a world, of course security is maximum. Fair warning to intruders, and to everyone, that great care is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I don't think the foreign press will ever stop. I think the only real solution is to either don't bring a child into the world or abdicate the throne and go live private lives. The royals have tried for years to get the media to separate out childhood from the public adult that child will become. They have failed and will continue to fail. If you really love your child and want privacy for him that badly, don't marry the future king of England. It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Also, I have to say, I love the debate and discussions on the press issue, but I am SO impressed by all the ensembles readers have put together! They are second to none and frankly Kate should check some of them out, she needs to step it up a little :)

    Am really in awe, such a group of fashionistas with fantastic taste.

    Claudia :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. General observations....

    The Cambridge children are targets for crazy individuals as well as the more organized threats we read about on a daily basis. This is one of the "perks" that comes with their wealth and status.

    The number of comments I have read today where the content of the letter is dismissed, and/or the motivation of W&K is questioned, reflects (in my mind) a lack of empathy or even simple understanding that is both sad and alarming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your statement of "sad and alarming"

      Delete
    2. Yes Royalfan, I find it's very sad. And alarming as well. If my grandma and my father where discovered to be the target of an attempt from one of the most terrible terroristic organizations on the world, I would try to take all the cautions in order to prevent that my children could be victim of such a threat. It must be really terrible to live with the consciousness that you are the first target of such things. Of course if you tolerate hidden people in your neighborhood, the risk that a terrorist employs the same disguise to shot not pictures but weapons is very high.

      Delete
    3. Exactly, Paola. Exactly!

      Delete
    4. Let us not get carried away. George is only the target of photographers.

      Delete
    5. Royalfan, I was not questioning their motives, just wondering how much they can expect privacy in public places for their children, and whether other Royal children play in public places today. It's something Kate had to sort out when she became a public figure. She of course was an adult, with an expectation of being able to go about her life freely, but there is a similar expectation that George and Charlotte should be able to live like other children. I am wondering how much, as parents, Kate and William will have to modify their wish for such freedom. Anon 23:33

      Delete
    6. Anon 14:45 (23:33) I am a little confused by your response to me here in this thread...just to be clear, in no way would my comment above @00:32 have been directed at your 23:33 post. (All valid questions on your part.)

      And I hope this "maze" makes sense. :)

      Delete
    7. Thanks, royalfan, just wanted to be sure, since I was considering expectations rather than motives. I'm glad you think those questions are valid. Yes, the maze is clear! :-)

      Delete
  48. Did any of the photographers have a knife, gun, duct tape, rope, or any kind of weapons along with their cameras? If not, William and Kate just need to accept that it is part of the pressure that comes with privilege.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if it was your child you would give them the benefit of the doubt and offer them coffee?

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden16 August 2015 at 01:48

      Probably not. But how are the RPOs gonna know that at first glance? It's a matter of milli-seconds to asses the threat!

      Delete
    3. Rebecca @ 01:48,

      THAT is the point EXACTLY.

      Delete
  49. Claire, Shoe Shopping Girl, Sabrina and Marci nailed it. You all keyed on the Duchess' style--I am very impressed!

    Mr. Knauf is my hero. I love how he composed his letter, appealing to the publics' good sense, fairness and without hyperbole or run away emotions. I am always saddened when anyone who lives their life in the public eye must appeal again and again to "paps" to "back off."

    The only problem is, will the appeal mean anything to those who buy these images, as they continue to publish them along with innuendoes and lies. Further, there is a good portion of the public both in print and on the net that buy and read these rags. I think we can all help by not posting their photos whether on blogs, Pinterest or any of the social media outlets.


    It pains me to even comment about Palmer's nonsensical rant. He really needs to "get a life" and more importantly "grow up and "smell the coffee"--not necessarily in that order. We are living in a dangerous world mister, royals must do all we can to protect life and limb especially in the case of the Duke, Duchess and their little ones-- asking for a little space to play is not being controlling.

    RW.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster16 August 2015 at 03:44

      Mr Palmer is trying to earn a living as a royal correspondent so I can't completely fault him. It has to be frustrating for the British press to see Twitter get scoops, have all this fuss about foreign photographers when they have agreed to restrictions and then be offered nothing exclusive.

      Delete
    2. Palmer seems to be mad with the whole royal apparatus as it pertains to taking photos, he or may not have a beef. However, when it comes to a two year old being harassed by "paps" resulting in added security concerns, it seems his rant, coming at this time is a tad insensitive. Further, we are not privy to other security concerns that the Palace might be having to deal with as result of these practices by un-scrupulous paps and I feel pretty certain that we wont, as security goes, only so much can be made public-- it is therefore safe to assume that safety has become quite an issue as a direct result of the stalking of the young prince, and it has to be dealt with. Of course, he (Palmer) is going to complain because it is his bread and butter--it is what it is. Further, the concerns are not only of George, but now staff and extended family.

      Delete
    3. Re Palmer's Peeve-It has been suggested more than once in this forum that William "resign" from his job
      as a Prince of the United Kingdom, if he objects to certain aspects of the job-press harassment, for
      example.99
      Perhaps the correspondent could find a job more to his liking? Butter his bread elsewhere?
      If such harassment comes with the territory of being a RF member and should be accepted as part of
      the new technology, then KP use of social media to release photos should come with the territory of
      being a royal correspondent these days.
      HOWEVER, The British media should not be asked to withhold photos of the RF. The pictures should not be allowed to
      begin with. Stop it at the source. I think that letter with its implied consequences might just be a step in that
      direction. Then, no worries about the "foreign press."
      ps-it is ridiculous to refer to Twitter as the "foreign press."

      Delete
    4. Julia, this is a world of Instagram, Twitter and the Internet. Newspapers are mostly a thing of the past. It is time for Mr. Palmer to get on board. I haven't read a newspaper in several years. The press were all given the pictures of George and Charlotte at the same time as they were released on Twitter AND if I remember they were released in time for the morning editions. I am not sure why he had to be so snarky as the letter was complimentary to the British press.

      Delete
    5. Ditto Anon 18:47 and Bunny B.

      Delete
  50. You know what this "dressing Kate" reminds me of? Paper dolls!! I had dozens of paper dolls and loved them to bits, dressing them up for all sorts of events. But the story has a tragic end. I developed chicken pox, (this was the 1940s) and they burnt all my paper dolls in case they carried the infection!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Maggie - Minneapolis16 August 2015 at 01:56

    Eep long post(s) incoming.
    Ultimately, the paps are not breaking the law. And the family's lifestyle relies on the public caring and the media covering them They need the public to care and the media to cover their so their charity work looks worthwhile of the massive benefits they receive. And while I completely understand a parent feeling scared about someone stalking their child, realistically, George is much safer than 99% of kids. He has (free!) security that ensure he will never be kidnapped or get lost etc. All because people care about him - the same reason there is demand for pictures. Of course, he gets more threats than most kids but his security is very good, not to mention that British intelligence is also constantly working to protect him. Assassinations or kidnappings of high profile people are not nearly as easy/common as they used to be (and no terrorist would try to hurt him because killing an adorable child would be disastrous for getting support). And if they are, then shouldn't KP be focusing on those who actually want to physically hurt George and not the ones who just want pictures? Frankly I'm confused as to how paps are any sort of physical threat to George just because they hide instead of taking pictures openly. It's still just taking pictures, regardless of how. They aren't bothering him since he can't see them during playdates bc of the hiding and he's too young to know/care about pictures being taken. Imo the letter reads like a warning to paps that they may get mistaken for threats and get hurt.

    I also find it odd that people are shocked by pap methods. George is not the first child to face this level of interest and he won't be the last. And unlike the children of celebrities, he has free protection and the force of an entire government's intelligence apparatus behind him.

    Lastly (for this half haha), I will say that I thought the letter was very smartly written in terms of making a strong emotional appeal to people. I don't agree with it's logic, but very cleverly written. I think the length of it was fine. The general public was never going to read it, regardless of length. People will be reading articles about it, and most of the articles' tone is like "the Cambridges are standing up for their children who are in grave danger!" And then the length of the letter and the specifics it provides is very good for more serious followers, and is also less condescending than having a short letter that is just like "we aren't okay with pap methods plz stop giving them a reason to use them" with no reasoning that appeals to ppl bc then it would be too long.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Maggie - Minneapolis16 August 2015 at 01:57

    I think the problem is that the pictures released of George do nothing to satisfy desire for pap pics because they are staged and don't show their normal life. The pictures Kate released were adorable but were the two kids on a couch corner with a blurred background. The family picture released before the tour had the background (a room of KP) blacked out. It's hard to convince the public that they should pay for a new nursery for Prince George (in an already very large rent-free mansion) but then should never get a peek of his life in that housing. Why not release more of the family pictures they must be taking anyways? Or better, a family video! This shouldn't affect their lives since they'd be taking those pictures/videos anyways. And while I don't think George is old enough for public stuff (I was surprised they had him do the christening walk - seems overwhelming for a toddler), I do think they could have him do stuff like in Australia. I liked the play date and zoo thing bc George could do normal toddler things while photographers took pictures (but he wasn't bothered bc he was distracted). Kate has many engagements with children - why not bring him along to 1 instead of saying George does the same thing every time someone says something about their kid. He could play with the kids which shouldn't be changing his life since he's a toddler who should be doing that (which the letter says they want). He's 2 and could not possibly know to be bothered by pics of these basically play dates. They could have him brought in/out privately so he could avoid the hoopla of entering/exiting buildings. Or make it a private visit altogether and release pictures/video.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am of the same vintage, and I also enjoyed my paper dolls!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had paper dolls also and loved playing with them.
      That was before Barbie dolls.

      Delete
  54. Jane in Virginia16 August 2015 at 02:24

    I'm so impressed by everyone's fashion advice for Kate ! The Duchess should certainly take a good look at these suggestions ! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane,

      I am agree. This is a wealth of excellent fashion for Kate. I think she would be very thankful and humbled that everyone put in so much thoughtful consideration into their "so right on" choices for her.

      Delete
    2. I agree, too! I am seriously impressed with the fashion aptitude of this blog's readers, you guys rock!!! If I were Duchess Kate, I would totally send my stylist over here pronto to use these ideas! :D

      Delete
  55. Rona, and Julia from NC,

    Google "The Palace Warns of 'increasingly dangerous' paparazzi tactics targeting George", The Guardian.
    There will be a video at the beginning of that page and that is the interview with Ian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks anon.

      Delete
    2. you are welcome. :)

      Delete
  56. Julia the hopeful from Leominster16 August 2015 at 03:58

    Someone above mentioned that fashion and complaints about photography made odd bedfellows and yet I see a connection. We started this amazingly creative and fun fashion project at a time when there was very little real Kate news. People were getting testy and a new topic was needed.

    It really isn't that different for the press - they too are affected by this slow time. The established press has agreed to not publish unauthorised photos and is trying to make up news with various silly articles - Kate's scuba certificate for instance - at the same time, the market for unauthorised photos is bound to increase when there is nothing else.

    I would love to see this resolved in a satisfactory way. I've been looking during the last few week, not at unauthorised photographs but at the holiday snaps of other royal families - the Danes, the Luxembourg royal family, the Spanish royal family and the Belgium royal family. One interesting thing I noticed is multi-generations of royals holidaying together - the Danes and the Luxembourg royal familes - and Queen Sofia with the Spanish. And I thought how nice - what lovely continuity.

    And I wondered why no such pictures of William and Kate with older royals except at formal events like the christening. There was a picture at polo of Charles with George but nothing posed. There have been some charming shots of Zara and family and Edward and family at a horse show - but none with the queen.

    So my dream wish would be for family snaps taken at Balmoral - some nice tartany photos of the whole family posed together - it's not going to solve the problem of the paps - but it would be such a lovely and historic touch - and one that must happen soon or it will never happen. It would give royal loyalists here and elsewhere who really would like a substitute for unauthorised photos they don't want to encourage - something wonderful - and it would give the respectable press a boost at a slow time. Why not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice thoughts Julia the Hopeful,

      I would so love to be reassured that they have multigenerational, loving family times and that they have them frequently.
      That would go a long way for PR and posterity as you said. These times of tweeting, Facebook, etc. do demand that really. "Living behind palace and castle walls" is not going to work these days.

      Delete
    2. Jane- 02:24- I'm sure the Duchess appreciates being told multiple times that her fashion choices are
      unacceptable and she really needs a stylist.
      This fashion post may have worked nicely-because it is fun to play dress-up , as someone mentioned-
      perhaps presented as a :"If you were a princess, how would you dress?" post.99
      As it is, we are criticising Catherine's choices with every post. Just a sugar-coated version of the
      comments of the boat-sailing post, in my opinion, of course.
      By the way, gathering the entire royal family in one place could prove to be a wind-fall for anyone wishing
      harm. Another fun idea, though.
      The BRF is in a class apart from other European royal families, as far as import and influence. Why do people
      continue to try to compare their activities?

      Delete
    3. Anon 18:14. I'm sure the Duchess has a sense of humor and would realize this is all in fun.

      Delete
  57. I've scanned through the comments and no one seems to have mentioned-taking a picture of a child in public
    theoretically is not illegal, but activities surrounding the process are.
    I don't understand how any one can justify taking a child's photo without parental permission, in
    view of the existance of child pornography and human trafficking. How do you think these children come to the
    attention of such people? Photographs.
    In addition, the Cambridge pictures are not only being taken in a way that parents have no idea photos are being
    taken, but also through the use of stalking.
    Stalking lS illegal. Child or adult.99

    ReplyDelete
  58. I love the colors of the Burberry jacket suggested by Katie of Chicago and the vintage dress chosen by Francis. Those warm colors would be wonderful on Kate in autumn. They are also very pretty garments.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Realistically, the only way to alleviate the burden of the media in their lives is to step down from their royal titles and live as private citizens. Otherwise, they will always be newsworthy just by virtue of their titles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that is not realistic. They would still be pursued and written about in terms of what they had given up.

      Delete
    2. Not really realistic. I do not see any reason William should step down just because there are unscrouplous photographers around. A request for privacy and security in their private lives is not to much to ask for. They have given us quite a few opportunities to see George in the last 3 months.

      Delete
  60. Candid photos will always be marketable no matter how many "sanctioned" photos/videos the royal family releases because people want to know what the royal family does "for real", not just for public relations.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Clarity is the answer as Julia said. Guidelines need to be clearly stated and enforced about what constitutes normal public domain and what constitutes harassment and stalking. New frontiers require new solutions and cyberspace, longer lenses and technological advances will continue to emerge. The parameters need to be defined now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And won't that be seen as "William stamping his feet"?

      Delete
    2. Not just parameters for the Royal family at all but parameters nationwide for everyone. Don't know how you thought otherwise.

      Delete
  62. Just wanted to let you know I've added several more outfits to my blog post - http://solidmoonlight.blogspot.com/2015/08/what-i-would-like-to-see-kate-wear.html. Feel free to add some of them here or mention that there are more outfits to look at. Thanks for linking to my blog. I've gotten a lot of views today :)

    ReplyDelete
  63. I love the watercolor skirt Audrey Mango chose!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too: it's stunning. So classy, modern and classical.

      Delete
  64. Heyhey y'all! WK are going to attending the state banquet for the Chinese president in October!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi Charlotte,
    Thank you for this post!
    First of all: these looks are amazing!
    Let's go to the letter from KP... It's a strong statement from William and Kate but they are utterly right: it's very awful that a two years old boy is the paparazzi's number one target. George is only a toddler, he need privacy and he should have privacy. Although George and Charlotte are public figures they need a normal (for an heir and a spare) childhood and they should be safe when they go to a park... I know it's also our fault but when we see new George's pics we love then and we don't think how thesr photos were thaken. Probably more photo call will help but I don't really know...
    I will never share a paparazzi pic of the two royal children.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Something else just occurred to me...

    I do hope this letter has laid to rest any suggestion that certain photos were allowed and used as PR by W&K. (I did say HOPE...)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Charlotte, I found also a bracelet for the Giambattista Valli gown: this diamonds Massoni bracelet from the Sixties http://www.massoni.it/it/product/bracciale-diamanti-massoni-anni-60/
    I hope it's not too much work for you, but it is so much fun to look for accessories...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Wow. When you've lost Richard Palmer, who's a devoted monarchist and royal reporter - you need to rethink your PR.
    There's understanding of their position as parents but there's also been a fair amount of criticism that they are trying to use these incidents to control all photography of the Cambridges (as Palmer's Twitter feed suggests) and that the Palace has no qualms about using George as a positive PR tool but then turns around and throws a tantrum when he's photographed in settings they aren't controlling.
    While those on this blog generally worship Kate and William, it seems like not everyone holds the same opinion. I've read quite a bit of criticism of them and their PR tactics, which continue to seem bumbling and ill-timed. It seems like with every announcement or PR move they try, they further alienate the legit UK royal press, who are, for the most part, devoted monarchists. Not a good thing when they're going to need all the positive PR they can muster over the next decades to avoid shelling out of their own wallets for royal protection and the upkeep of the monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The letter addresses not the fact of photos, but the way in which some were taken. Hiding in sand dunes and curtained cars can certainly suggest threats. Chasing people in cars obviously is dangerous. Other people are being harassed and stalked, as well as Prince George. An airport photo is one thing; trespassing and using long lenses from deep cover is another.

      Delete
    2. So, Moxie, what is your favorite gown/outfit? :)

      Delete
  69. Dear Charlotte, I would suggest you to not publish links to not-authorized pictures.
    Until now you let the choice to your readers, and it seemed enough, but I think that from now on it would be a strong signal, showing a clear position in this affair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree. I'm always a little surprised when there are links to unauthorized photos/video on this blog, just considering the author's personal position and thoughts about their use. And, personally, I make it a point to avoid clicking on those linked when they are provided because I don't want to contribute to the demand for those kinds of images, know what I mean? Thanks for saying it Paola Magi, couldn't agree more.

      Delete
    2. I agree as well

      Delete
  70. An earlier comment mentioned that Diana fed the paparazzi and now William is starving them and that neither approach works. Well, in light of how his mother died, I can't blame him for this "starving", if in fact, that is what it is. The only way I see this problem getting under control is to make it illegal to purchase/publish unauthorized pictures of (any) minors. This would stop publications from being able to offer outrageously high prices for these pictures which, in turn, makes these photographers go to such unreasonable lengths to get the pictures. Just because someone is famous or royal doesn't mean their rights to privacy are suddenly forfeit. Just because someone is famous or royal doesn't mean they "owe" the public a certain amount of photos or public appearances. Minors, royal or not, also have a right to privacy, unfortunately they aren't old enough to take action against their exploitation. I say, flat out make it illegal to purchase/publish unauthorized photos of minors and then make mincemeat out of any publication caught doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I definitely see a distinction between taking pics of people/children while they are out in public vs. stalking, hiding, and using deceptive tactics to catch "targets" without being seen. I think the problem is there is no way to practically police this type of behavior. I do think celebs and royals should have some expectation of privacy, albeit a reduced one due to their position.

    ReplyDelete
  72. As a mother myself, I greatly sympathize with Kate and Wills. I would be both frightened and furious if I were out living my life and didn't realize until days later when public photos surfaced that I and my children were secretly being watched. I agree with Anon. who said that the purchase/publishing of unauthorized photos of minors should be made illegal. Children have a right to privacy no matter who's children they are.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published. If you wish to share your name and where you're from without using the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.