Last week, something unusual happened. Prince William and Duchess Kate’s office made a major fuss over “an individual” who they claimed was “harassing” Prince George. What kind of harassment? They were complaining about a photographer talking photos of George when George was out and about with one of his nannies. This is the statement released by the Buckingham Palace spokesperson:
“The Duke and Duchess have taken legal steps to ask that an individual ceases harassing and following both Prince George and his nanny as they go about their ordinary daily lives,” Buckingham Palace spokesman James Roscoe said in a statement Thursday. “There is reason to suspect that the individual may been placing Prince George under surveillance and monitoring his daily routines for a period of time.”
The photographer, who was seen last week at a London Park following the toddler and his nanny, has been approached several times in the past few years by palace authorities.
“The Duke and Duchess understand the particular public role that Prince George will one day inherit but while he is young, he must be permitted to lead as ordinary a life as possible,” Roscoe said. “No parent would tolerate the suspicion of someone pursuing and harassing their child and carer whilst their child is playing in a public park or going about their daily activities.”
It was a strange story just at face value because it seemed like Will and Kate were complaining about photos being taken out in public, in a public park, which is just… well, unusual. Of course all royal babies (and all people) have privacy rights, but the whole thing just seemed… odd. Then it got even weirder. The photographer “harassing” George was named, and it’s Ikon Pictures’ photographer Niraj Tanna. Royal conspiracists have always noted the seemingly cozy relationship Tanna has with Kate and the Middleton family in particular, and it’s widely believed by those conspiracists that the Middletons have “set up” photo-ops with Tanna several times when he got weird exclusives. I guess the bloom is off the rose with that relationship though – over the past year, Tanna has been growing increasingly critical of William and Kate. And I guess they’ve noticed. Anyway, Tanna responded:
A photographer who has been accused of “harassing” Prince George by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has denied any wrongdoing will continue to take snaps of the 14-month old. Lawyers for Prince William and Kate Middleton accused two members of the press of intruding on the future king’s personal life as he went about his “ordinary daily” life with his nanny.
Lawyers for Tanna have insisted their client has not done anything wrong and the harassment accusations are “wholly without foundation”. In a seven page letter, Tanna’s lawyers said he was “fully entitled” to photograph Prince George in a public place and will “vigorously contest” any legal action.
It adds: “He will continue to undertake his work with the concerns of the Prince’s parents very much in mind.”
[From The International Business Times]
Interesting. While I don’t doubt that it would creep out any parent if a photographer had their long lens trained on their baby, it does feel like there’s something else at work here. We’ll see.
Oh, and The Mirror claims that IF Kate is feeling up to it, she and William are planning an official trip to New York. I think this would be Kate’s first-ever trip to New York. They’re loosely planning the trip for end of November/beginning of December. I hope they’re able to come. Skip Thanksgiving though and come in the beginning of December!
Photos courtesy of WENN, PCN, Fame/Flynet.
Well, well, well… that’s an interesting turn, isn’t it? Perhaps Tanna broke some sort of code between himself and the Middletons? Strange.
Maybe they set up an “issue” with Tanna to send a message to all the other photographers. Or maybe this is the palace sending a message to the Middletons. Either way, I don’t see why it would be so intolerable to stay in the royal gardens where it wouldn’t be an issue.
Yes, it is strange. But, I think if they’re trying to make Tanna an object lesson for other paps, it might back-fire. Besides, if they piss him off too much, he might not want to “help” Pippa advertise her (allegedly) forthcoming celebrity cookbook.
Just some thoughts:
If Tanna pictures Baby George with his nanny very often then that would prove that Kate does rely on the nanny very much and doesn’t do much with George.
If Tanna pictures Baby George with Kate then you can guess what she does during the day and I bet there will be a lot of shopping pictures and a lot of pictures of her socialising with her uppity aristo set and maybe a lot of pictures of Kate being in Amner Hall instead of Kensington.
As Kate currently is “oh so sick” any pictures which tell otherwise are not so welcome.
I think it isn’t smart to threaten Tanna. Threats are ALWAYS a sign of weakness. If Tanna has any wits at all he has some incriminating pics of Kate that he might use to raise money for a lawsuit or to convince them to cancel the lawsuit . . . .
Surely the nanny could walk George in the spacious Kensington Palace gardens. Greenery abounds, there is even a “cradle walk”. I don’t know if the public has access except for people who are touring with guides, but it seems to be a good place for baby George to get his fresh air. http://www.hrp.org.uk/KensingtonPalace/stories/sunkengardens
I want to go to New York for Thanksgiving! I hope Kate doesn’t try and make out like this is a hardship. Waity don’t play that game!
Is this a sympathy ploy to garner more support for moving out of London?
On the other hand, I don’t have children, but if I did and some dude was taking photos of my child every time we went to the park, I would lose my sh–
It is legal to photograph children in public in PUBLIC parks in the UK. If they do not want him photographed in a PUBLIC park, use some of acres of park at Buckingham Palace.
Or their very own walled garden at KP. I’ve never understood why they haven’t used that more for George, especially back when he was very little.
So, if I went to London with my daughter and some dude started taking pics of my one year old it would be ok because we are in a public area? That is disturbing on so many levels. I would never be ok with someone taking pictures of my child without my permission. I don’t understand why that is legal.
ScrewStewart
That is the age we live in. Don’t want to be on camera? Don’t go out of your house to put it simply.
We’re all on camera every day. Security to random people testing out their cameras. It’s not being stalked. It’s simply an innocent photo.
That aside this case is far different. It’s another example of how our problems in our lives are not at all the same or even close to those of the Cambridges. There’s no common ground.
People quickly read key words that they relate to and side without more facts. George is being harrassed by the claims. This is much less a case on George simply being photographed in a public park with his nanny.
@ScrewStewart, I believe the only country where you cannot legally take photos of any children under the age of 18 is France. In the U.S., UK and pretty much any other country it’s legal. Disconcerting and scary, but legal.
@ Ripley
Germany has some very nice laws on being papped.
Basically every German has a “right to his own picture” = this means NOBODY is allowed to take a picture of you anywhere without your consent. The only exception are people in public offices who can be papped if a photo of them is in the interest of the public. That means even politicians can take their little ones to the playground and be expected to not be photographed as this would be considered a private thing and not very much of public interest. It is not of public interest as a parent can be expected to take his children to the playground. However if the same politician takes his children to the playground and the Murdochs are there, too, then they can be papped as this is no longer private only.
The reason for this legal situation is essentially: LIBERTY.
The reasoning is like this: Germans are liberated and nobody has the right to threaten you into any kind of behaviour. Now if it were legal to be photographed anywhere by anybody then this is a threat that might illegally influence your behaviour. In short: people might feel threatened to behave differently because they might be afraid of being papped. This is not acceptable. 😉 Therefore it is forbidden to threaten anybody with photographing. Photographs without consent are illegal.
I like this law.
The application of this law is pragmatic and that means: if some tourist is shooting pictures of some church or historic building out of some distance and you happen to be in front of it … if you can’t be recognised because you are just very small in comparison to the building then there will be no punishment. But any pictures which are taken of anybody without the person’s consent and which clearly depict the person are illegal.
As I wrote earlier: if public interest exceeds these rights of private individuals then it is legal to photograph somebody. For example: very rich people, very influential people (politicians etc.) and purposefully public events (opening of a museum etc.)
Also there have to be notice boards for security cameras and the latter are only allowed where you can expect them: public places and shops. As a private individual you may control your private grounds with a security camera but you are not allowed to film the public street in front of your house.
Notasugar AM
+1000
Waity double standards – Tanna was great for PR ready middleton family; but now its ‘harassment’.
Public space and not just any toddler- P Georgie the future King of GB UK and Commonwealth and he overdue meet and greet with the Press paps.
Is there any foundation for this lawsuit? Is photographing someone in a public place with a telephoto lens really “harassing” them? I don’t know. I would hate it if I were the parents, but I’m not sure it’s illegal, at least not in the US.
There’s some grounds, based on the EU convention on human rights, which – among other things – guarantees a “right to respect for private and family life”. That’s been interpreted to mean you should be able to go about your everyday life without fear of paparazzi. Back in 2005, Princess Caroline won a landmark case relating to her right not to be photographed in private situations, even if they were “in public”.
It hasn’t been extensively tested though … most paparazzi victims are:
a) celebrities who actively want the fame,
b) celebrities who don’t really like it but don’t want to take the negative PR of taking someone to court, or
c) regular folk caught up in some scandal – who are honestly better off just hiding for a few months.
So only a few people have actually taken it all the way to court.
Oh, thank you. That makes more sense, then. Thanks, Lucrezia.
…..but they aren’t suing him for photographing the baby. They are suing him for harassment of the baby. The wording is very specific on that point.
I think the decision in Caroline’s favor was overturned. They are trying to pretend that this is an ordinary child/citizen, and I don’t think they can win successfully on that.
@LAK: You’re right, they’re wording it more like the problem is the stalking than the photographs themselves. I was responding in a more general way to GNAT’s question – is it legal/illegal to photograph someone in a public place. (I find the EU laws quite interesting, because they’re fairly new and you can see how the interpretation of privacy rights is evolving via case law.)
@ notasugarhere: Caroline’s original win wasn’t overturned, but I know why you’d be confused: there were 2 separate cases with the same name. In the latest one (2012), the European Court of Human Rights said it was okay for a German paper to have published a photo of her on holiday because the article was mainly about Prince Rainier’s illness – the fact that Caroline was on holiday at the time was upheld as “newsworthy”.
The original ruling was actually very clear: no matter how famous, the press doesn’t have an automatic right to publish photographs of someone going about their everyday life. They actually went out of their way to say that being a member of the royal family did not automatically make her actions valid news. The second ruling muddies the waters a bit, but basically you can publish everyday-life photos if they accompany a story that is considered valid news, but they still upheld the original ruling that a famous person’s everyday life is NOT automatically newsworthy. Does that make sense?
I think this case of “harassment of the baby Prince George” is a bit of a smoke screen. They know they could not prevent Tanna from taking shots of Kate but they can sue him over taking pictures of the nanny pushing a stroller.
Seems this is about Workless Waity hanging out ‘sick’ (waiting on vacation) in Buckleberry – the message from the royals suit is to ma carola middleton family. Is that no pictures of the heir – Prince George is to be taken/printed with the middletons!
sales agent already state ma Carella already took PG to the store- why wasn’t he with his nanny as in KP
The minute Tanna’s name dropped into the conversation, it muddies the waters because of his relationship with Kate and the Middletons and all those exclusives he’s been getting throughout the years.
Can one call it harassment if the pap is being told where to find the subject? Not just with Tanna, but all the other times PGtips was photographed by paps and the pics allowed to run eg Mustique, NZ/Aus private garden, Kate with PGtips in Kensington Gardens etc
The other aspect to this is that Tanna has been denied permits to photograph in the royal parks yet the nanny keeps taking the baby to a public park where Tanna can find them easily and can photograph them without breaking any existing laws.
I can understand how boring it is to keep baby in the private gardens of the various Palaces and so the need for a park with general public, but why keep taking him to a park that has a pest? a pest who has worked with the family?
Also, this harassment charge baffles me. what are the RPOs doing if they can’t stop this harassment? they certainly stop Kate etal being harassed. Why can’t they stop Tanna?
Then again, one of the reporters on the royal beat has categorically stated that KP are looking for ‘any excuse’ to restrict any and all access to William/Kate and PGtips + future siblings so they can live a 100% private life and this was the perfect excuse.
Thanks LAK . . . you answered my question. I didn’t think you could photograph him in the royal park without a permit, and he doesn’t have one!
Someone on Twitter mentioned that they could be trying to hide from the public how little time they actually spend with George. And it’s true that many pap pics of George out with his nanny does do damage to the “devoted, hands on parents” image that they cultivate for themselves.
They could have had a falling out with Tanna at some point. Not sure what went down and we’ll probably never know but let’s wildly speculate anyway!
Suppressing photos of royal kids (well, children of famous parents in general) with their nannies is a time honored tradition. William and Harry’s nannies were almost always cropped out in official photos, but they were there, hovering behind Diana/Charles.
I don’t know that it means that Kate and William don’t spend time with George, it means that George is being brought up in the way royals have always been brought up, and that the whole “just like us” narrative is not applicable.
I think it’s a control issue between the Cambridges and the press, and their former favorite Tanna is the canary down the coal mine.
That’s what I think, Suze – canaries and coal mines and control. But at some point, the Cambridges are going to cross a line and lose control. They’ll either have to start giving something tangible in terms of work and interaction or watch the press turn on them. I’m no fan of the press but the oppressive regime William wants to institute is just not right for a public figure with civic funding and civic responsibilities.
@ Sixer
Agreed. Picking George as the initial issue is almost guaranteed to garner some sympathy with the public because what parent wants their kid photographed going about daily business?
But at some point that control of the press will extend to William/Kate themselves and then it gets tricky. Should they be allowed an entirely private life? The life they live is due to public financial and sentimental support.
Also, will that extend to Camilla/Charles and Harry? Should they all be allowed to move around without any reporting other than the snippets they control and allow? Will anything other than completely vetted and sycophantic reporting be allowed?
I find Harry to be an extremely interesting case right now. It’s rumored that he isn’t an intellectual, but I do think he is savvier than anyone when it comes to handling the press. We see a great deal of him officially. He is accessible when he is out and about and working, almost comically so. Meanwhile, it’s rumored that Cressida is back in his life and we see little to nothing of it. So he is managing his public/private image well, at least for now.
I sense a growing restlessness among the press and it will be interesting to watch. I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the issue myself!
Suze- That suggestion came off Twitter, not me. But I do agree that George is probably being brought up the same way all Royals have been raised.
This does look like a control issue. William is a known control freak and lord knows this is not the first time he’s tried to bully the media. He will bully the wrong person one day and that will hurt him badly so he needs to cut that shit out.
I think it’s not even as much the nanny factor as William and Kate were awfully quiet on this until George’s team was caught using influence to get out of an illegal parking ticket.
@Suze – Exactly. And we know they’ve tried for themselves already. I also agree there’s some rumblings from within the press. Also, more generally, the British Attitudes Survey (big ol’ annual polling thing) is showing a swing in public opinion away from austerity for the masses and towards redistributing from/higher taxes on the rich. The BRF will get caught up in that if the swing gains momentum. And that doesn’t bode well for the Cambridges wanting everything to be one-way traffic.
I have every sympathy with them wanting privacy for the child. But they already have it: acres upon acres of private spaces spread over a large number of properties from KP to Buck House to Anmer Hall and all the other family residences. I mean, we aren’t talking back yards here. There are agreements in place for when he attends school, which William knows will be respected because they were respected for him.
They’re just plain in the wrong. If their father and grandmother and flunkies won’t rein them in, they’ll have to be reined in painfully. In public. Which, presumably, is exactly what they want to avoid. Meh.
I like the way you think, Sixer.
@ AM… I don’t understand why everyone is overlooking your comment. The Sunday Express has an article today that states this legal move came only after Tanna exposed that George’s RPOs used his royal status to get out of parking violations. This is all about maintaining William’s “normal” image and I think it’s a poor reflection on William that he’s using his son a shield to distract from his true intentions.
This may be all about control, but as someone who vividly remembers the looks on William and Harry’s faces as they followed their mother’s casket on their way to her funeral mass, I’ll give him a pass on this one. William’s distrust and dislike of the paparazzi has been well established over the years, and because of what happened, I don’t blame him a bit.
As a future unelected head of state, William does not get to control freedom of the press, no matter his family history.
It is interesting that the royal reporters are speaking out against W&K on this.
Sixer. Notasugar
+1M
PW trying to control as usual. Especially when not in their favor and of exposing ‘we are just like you regular folks’ and more ‘time as with P George’, . makes Tanner too close for their phony workless cry.
Now the millions in renovations – AH with distinguished roofing more addition – KP with unnecessary renovations all caught up with added costs to HM in the ‘rich n royal tax’. PC will be taxed for middletons buckleberry upgrade and constant addition of protection.
Notasuga sixer
+1M
Amen. WIllnot do not get to control freedopm of the PreSs. We have thousands of ‘regular’ $ilitary personnel losing lost life and limb protecting our freedoms.
Prince Harry Games just honour this tragedy. And Di PoW death is still in dispute if the press had anything to do with it. Now its excuse using PGtips.
W*W can have workless life and all the privacy by renouncing his BRF LIne and live off his $40k salary and inheritance.
Something’s going on. I do wonder if the Cambridges have finally started a battle they’re not going to win. I bloody hope so. Go Tanna!
Canary Indeed. Go Tanna!!
I do hope this is the day he finally reveals what he knows, as he’s threatened in the past, but he might think there is still some value in the relationship. I’ve always thought William doesn’t quite understand how complicit the Midds are with Tanna.
The Cambridges have plenty of private parks to secrete their child away and it makes me wonder why they would choose to have George in a public one where he’s vulnerable to situations like this. I feel that they are throwing down the gauntlet to the press. I imagine Tanna knows a lot about the skeletons in various closets and if Will and Kate goad him to the point of no return, I really hope he does sing like a canary. Team Tanna all the way!
Also, if I were truly a protective parent and didn’t want my child exposed to photographers, I’d make darned sure I’d keep him stashed in a secure location. We’re not talking about limiting George to an area the size of a thimble, now, with all the royal properties in London available to the Cambridges!
Will this be the battle where Tanna starts to hint to all that dirt he’s speculated to have on the Middletons? Or will this simply go away leaving Tanna wounded, but in time he’ll come back with several Kate exclusives?
If it were your child you might adopt a less skeptical tone. And let’s remember that the first journalist. To breach William’s school press coverage ‘treaty’ worked for the Earl of Wessex. Whether Tanna was a Middleton cohort or not, the parents stated wishes should be respected.
That would make sense if this was an isolated incident, but it’s not; it represents an overall pattern. William and Kate want a great deal of privacy, without giving anything in return. They are PUBLIC figures and William is an heir to the throne. Other royal families have handled this by giving the press access or exclusive photo ops here and there. It’s a give and take situation which acknowledges that one understands his/her role. William and Kate seem to want the “Royal” part of their life to only start when he takes the throne, but in the meantime, they will continue to use all of the perks.
It is legal to take photographs of children in public parks without parental consent. As a parent, I may be horrified by that, but that doesn’t mean I’d try to end freedom of the press in the UK because of it.
The parents have called paps on their own child during clearly private moments and not complained either about the pap or when the pictures ran.
The child is free to play in public without Tanna interfering with him and they choose not to exercise this option.
The parents are sending mixed messages. And they are suing for harassment, not photography.
Harassment is easily dealt with by the special branch empowered policemen bodyguards that the baby travels with – 2 car loads BTW.
Making the argument personal to me by appealing to my parental side doesn’t hold up since I don’t have the option of
1. private 40 acre gardens in London [ BP] ,
2. run of the royal parks from which Tanna has no access [4900acres across London],
3. 24/7 travel with empowered policemen whose brief includes stopping members of the public from harassing me,
4. the power to ban the press from running any pictures I don’t like which has happened in the past – see Christmas 2012 pap stroll pics.
As for William’s school days press ban, Charles didn’t arrange separate pap strolls outside of official photocalls whilst the ban was in place which is why Edward’s actions were beyond the pale.
HH
Good points even though your argument is borderline circuitous.
Nash and LlAK
Thanks for the stiff rundown but I was actually talking about feelings. You know, those emotions you can’t anticipate until you’re in that situation.
Go LAK!
@ Imo – I get it. Parents are protective towards their children. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s a good and natural thing. But y’know. Perhaps the Cambridges might better serve their protective feelings towards George by instructing his nanny to use the thousands of acres of private parks accessible to her when she wants him to get some fresh air. It really can’t be about protecting George because if that was their concern, this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
George should not have to grow up isolated, though protected, from the people he may rule someday. A golden cage is still a cage and I don’t think there should be anywhere in the realm where George can not go.
IMO: Actually I have been in a situation more extreme than abit of harassment, namely a stalker, so I can empathise as far as feelings go as well as the actions necessary to change the situation.
In this case, the cure is being put ahead of prevention.
Edit: I’m not advocating sequestering him by making play only at BP, he can run around Hyde Park as an example, all 350acres of it, without fear that the public or Tanna will photograph him unless they have a permit. Instead they choose the one park, which comes complete with a Tanna and the general un-permitted public, to play in. repeatedly. with a full compliment of policemen bodyguards who aren’t allowed to approach the baby prince. How more gilded is that?!
LAK
Unfortunately I have been in a stocking situation twice in my life, as well. Once was in college and the second situation occurred as an adult. It was horrifying and I can imagine what you went through. So I am surprised that you do not express shock or concern about the fact that the reporter followed the nanny and baby by car back to the palace. And I believe this particular reporter has been warned not to snap other Royals, Royals who have no agreement or arrangement with him. It sounds like this photographer has a problem with boundaries. And as I stated having been a stocking victim myself I am not comfortable telling the victim what he or she she do to prevent it. I am more interested in stopping the person who is violating boundaries and space.
Tanna isn’t stalking, and that is what is upsetting to many. The intent is not to harm, he is not hiding – they know he is there and that he is there to do his job – take a photograph. Trying to play the sympathy card by calling it stalking or harassment will backfire on them.
Maybe they were trying to make a deal with Tanna and it backfired? Stop following us in public parks and we’ll release your permit for royal parks and let it go through – and Tanna balked?
Imo: The nanny and baby aren’t travelling in a car by themselves and therefore at the mercy of Tanna [or anyone else] like you and i had to deal with.
They are travelling with 2 [TWO] car loads of special branch police bodyguards with powers to stop Tanna in his tracks if they choose. They are legally empowered to do that onsite, immediately, without recourse to court orders or the usual protocols that a regular stalking victim would have to go through.
LAK
Put this way, you might be right. Emotionally, I still think it would be a deal breaker. At any rate I hope you remain safe and secure as you go about living your life. We are some of the lucky ones.
I hope this goes to court because Tanna’s defense will blow the lid on his involvement with Kate and her family. I wouldn’t doubt there might even have been some instances when JLP has tipped Tanna off to Harry’s whereabouts and going ons. So…by all means, go to court. Tell. It. All. I look forward to the egg on William’s face.
+1
I hope it goes to court too, because Tanna may have a lot he can reveal about the Middleton’s.
Kate is probably hoping it doesn’t go that far.
William is naive if he can’t see who has leaked to the press and papz for years.
JMO
+2
End of the day Tanna won’t be beaten down like he was the 1st time he was taken to court by that family. I’m sure he’s been much more careful on his details.
And it says so much the other royal reporters that are in good standing are siding with Tanna. That he did nothing wrong and certainly not harrassment. If William gets his way here it will hurt them all and the press as a whole. That’s my understanding of it
I completely understand the need for a private life away from the cameras blah blah blah…get it. Absolutely.
However, what I do not get is why these people seem to want to enjoy the perks of being future King and Queen without what unfortunatly comes with it: little to no privacy. I’m sorry but William has got a choice, he can walk away from it. Kate has waited TEN years for this and now she can’t take it?!! That said, I hope she feels better.
They’re not complaining about their privacy, it’s about George. Maybe it’s not legally wrong but morally it is; a grown man, no doubt hiding in the bushes, sneaking photographs of a baby!
I sincerely doubt he’s hiding in bushes. He’s probably standing out in the open using a telephoto lens. They know he is there, they know why he is there.
I don’t think there’d be a need to hide in bushes at the PUBLIC parks since it’s legal for the paps to take photos there.
Anne_000
There’s no justification for what paps do. Not truly. Still, they serve a demand made by the public. And it’s needed by the royals to also fill this need a information. Paps are bad imo. Now here’s where there’s a breakdown for me. You can’t be friendly with a pap. Give them your location. Exclusives. Use them for your own ageneda. And expect them to not want more. To just go away until you call on them again. IMO Will/Kate/Middletons created this monster and nurtured it.
Also, I’m with others here doubting this is really so plain and simple. Future privacy issues are attempting to be squashed here and future press freedoms could be limited as a result.
Much like a threat. The press sees Tanna as an example. He’s broken no law, but if found in fault any reporter could be found unjustly held in court for doing their job.
I would think that this was more about William than Kate – you only have to remember how his mother was killed to see that this is probably a very sensitive issue.
I wondered also whether this was the same photographer that was reportedly moved on from Buckingham palace by police recently when he followed the Nanny and George there when they went to the pool. It is one thing to be given access to “events” but quite another if he is following the car uninvited when the nanny is out with the baby – it brings back memories of Diana’s death.
It sounds like the photographer may have broken an informal agreement with Will and Kate that they would be given access in return for leaving them alone when “off duty”. the Palace had the same agreement with the mainstream media when William and Harry were little after Diana died – that there would be access at certain times but to leave them alone. There was very little coverage of their time at school for example.
I’m sure Kate WILL be up to the trip to NY if one is truly scheduled.
I wonder if a special branch of the Royal Protection Office is going to do opposition research on the photog, i.e., get dirt on this person and leak it to the press? Send a message to the paps as it were.
Anyone who thinks this isn’t a big deal, I’ll follow you and your baby and take pictures of your kid nonstop with a telephoto lens while in public and you tell me how it feels.
This issue is more that George was photo’d with a nanny. They’re like every other celeb — they want it to appear that the nannies are background noise. Present, but never seen. See: Victoria Beckham, Kim Kardashian, etc.
I disagree. I wouldn’t want someone taking pictures of my child. It’s creepy!
I agree – it is creepy. Whatever happened freaked the nanny out so much that she had to take George home. The photographer also followed the nanny and baby to Buckingham palace
What’s wrong with having a nanny? If I had kids, and could afford one I’d definitely have one. I know most “normal” people, mostly working moms have to juggle everything-kids, home, work, etc and it’s exhausting. Rich people can get over the top ridiculous with their lifestyles, but I don’t think having someone around to help out with the kids & give the parents some private time as individuals is over the top.
RJ
Nothing to put it simply. Unless, you actively hault photos of your child with your nanny and photoshop the nanny out of the photos as to appear as you’re not employing a nanny. To hold the normal couple image.
The nanny and Will and Kate having 1 or 2 or more have nothing to do with this. It’s a pr privacy/power/control move.
This is the same guy that’s been banned from photographing other royals (at least according to some sources), so it’s not just abou George. It’s a pattern with this photographer.
Personally I thought the wording of pictures vs harassing and singling out one difficult individual was telling. There have been plenty of other pictures of pg out there, I think this guy just crossed a line into being more of a stalker.
What other royals has Tanna been “banned” from photographing? That is the first I’ve ever heard of that, and I sincerely doubt there is merit in those claims.
I believe Tanna was once caught looking in the windows of the Middleton’s house. Sounds like he has been stalking these people for a long time.
IF that had happened, he would have been arrested for trespassing on private property – IF he was unwelcome. Again, what ROYALS has he been BANNED from photographing?
The issue for me is the consistency. Long-lens photos when Kate is out with PG (in the very same park!)…totally fine, no uproar and no lawsuits threatened. Long-lens photos when Kate is going off for a vacation with PG and her family…again, totally fine and no lawsuits. So why now and why just when he is being photographed with the nanny?
The inconsistency leads me to think there are other motives besides William just being concerned for George, because why wasn’t he concerned in the other instances? I think all of his threatening and trying to control the media will come back to bite him. Big time. I think his level of distrust of the media has gotten to a level of obsession – none of the other royals (including Harry, who also lost his mother) behave like this toward the press or photographers. I also think his obsession around privacy will rub off on PG and will do him (PG) no favors for learning the public role that he was born into.
IMO, Vik and Dan of Sweden are the right kind of royal parents. Estelle already knows how to interact with the public and is comfortable in front of crowds and photographers. She knows how to wave, smile, shake hands, collect posies, and look normal and relaxed. All because they have been bringing her to public events since she was a baby.
I also don’t understand how they can be “harassed” when their 4-6 personal RPOs have the legal right to arrest anyone they think is a threat. Makes no sense to me. Aren’t the RPOs there to prevent the harassment? Maybe they need some new bodyguards!
Wayment: the RPOs can arrest anyone they think is a threat? And I’m assuming George has RPOs whenever he and the nanny go to this park so why haven’t they tried to arrest him before if they thought he was harassing George? Yeah this is definitely a control issue.
And Estelle is my favorite Royal Baby. She is such a little sweetheart and Victoria and Daniel definitely have the right idea in easing her into Royal life.
The press tend to leave Estelle alone when they are not invited – she has been able to attend ordinary playgroups etc without being papped
Also neither of Viktoria’s parents were killed by pap activities – I think that is an issue here as well
Exactly! The RPOs could stop Tanna if he were truly a threat to George. William didn’t have any problems with Tanna or any other pap taking pics of George when he was in NZ/Aus or Mystique or any other locale where William by his silence has given tacit approval of the “intrusion” on George’s privacy.
Right. This will get complicated. Either the RPO’s will be at fault for not protecting George from harrassment or this lawsuit is bogus.
Photographing George at public events where there is an expectation photogs will be in attendance isn’t a violation of George’s privacy. But they had a fit about the photos that were taken on their day off in Australia.
They only had a fit about certain photos that were taken off duty during that tour, hence the confusion.
Those vacation pictures were covered by Hello!magazine. The magazine confirmed that they had palace approval for the cover feature. I believe the British media is more than happy to let this creep Tanna take one for the team.
He’s a creep George’s mother, grandmother, and aunt have used in the past to get Kate press during her breakups with William, her reconciliations, the engagement, her pregnancy, her vacation pics alone with George while William was in Africa with Jecca, and the list goes on. So…it’s a creeper they are well and truly acquainted with and have had no problems in the past calling up for their advantage.
Several in the British media are questioning this move by W&K and standing up for Tanna.
Notasugarhere
That Palmer is stating there’s no cause for this suit against Tanna speaks to how unfounded it is.
good points.
Not sure Harry is as relaxed as you say – I had a friend take a picture of him on a run in Kensington gardens last week and his protection officers threatened legal action if she didn’t delete it! A grainy picture of his back!
William cannot take on more royal duties because he’s “training” for his new job. She cannot work because she is a SAHM and has “HG”. But they have time to fly to NY for Christmas time, visit a charity for 1 hour, and bill it all to someone else?
I will guess that they are all going to come to New York if that story is true. And I think they will bring the baby. It will be George’s first American trip I believe. If it happens that will be a huge Media blitz. George and the 2nd baby on the way..
famous people’s children will be photographed in public. It is not going to change.
Please…..do. not. go. to. New York! EVER.
Them or anyone? I like New York, but only as day trips. And only with a select group of friends. I do recommend everyone going though at some point.
And the only thing I can see happening by their visit is the morning news shows will cover them non-stop and then it will be business as usual.
I meant them, sorry! LOL. I luff New York, wonderful place. I just don’t want the Cambridges to go there.
I doubt Tanna’s lawyers would have issued such a strongly worded statement had they not researched his legal standing. But I find his insistence on photographing the baby to be creepy as all hell
They aren’t complaining when other paps photograph the baby, only Tanna. That means it is a personal vendetta on W&K’s part. With her family’s rumored 10+-year relationship with Tanna in the mix, this could get very interesting.
+1000
That is fine but has nothing to do with what I actually said. I think his statement is borderline aggressive.
it’s aggressive because of what happened with the Tennis pictures. william and Tanna have been here before.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/165633/Royals-target-scapegoat-in-privacy-fight
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/08/why-william-and-kate-held-off-again.html
One day William may find out the truth about the Tennis photos.
From express article link above
Quote:——————
Insiders have observed that in almost every photo he has taken of Kate, she has either posed or been smiling for the camera.
Kate’s parents Carole and Michael Middleton are understood to have at times approached him for copies for the family album.
Conversely, when she is with William, who hates the paparazzi because of the “hounding” of his late mother Princess Diana, Kate can be far less willing.
Recently, she has tended to cover her face, although never, it should be noted, in Tanna photos.All this begs the question of whether it is Kate who has a problem with Tanna – or William, 27
Quote :——————
If William wants 100% privacy for his family, there’s an easy and simple way to do it. Step aside. Be the pilot. Let Kate continue to be a SAHM. Renounce the throne and live a life of privilege outside the confines of royal duty and service. It’s not as if they aren’t already doing that.
As for the trip to NY, why? Anne will be there the week prior and her trip will probably have more substance than a trip by William & Kate, where it’ll just be a fashion show of horrible pregnancy fashion and very little else.
Sheesh, like New York isn’t congested enough without having those two here!
These two remind me of that “not my child!” pap rant Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard went on. Completely ludicrous for two reasons
1. Your lifestyle is supported by people seeing you and people caring about seeing you. Your offspring, shoes, belts, hair, handbags, vacations and outings are apart of that “deal” so nothing gets a pass….why?
2. If we didn’t care you would be broke and obsolete so deal with it.
Last week several royals were in New York. Charlene, Madeleine, Silvia of Sweden, Queen Rania, Mary, Maxima, Letizia,…. and the husbands of course 😉
I´m still surprised there was zero mention here. Not even a fashion blog who looked best or how cool the pregnant Charlene looked in a suit.
Clinton Global Initiative? They all attended several meetings and charities, they met the Obamas and made photo ops.
Yes the Royal ladies from across Europe were all out enforce , including pregnant Charlene in NYC. They all looked great, handled themselves well and the wider British press didn’t give much press time to it, because it’s not Kate or William, But The Daily Mail and Hello! did run a couple of very nice articles which was nice to see.
Prince Albert and Princess Charlene also met with President Obama and the First Lady for a second time.
I always wonder why William doesn’t associate with the European royals? Pr.Felipe, etc….
The BRF have Sophie and Edward for mixing with the European RFs.
Yes true and Sophie and Pr.Edward do a fine job and have made solid friendships.
I just still wonder why William is not sent to things involving European Royalty? Prince Charles use to go to certain weddings, events, vacation when younger with certain European Royals, I just wonder why William is not made to mix in sometimes with these other royals?
I doubt he’s interested.
Charles and Camilla paid an official visit to Denmark last year (or the year before, can’t remember) and that was so rare that I took notice.
I don’t know the reason but the BRF has a bit of a reputation (among us Continentals) as aloof and snobbish.
Another reason might be that Britain really sees themselves as apart from Europe. When I lived there, Europe was always referred to as the Continent (i.e. not the British Isles) and I was a bit surprised by how little was reported on “European” issues in the press. It certainly left an impression of insluarity with me.
AH, I think the visit was related to the Diamond Jubilee. My favorite part was Camilla on set of The Killing.
Yes, she’s a big fan. She got a Sarah Lund knitted sweater, and Sofie Gråbøl was invited to the gala dinner.
I think that it is a good show, especially the first season though it was abit too long.
She looks like Derek Zoolander in that second picture.
What I wonder, and it doesn’t seem to have been made clear, is whether the photographer is 20 feet from then and really in their faces, or is he 50-75 yards away with a long lens and you’d barely even be aware of him.
One seems to me to be a security concern and just plain creepy, while the other seems pretty standard and you’d hardly be impacted by it at all.
What a weird story. I see William & Kate’s point and the kid should be left out of it so I guess I’m on their side though legal steps seem to be taking it a bit far.
I feel the entire harassment complaint, is Prince William’s doing.
I think Kate and the Middleton’s are HOPING that Tanna never tells what the Middleton’s have really been up to all these years.
The Middleton family , including Kate have been leaker than a old rusty faucet, for years. IMO
I feel They used Tanna, but William is either too stupid or too blind to see what they were up to.
Tanna doesn’t chase anyone. He keeps a proper distance and does his job.
William was looking for an excuse to go after him. Imo
Looks like someone isn’t following the program… Taking pics of George with a NANNY?!? Don’t you know that there are no nannies? Not even one? Kate takes care of George all by herself 24/7 or Grandma Middleton does when Kate is busy being a working mom. And there will be no new nannies for this next kid either. This was reported a few weeks back, iirc, right? She also has no chefs working for her in her 2 – 3 kitchens. It’s normal for her to make dinner for 30 people, including beef wellingtons, fish pie, and Eton messes. She does her own housekeeping, her own hair, never spends most of her time shopping, and is always “KEEN” to go to work. And all her letters for her cancellations and to sick, dying kids are written by her personally. Come on guys. She lives the life of everybody else in the middle class. Stick with the program people.
Haha. +1
Hmmm wonder where in NYC they will go? I work in Midtown right next to Times Square but I doubt they’d go there. Maybe the UN? A museum or two? Probably the Met, I know Kate really likes art history, possibly even MOMA. Maybe the 9/11 memorial. Maybe the British Consulate/British organizations in the city? Interested to see what they include in their itinerary.
Every time I see little George I’m reminded of his great grandfather. The resemblance is striking. As for Catherine, I know she really needs the children as a way to secure her and her family’s position and keep public favour. I believe that if she loses this pregnancy she will be blamed forever. So, I wish people would lay off teasing her about going commando or being a living social climbing Hello Kitty until she’s in her third trimester. She’s already bitten off more than she can chew with IVF but it’s her choice and her cross to bear.
Hmm, what an unusual point of view.
I don’t think she has public favor to keep. I doubt she pays any attention to what is written about her, except for her family taking advantage of “fans” to promote Party Pieces. She herself has stated that she doesn’t care what anyone but William thinks. She’s sitting in her parents house, watching TOWIE, and planning her trips to NY and Mustique – not stressing over what people on forums, blogs, and tumblr think of her. Okay, she might be stressing about what Tanna could reveal if pushed too far.
Dead on Notasugarhere
Kate is highly protected from scrutiny. She will only know criticism through William and her immediate family. And no one else. That said I doubt her family will say anything bad and William will, but only in temper spirts after something reflects poorly on him as history supports.
If the public scrutiny really did ever reach her there would be more events and more underwear.
The nanny is not a celebrity and she obviously was freaked out by the photog’s behavior.
Cropping out the nannies on photos protects their privacy and also makes it easier for them to take a child out without drawing attention (although the security team in this case might make that a wee bit difficult…) Nobody thinks the nannies don’t exist just because they aren’t shown in pics.
I can see why they want the baby to be able to go beyond private gardens, to see real people and places around him as a normal thing. He might be king someday, or the monarchy might be dissolved by then. Who knows? He does deserve to have as normal a childhood as possible regardless.
I hope the French laws spread. It’s really awful the way paps can have cameras in kids’ faces all the time with no consequence. Requiring parental permission is quite reasonable. The argument that telephoto lenses make it okay just doesn’t hold up. Just because the technology allows it, doesn’t mean it’s good for children and others. This guy is collecting pics of a child for eventual sale, not just taking a tourist pic for his personal scrapbook. And he’s following the child to do it.
@jwoolman – Just one thing – the baby CAN go beyond private gardens. That’s the point! Photographers need a permit in all the Royal Parks and the only photographer this legal threat is dealing with doesn’t have a permit. The Royal Parks are PUBLIC. Anyone can go to them. They are the biggest parks in London and some of the biggest tourist draws. Here’s a list of them: https://www.royalparks.org.uk. Look – Hyde Park, Regent’s Park, Ken Gardens. The baby has privacy. The baby has protection. This is just a big old pile of nonsense and beyond the pale from the Cambridges.
I really have to disagree with the nannies and their privacy. That is by far not why they’re cropped out of photos. The world knows their every detail from the moment they’re being interviewed for the position.
The reason why all nannies have been cropped out for decades is to promote a happy family that are hands on. And not a family that hands off the child to do their own thing.
Tanna used to be on pretty good tems with them but somewhere they had a bad bread up so to speak and W&K started publicly pointing fingers at him and shutting him out. Lately Tanna been very very critical of them (think about the renovation scandal) and he seems only supportive of Harry, often making comparisons between the two princes’ behaviour and spending patterns. And because of his history of scoops he still has quite a large following and is a respected source on them in the public eye, but they don’t control his content anymore. And that is I think why they singled him out in this case imo. He makes them look bad, and they don’t like it. Now they want to shut him up completely, even though it might not be completely legal. It’s a power play.
Like the article of the Sunday Express states: in Australia all pap shots were approved, because it maked them look like sweet parents. That wasn’t the case here.
Sounds about right. I can see William being this pissy about his family getting bad press. I can buy this.
I don’t like it when people I KNOW just randomly take my pic without my permission, however I don’t have any sympathy for them on this. I mean, I get their being annoyed but again if they want to control George’s privacy then they should just use some of the much private property at their disposal for his walks.
They are so annoying with this crap. When people who haven’t had to work for any of their riches start to complain, it just annoys me. Instead of coming to NY, I want them to go to Africa…Liberia, preferably.
They may have chosen to end their professional relationship with Tanna, for whatever reason, and he should accept that graciously.
The kid (just like every other kid in the world) has the right to as normal a childhood as possible. There are plenty of official photo ops where photographers can get pictures and the public can see the little guy. When the family is “off duty” their privacy should be respected.
Their status is more of a celeb nature. When people stop wanting to see photos, publications will stop buying the photos. And paps won’t pay attention anymore.
And Princess Estelle has her privacy respected while the public gets their fill. William is going at this all wrong. He seems like a glutton with power and control over the press.
And many here are missing the point. It’s not about photos. It’s about Tanna “harrassing” George. As in interfering with his life. Photos from a distance away does not qualify.
FLORC
+1000
PW is trying to control.
Its ok when the PR favorable and W*W knows this person for awhile and by name* – where is the harm in “following PG and nanny” for public pap.