Photographer Prince William accused of stalking George, Niraj Tanna, refutes claims

Photographer Prince William accused of stalking George, Niraj Tanna, refutes claims

Lupo and George

As we learned yesterday, Prince William and Kate Middleton issued a warning to two photographers who the Cambridges claimed where stalking Prince George. I took the unpopular stance that Will and Kate were well within their rights not to have George followed while with Nanny Maria. As it turns out, one of the photographers has been identified as Niraj Tanna (Ikon Pictures), the Middleton’s long time on-call pap.

Tanna, via his lawyers (via the BBC), has issued a seven-page letter contesting the Cambridge’s claims. The letter says Tanna calls the allegations “groundless” and “wholly without foundation” and that press photographers are “fully entitled” to take photos in public places, and that any legal actions will be “vigorously contested”. The letter adds, “[Tanna] will continue to undertake his work with the concerns of the Prince’s parents very much in mind.”

The revelation that Tanna is one of the photographers in question in this situation throws a wrench into my previously taken stance on this issue. I attempted to clarify my stance in a comment on the previous post. Seeing as the comment is fairly long, I will not re-post; go here to read the entire comment. The gist of it was: minor children being stalked for photos by paps, even in public – okay for W&K to complain; minor children being photographed by the random public when the minor is in public – not okay for W&K to complain; adults being photographed by either the public or paps when in public – not okay for W&K to complain.

I bring up my comment because at the end of it I wrote: “The main question I have is why make this public at all? KP released a statement about it. If they were having a problem with two individual photographers, then take the legal action against them, but there is no need for a public statement about it. Will and Kate wanting to protect George from two specific paps who were stalking him, fine, but the public use of it as a threat to other paps not to follow George, that I have a problem with.”

I posted that before I read that Tanna was the photographer in question. The fact that the photographer is Tanna throws this whole action by the Cambridges into question and that last paragraph from my comment is extremely relevant.

Why did Kensington Palace make their legal actions against Tanna public? Everyone has a motive for their actions and KP definitely did with their statement about this legal action. If someone were causing problems, like stalking George, then KP is fully right to issue a legal warning and/or take whatever legal action they deem fit. BUT if someone were causing problems, KP wouldn’t necessarily issue a statement about the legal warning. If they brought a case against someone then I’m sure they would say something about that, but a mere legal warning, not so much.

This statement about the legal warning is not just a statement about a potential stalker, no, this statement is a threat to other photographers to leave George alone or else suffer the wrath of Prince William.

This statement is another in a long line of legal threats saying, “Don’t take photos or else suffer the wrath of Prince William.” Right after William’s legal case against the paps and Closer mag over the naked France pics, and the legal threat against people for taking pics of a pregnant Kate in a bikini while vacationing in Mustique.

George grabbing a butterfly

A royal source said before that they were looking for “any excuse” to scream invasion of privacy and stop people and paps from taking photos of the Cambridges. This action against Tanna is just that, “any excuse”.

Given Tanna’s history with the Middletons, I would argue that William is using Tanna as a scapegoat to make an example of in his on-going vendetta against the press.

This is not the first time Tanna has been accused of harassing members of the Cambridge family. In 2010, Tanna was accused of harassing Kate while she played tennis in Cornwall on Christmas Day 2009. The harassing claim then was BS because Tanna took his photos from a public sidewalk outside the tennis court and never made contact with Kate, although he did not fight the case and he and Rex Features ended up apologizing.

As we all know, Tanna has been the Middleton’s go-to pap for years, the one they’d call with inside knowledge so he could be an unofficial part of their bid to win the ring. And when they needed to show William how much they disliked the press intrusion (because while the Middleton’s are total famewhores, the fastest way to win William’s good graces is to say how much they hate the press intrusion, even though that’s total BS), they used Tanna as a scapegoat.

This is purely conjecture, but I would say that given his connections to the Middletons, William probably hates Tanna. I’d bet that Kate and the Middletons have played down their part in the relationship with Tanna over the years and have used him as a scapegoat themselves when talking with William. So William, unfairly given the Middleton’s part in all this, sees Tanna as the bad guy who keep harassing his family. As such, William is using him as a scapegoat to send a message to the press and public that he will take legal action against anyone who photographs George.

I wanted to give William the benefit of the doubt on this one, and look at it as if he hadn’t shown himself to be a tantrum-y baby many times before now, because I genuinely don’t think it’s appropriate for photographers to stalk minors, even royal ones.

I stand by my stance of, “Stalking a minor, even a royal, even in public, is not okay”. But given the new information, I must change my opinion on agreeing with William here. This legal action against Tanna is not coming from a place of fearing for one’s child and wanting to protect him/her, this legal action is coming from a place of wanting to send a message and using any scapegoat they could find to do it.

Photos: Jason Bell/Camera Press; John Stillwell/AFP


77 thoughts on “Photographer Prince William accused of stalking George, Niraj Tanna, refutes claims

  1. I see two sides to this. My first is the protection of any child, royal, celebrity or just plain people from anyone who is “stalking” or “threatening” in any way. If a person is seen following and photographing a child repeatedly every time that child appears in public or is out on some private run then I would check that persons motives.

    If the photos that are taken are in a public place because they happen to see them there, I don’t see the harm in it. I would question how this photographer knows or knew that George was going to be at this park. If he is indeed following him, then that’s wrong. Let the child have some playtime. But, as others have noted, they have plenty of grounds where George can run free and play to his hearts content.

    On the other side of things, I see this as a ploy by W/K to attempt to control their and their families access to photographers. A serious reality check is needed here for these two. Like it or not they are members of the British Royal Family. Major players in that family due to William one day (although I’m actually hoping not at this point) being king. It’s one thing for his parents to say let him be during his school years, it’s entirely different when you’re a full grown adult with responsibilities not just to your family, but to the people who are part of your country..

    I think all they want is to be photographed when they choose. The problem with that is they don’t do a lot of work so that makes photos of them rare and sends the press into a frenzy when they do get a chance to photograph them. How long do they think they can just hide out and do as they please?

    One other thing that comes to mind, is the last photos I saw of George and his nanny showed her being very playful with George and I wonder if that really stuck in Kate’s craw. Every photo we’ve seen of her with George has been staged. You don’t get that loving vibe from them and the photos with the nanny looked completely natural and relaxed to me. It also points up the fact that their “just normal people raising our son” line is a bunch of hooey. Two weeks in Norfolk working on the house, then they get back and the pregnancy is announced which sends her into hiding and him everywhere but home. So who is George spending the majority of his time with?

    They can’t have it both ways. Play along or take your toys and go home. The main problem with stepping down would be that they would then have to figure out how to live that fabulous lifestyle without income from daddy and the future income from the family. How this is all going to play out remains to be seen, but I think their image just took another big hit.

    1. It’s difficult. If someone is following him around and monitoring his schedule and knows where he’s going to be on which days, that’s stalking and it’s gross. Yes there are private gardens for him to play in, but that doesn’t matter, he shouldn’t have to put up with stalking period, whether he has other places to go or not.

      But unfortunately I’m questioning the stalking claim, because this is Tanna and he does have a history with the Midds and Will’s wrath and I feel like this could easily be Will taking any excuse to make an example of someone and basically threaten the press with a “this will happen to you” thing. And/or use it as an excuse to hide away even more. Granted, the denial from Tanna could be BS, just because he claims not to have stalked them doesn’t mean he didn’t, but it’s just throwing everything into question and it doesn’t look good for anyone.

      William is such a control freak about when he is photographed. It makes you wonder what he’s hiding.

      George seems to really enjoy himself when he’s with Nanny Maria. He’s so grumpy in all the photos with Will and Kate, but when he’s with Maria he’s actually smiling.

  2. I hope that u word this correctly: I think that the press would not be as voracious if they allowed the press access to PG. For example, set up controlled photo calls. Charles and Diana did it while they were married and it tempered the pap pics. They didn’t get the pap intrusion until the separation. I think that it would calm down the appetite of the general public. The Danish and Swedish Royal Families do this and they do not have the same issues. Princess Victoria has brought me Estelle to many functions from her infancy and sets up photo calls. I think that if Will and Kate did this, they wouldn’t have these issues and be so d*mn litigious.

    1. Looking back at pics of Will as a baby, there weren’t that many official photo ops – there are about 7 different sets of baby pics on Getty in the first two years of his life. I mean, what we’re getting with George is probably about the same as what the Wales gave the public of Will. The problem is our culture is so social media heavy, where everyone is constantly posting photos of themselves, and everything is so interconnected and there’s a 24 hr news cycle, and the celeb culture has become such a huge part of the entertainment industry now. So we want new photos and updates about George all the time, so keeping with the old standard of having a few photo ops a year just isn’t going to cut it. I feel like the Cambs are following the Wales’ method, but the method just doesn’t work in our culture anymore.

      The other royals are much less grumpy when it comes to their kids. They understand that the public is interested and I love that Victoria brings Estelle to things and isn’t afraid to let her be photographed. And Mary and Fredrick brought all of their kids on their tour of Greenland, where they were photographed many times during the tour.

      I agree that if Will and Kate were more generous with photos of George – and not just staged photos that are heavily photoshopped, but actual photo ops where they are interacting and having fun like a normal family – then it would calm down the hunt a bit. The thing is, the Wales method isn’t going to work. The Cambs are going to need to show George even more because the culture demands it.

    2. I remember Diana making deals with the paparazzi. Take a couple of photos and then, leave us alone the rest of the day. She did that sort of thing while they were skiing.

        1. I notice William and Kate weren’t squealing when those pictures of them playing with George in New Zealand were published. The ones where Kate still was in her Easter service outfit. The grey outfit. Those photos must’ve been part of the Cambridges’ plan for the trip, hence no squealing from Billy Boy.

          1. Yes, I found those pictures to be a little suspicious. I think that it was an attempt to humanize them. Folks fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

          2. Don’t forget the pictures of Kate and George playing ‘privately’ in a garden in either NZ/AUS. That came with video too. No squealing and threatening to sue

          3. I thought they did complain about those, at least to the British press. I thought they asked the British press not to publish them.

          4. You can’t really bitch about a host country’s press when they paid for the trip – that would be some really bad PR. While his Grandmother is Head of State – They aren’t Prince and Princess of Australia and New Zealand, only potential future Head of State. Bitch about the press and see if the press doesn’t affect your future status.

    3. Oh you are right about the more exposure the less desire thing….but what I would absolutely love is for the press to just ignore them. Pay absolutely no attention to them whatsoever. That would really make them angry and upset I do believe….this is beyond ridiculous. If they think that this is proving how much they ‘care’ about their baby in my case they are blowing it. I can’t stand them. at all. they make me sick. That idiot william is flat out baiting Tanna and that’s what killed his mother!!! (Oh, I know that might make me a horrid person and get me banned but seriously….she baited the press….got into a car with a drunk driver…..didn’t use a seat belt…)….

      1. I think a newspaper/press intentional blackout would send a message as well. Don’t cover their next big events with charities and see how that goes over. The events where they depend on the press to bring a light to a cause. Tusk Trust Awards – no press show up. Same for Kate with the National Portrait Gallery Gala.

        I agree with you on Diana – the press didn’t kill her. Dodi Fayed and his staff did. But I guess a rich Muslim killing a Princess of the UK was not a story anyone was comfortable writing.

  3. I don’t know the legal definition of stalking.

    However, it seems that my logic is different than other people’s.

    To me, the photographer is not stalking, he’s just trying to be in the same place as the baby to get a photograph, because that is how he makes a living. No picture, no rent payment.

    I think stalking is when there is some unhealthy or sinister motive. An angry ex-lover stalks his ex-wife so he will know who she’s seeing, or some nutcase stalks a celebrity she has a crush on.

    Just because Will hates the press does not make it stalking.

    1. I don’t know the laws in the UK, but in Florida legally I don’t think a pap following someone around would be considered stalking if there is no malicious intent behind it (I’m basing this off of this website I just found as the top link in Google, no idea how accurate it is – http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/criminal-stalking-laws-by-state/florida). I doubt KP will actually file a lawsuit, because it would probably be thrown out and/or Tanna would win and that would look terrible for Will. But I still think following around a baby is weird. Agree to disagree on that one.

    2. Thank you Dag. Just like Kate Middleton’s “HG” is called into question (really HG or just morning sickness), I question the use of the word “stalking”. He is doing his job, not stalking. They are once again exaggerating for effect.

      KMR you might find it creepy, but it isn’t illegal. Children have the same protections under UK law as adults — it is legal to photograph them in public. This is once again William trying to control photography in public places:

      Okay to stake out an island airport for weeks on end and photograph at an airport on a holiday. Okay to photograph at a polo match on private time. Photograph her on duty with her skirt blowing up and showing her a$$ – photographer gets in trouble for recording the on-duty event on public property. Not okay to photograph in a public park.

      I agree it is a reaction to the happy nanny photos, getting caught away from the baby for two weeks, + the protection officers getting caught trying to get out of parking tickets. Tanna is the go-to scapegoat.

      1. I don’t know how much this matters, but I just want to point out that in their statement, KP did not use the word “stalking”, I did when referring to KP’s claims. KP used the words, “harassing”, “following”, “placing… under surveillance”, “monitoring”, and “pursuing”. I lumped all those together and referred to it as “stalking”. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that.

        And you’re right, it’s not illegal, but if I were a parent I would have a problem with it, legal or not. But I’m willing to agree to disagree on that.

        I agree, though, that this is another instance of Will trying to control the press. And not just control this instance, but send a message to try and control future instances – and I think it will backfire. William either has some serious mental health problems or something serious he wants to hide.

        1. I think someone else pointed out that the words they use dovetail with the stalking law, so it is clear that that is what they’re trying to use for their offense in this.

          If someone took pictures of me in a public park, or pictures of a child with me, I wouldn’t like it — but it is legal. That is the point. Tanna isn’t stalking, he isn’t endangering. They know exactly why he is there, and it is to take a photo.

          If it is legal to take my picture in a public park, it is legal to photograph George and Nanny Maria in the park. One privacy rule for all of us, not special privacy rules for the wealthy and famous.

          1. I don’t understand why the nanny would take George to a PUBLIC park when it’s well known that Tanna doesn”t have permit to shoot in the ROYAL parks. It’s quite the joke on twitter ie Tanna is constantly ribbed for his patience in waiting for a permit that everyone receives promptly. If Tanna is a known quantity, then they’ll know he can’t shoot in a Royal park. The exclusive they gave him when Kate wore that Papyrus tiara for state dinner was taken outside Kensington gardens ie outside the Royal Park itself. This is also the reason he isn’t the one getting the staged Kate with George in the park pics though he often shares the resulting pictures probably because he passes on the tip. So it’s weird that someone they know is harassing George isn’t being stopped either by the bodyguards empowered to do exactly that or by keeping George out of public parks.

            FYI: Royal parks are open to the public so George can still play amongst the public instead of being sequestered at the completely private 40acres Buckingham Palace gardens. There are 8 Royal Parks of combined 4900acres scattered throughout London that George is able to roam in without Tanna photographing him. So why take him to the one park that Tanna can use?

          2. “So why take him to the one park that Tanna can use?”

            To trap him? It’s entirely possible W&K had Maria take George to a public park after giving Tanna enough info to find them, so that W&K could scream privacy and legally threaten Tanna – and then release a statement about it – so that Will could get revenge on Tanna and use him as an example to threaten the press.

          3. Exactly why they once left a club unnoticed, circled around the blog, waved at the paps to get attention, were followed, THEN they lodged a complaint against the paps. If they could just use the brainpower they expend on trying to shut down freedom of the press on something more useful – like doing their royal jobs!

  4. I think the Middletons and William and Harry have called on Tanna too many times to cry press invasion in a public park. There is the picture of Kate riding to a reception at Buckingham Palace wearing a tiara that Tanna photographed and a picture of Harry playing with a new expensive car that Tanna took as well. He’s been their go to pet paparazzo for too long now for them to bite his hand. It screams hypocrisy. We want you (Tanna) when we call and we want you away when we don’t. You don’t get it both ways. You can’t tempt a shark with bloody meat in the water and expect him to stay away whenever he hears your boat nearby later on.

    1. I’m reminded of Johnny Depp’s kids back when he still was protecting their privacy. His PR rep laid into him one day for mentioning his kids in an interview. The PR person told Johnny if you want your kids to have their privacy you can’t bring them up in interviews, ever.

    2. Prince William and Prince Harry have despised Tanna since 2006 when he took some pics that landed Prince Harry in the hot seat with Chelsy. They also got frustrated with how he seemed to always know where they were. I think it’s Carole with whom Tanna has the relationship. When those tennis shots were taken at Christmas, Kate reportedly begged Prince William not to pursue a law suit against Tanna. In fact, she attempted to stand up to Prince William which put a major strain on the relationship given their dynamic. Prince William had already settled with the picture agency but he wanted to go after Tanna personally to make him pay. I think these harassment claims are part of Prince William’s personal vendetta against Tanna and an attempt to create privacy protection presently not provided by law. For decades, the Royal Family has been able to control the media and the photos taken, now that there’s an international media, photographers don’t need to abide by Windsor Rules anymore. What makes this entire thing fascinating is that these pics won’t fetch all that much on an international market. I’m wondering if Tanna is just fed up with the BRF and is trying to provoke a showdown.

      1. Please, please, please, PULLLEASSSSSSSSSSSE let there be a showdown. I’m on team Tanna all the way. IT. WAS. A. PUBLIC. PARK. PUBLIC….!!!!! Keep the child home. This really angers me and it shouldn’t.

        1. I am with you – the photographer was just taking pictures. Showed how easy it is – the next person might not be shooting with a camera. The problem is George being in the open, not people noticing George is in the open. This is on the parents and security officers, not the pap.

          1. I know I’m inviting criticism here, and please don’t hate me, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment because the “what if it weren’t a camera” line was trotted out when that pap took photos of Kate naked in France and I’ve been thinking about it.

            The whole “the problem is being in the open, not people noticing them in the open” thing is interesting, because if one extrapolates that out, one might as well say that about them going out to dinner, or to a polo match, or to a public engagement the whereabouts of which are released in advance. If there is such a concern about them being in the open and possibly shot with something other than a camera, then they might as well not leave their houses at all. Not to go to the park, or dinner, or a polo match, and they certainly shouldn’t leave their houses to go to official appearances the whereabouts of which are planned and released ahead of time.

            By the way, I was one of those people who said “what if it weren’t a camera” to Kate’s naked France pics.

            I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this line of thinking was just something I was thinking about. I don’t know what my argument is here, and I don’t think I have one, so I won’t defend it. But it was just something I was thinking about and thought I’d bring it up for discussion. Thoughts?

          2. KMR, you bring up an interesting viewpoint, but reality is in this day and age anyone could operate on that premise. Reading the news makes you realize anyone could be in jeopardy. However, being in the public eye puts a considerable amount of added pressure, hence the RPO’s and bodyguards that celebrities hire.

            It’s a side of life that comes with the visibility. And as such, you have a choice of living your life as fully as possible or holing up in your home/fortress. I’d choose life.

          3. It’s not a viewpoint that I hold, it’s just a thought that I had. But in response to your thoughts, two things: 1) “What if it weren’t a camera” is not a valid argument if everyone is in jeopardy/could operate on that premise; 2) Complaining about privacy is not a valid argument – hire some bodyguards and shut up.

          4. Also, do you think Will would choose to the fortress? I kind of get the feeling he would as long as he could trick it it out and invite his buddies and sidepieces over to party. Then he’d still have all the fun without ever having to deal with the public. And of course Kate and George aren’t invited because Kate is boring and George is loud and annoying.

          5. Sorry if I wasn’t very clear, I didn’t look at it as your viewpoint, maybe it’s the wrong wording. Just another side to look at. The only thing I meant about everyone possibly being in jeopardy is that almost every week you hear about some situation in the news.

            I think he would choose the fortress temporarily because he’d get bored at some point and need to roam. Of course if he could do that roaming with just his friends and flings and no paps I’m sure he’d be thrilled. The attention he gets came with him when he was born. Same thing with George, the best they can do is have really good protection, live their lives and try to make some kind of peace with themselves on the picture taking because it’s always going to be there if they are going to go out in public.

            One other question I have with regards to protection. I wonder how much or how intrusive the protection is in their residences? Security cameras and such. I’m sure there are spaces where that just isn’t going to happen, but I wonder about the more public rooms where they might entertain. Just a random thought.

          6. I am saying that THEY take the risk, by calling themselves royal and putting “prince”, “princess”, “duke”, and “duchess” and tossing around HRH salutations and then going out into public spaces. Take that away and no one wants their picture or to kill them as symbols. No one has privacy in a public place, that is an absurd argument. So is claiming security concerns – when the problem is being in an uncontrolled open public space. The baby didn’t go out there all by himself – he was taken by protection officers.

            Again, I think the protection officers are crying security risk to counter the unflattering news and photograph of how THEY behave, parking in reserved spaces and not paying the fees.

            And if something happens to the baby – that is on them, not the photographers. Consider what would happen if the baby is out in public – someone takes a shot and misses, but it hits somebody else. One could make the argument that Prince George puts everybody at risk when he is in public spaces.

            Interesting conversation – Public parks are for folks who do not have private lands to enjoy the outdoors – why does this baby with so much access to private land need to be using the public parks.

    1. I couldn’t find the photographs but I imagine they are like all of the other photographs. If you Google Images search “Prince George Kensington Park” you will find a whole page full of photographs of George in the park.

    1. Agreed, but I think Will is trying to suss them out by going after Tanna. Like the tennis photos where Wills demanded that Kate sue Tanna and it didn’t happen.
      I think Wills is onto Ma and her paparazzi games, albeit a day late and a pound short. If that is the case, then Wills isn’t as stupid as I thought he was (is).

  5. I read somewhere that Niraj Tanna has details on the Middleton family from the early days when Kate was stalking William. Would you blame him if he now decides to publish this information? I don’t like the idea of someone following a child and photographing him but feel there is more to this story? Was he phoned and told they would be in the park? Diana played that game well and then denied knowing about the photographers being there. After all there are other parks between Battersea Park and KP. Did the photos annoy because it looked like George was having fun with his Nanny?

    1. Bigger things in this world than worry about a a dark-eyed kid with strangely fair hair playing in a public park. Willy and Wastykins need to get over themselves. Think things like ISIS and REAL problems and trouble in Britain and around the world.

      I have had it with this out of touch, stupid, and selfish pair of idiots and pretending to be good parents. They don’t even seem to give a real
      damn about the kid!

  6. Well there’s one thing William has succeeded in…he’s taken the heat off of Kate’s “HG” momentarily and onto this photographer subject. For a guy who “hates” the press he’s certainly got them talking about him now.

    1. Not to mention he hasn’t started the ‘big deal help the people give the money to charity aren’t I absolutely awesome’ job. Gee, I hope that his ***gag*** future subjects are kind enough to put off any sort of emergency until he gets his head out of his **ss.

    2. I was wondering if it wasn’t retaliation for publishing the story about the royal protection officer who was being cited for parking tickets and there was photographic evidence of him not paying the parking fees. Was it the same photographer?

      I also think it’s bitchy to be complaining about taking a one year old out to public parks – when the one year old has no clue of his surroundings. Keep him in his royal bubble – Buckingham, Windsor, Kensington – ought to be enough space to keep him occupied. The security issues isn’t the photographer – it is the routine and being in the open – And if a pap can follow him around – so can trained foreign operatives. The pap isn’t putting the baby at risk – the parents are.

    1. I certainly hope this isn’t true. She’s too sick to get off of her backside to attend an event for something she’s patron for, but she can fly across the ocean to party in New York. What’s not right about this picture.

      1. Oh she will “return with a vengeance.” Next month. Maybe in six months. After the baby’s born. Maybe after she stops breast feeding. Or when George goes to kindergarten. Or after the Queen dies and she becomes Princess of Wales. Maybe.

  7. All these need for privacy makes me think. what are you trying to hide? I used to think something major, now though I think Wills doesn’t want the public to know the truth of his life: he’s not as awesome and now has no real diana charm, hates the public and resents having to rule but feels he’s owed all of his life and to do what he wants because of his childhood and suffering, and is an arrogant tw-t. Also, his marriage is more for convenience, with minimum contact with the wife and kid. Basically, he has to control because he can’t work and overcome.

    1. I doubt he’s self aware enough to know he’s not awesome and has no charm. He probably thinks he’s the shit. I do think he hates the public and resents having to rule, but I don’t think he’s self aware enough to understand that his place as heir has granted him so much in life. I think William thinks very highly of himself yet basks in self-pity. He thinks he’s owed a certain level of luxury and thinks everyone should fall on themselves to please him and his whims and he gets upset when that doesn’t happen. William would be an excellent subject for a Shakespearean play.

      1. You know who I thought of as I read your analysis? Will’s grandfather, Prince Philip. I think Will has a lot of his grandfather’s sense of entitlement and nasty disposition.

        1. I dispute that strongly. The Duke of Edinburgh came from a broken family; his father Prince Andrew (who the DoY is named for) was found guilty of treason and banished from his homeland of Greece for life (Philip came to Britain in an orange crate on a British cruiser. His mother Princess Alice suffered a nervous breakdown and became a religious zealot of the Greek Orthodox Church (she attended his wedding in Westminster Abbey in a gray nun habit). When his father died, he left Philip a signet ring, some clothes in two battered suitcases and an ivory hairbrush. By the time he was 17, he effectively was orphaned and had lost his guardian George the Marquess of Milford Haven to bone cancer and his favorite sister Cecilie, his two nephews and brother-in-law died in an airplane crash. He was passed from royal relative to royal relative during his childhood and teens. Going into the Navy was about the only thing he had going for him. Marrying the Princess Elizabeth, the heiress to the most prestigious and illustrious royal lineage in Europe brought him a sense of stability and psychological comfort he had never really had growing up. In contrast, his wife came from a close, nurturing, loving family and grew up in an atmosphere of peace, tranquility, luxury and love. Part of Philip’s bluntness is from his harsh upbringing (his time at Gordonstoun included barefoot runs at 5 a.m. and cold showers) and his frustration at being seen as an ornament more than a person. The Duke has little to no sense of entitlement; on his wedding day he was receiving twenty pounds a month in salary from the Royal Navy as a lieutenant. If you are looking for Willy’s nasty disposition and sense of entitlement look no further than his father. Bonnie Prince Charlie changes his clothes four or five times a day, has a staff of 50 to cater to his every whim, literally drops something on the floor and never looks back, expecting someone else to pick it up, and has his staff try to sell gifts he receives to raise extra money (he receives millions from the Duchy of Cornwall). If not his father, than his adopted parents, the Midds. Talk about nasty.

          1. His sense of entitlement is a result of being royal, even if his father wasn’t on the throne. What others describe as a “blunt” and “wicked” disposition, I see as disagreeable and nasty. His terrible upbringing might explain it, but that doesn’t make it any less nasty. I agree with you completely about the Midds and Charles.

        2. I like Prince Philip’s bluntness. It is hilarious. The kind of man where he tells you exactly where you stand. I see a lot of him in Princess Anne.

          William is tantrumy and vindictive.

          1. I’ve always liked Prince Philip too. I think he has a wicked sense of humor and I could see it maybe being developed during his youth. William’s sense of self stuns me at times. He looks like he could throw a fit in the blink of an eye

          2. I wish I could remember which balcony appearance it was but my mom saw Prince Philip fart during one of them. William looked displeased and wrinkled his nose and Harry laughed.

  8. I thought the whole point of walking in the public parks with Prince G was for him to be photographed so the public can see him as he grows up? And now his parents have a problem with that? I’m so confused.

    So the main rule for the press/photographers is that Willaim, Kate and Prince G can only be photographed while doing royal duties and in turn you will not be sued? But even that rule is debatable because William and Kate didn’t try to sue when they were pictured having dinner before the 2nd preg announcement.

    Oh, I get it now….the rule is that the Cmbridge’s can only be photographed while doing royal duties AND they will not complain/sue the press/photographers if the pictures are good PR for them. The dinner was good PR because it shows that their marriage is strong, however, if you are not pictured with your own child and the nanny is its bad PR.

      1. Interesting. There is a lot of shall we say… antiquated attitudes in segments of British society regarding dark and swarthy people from what these segments would call “the colonies.” Perhaps Willy still has a touch of this? Who knows?

  9. I thought there were laws in England prohibiting newspapers and magazines from publishing photos of minors without the parents’ consent, to prevent just this sort of situation. I comprehend that the photographs this pap has been taking haven’t run in the UK, that they were sold in countries that don’t have restrictions on paparazzi shots of celebrities’ kids. But there are a lot of interesting legal questions and concepts at play here: (1) The photos were obtained in a country that imposes restrictions on just such photos, and while this paparazzo cannot be charged for committing nonexistent crimes in foreign nations (i.e. selling photos of a non-adult public figure in countries that have no restrictions upon candid photos of minors), once he sets foot back on UK soil, I would think he could be detained for violating a UK law, especially if (2) it can be argued or even documented that the only reason the photos exist is because the photographer intended to profit from them — which is very different from (3) the hypothetical scenario wherein a tourist just happens across George in a park and snaps a photo to memorialize the moment.

    I’m not a barrister, and I only have vague knowledge of this law tied to some snarking I saw about Gwyneth Paltrow refusing to let the Daily Mail publish photographs of her kids when she had pics of them on her Goop website or something. I also don’t know the rationale behind the law — it may very well have been implemented on the grounds that it perpetuated or constituted the “stalking” or harassment of protected or private citizens (minors).

    I think, KMR, that this is very much in line with your personal feelings regarding the issue — that it’s completely okay (and even reasonable to expect) that ordinary members of the public might want to snap a candid photo of the young prince if they saw him at the park one day, but that it is inappropriate when a professional photographer camps out in public spaces with the express purpose of “catching” George and his nanny when they’re out trying to freely move about the city, and then flagrantly attempting to profit from the violation of a UK law.

    I don’t think it unreasonable at all for the UK to have introduced laws to protect the privacy of children of public figures — the children of politicians, celebrities, and even other people whose names are in the headlines, including victims or perpetrators of crimes. A child does not have the capability to consent to media exposure. And as someone else pointed out, intense media exposure can and sometimes does pose a threat to the targeted person’s safety. A would-be kidnapper, for example, wouldn’t have to do much research at all — he or she could merely select a paparazzo who has already sold many photos to international papers and therefore likely has a reliable knowledge of George’s routine. In such a worst-case scenario, the paparazzo may even be exposing himself to inadvertent risk; if he has been watching George, the nanny and the security detail so closely lately, he would probably be useful to grill about what sort of protective measures are and are not in place.

    I would like to add, however, that while such a law seems clearly tailored to suit celebrity children, it really ought to benefit all UK citizens. I don’t think it’s right that there should be protections in place to prevent someone from profiting off of photographs of a wealthy person’s child, but no such protections in place to protect an “ordinary” person’s child. For example, I do believe it is perfectly legal for a photographer to snap a photo of Jane Smith’s daughter while she plays on the swings, and then to use that photo in a blog post discussing some public issue like abortion. No parent should have to tolerate someone using images of their child without their consent, and if the Cambridges and their PR crew were smart, they’d be using this unfortunate little scandal to advocate for parents everywhere, not just parents of the socio-economic category to which they belong.

  10. I would be outraged if a someone took pictures of my child. It’s creepy and invasive. I can’t fault William and Kate for not wanting George to be papped.

    That being said-
    1) There is a huge difference between some random potential pedo and celebrity photographers;

    2) Traditionally, pictures have always been taken of the royals as children;

    3) If all Tanna’s doing is taking pictures -especially from a distance, with a telephoto lens- this isn’t technically harassment, and it is not illegal in England;

    4) If real harassment was happening, one of George’s many royal protection officers would have stepped in and stopped it faster than you can say “PapUsOnlyWhenWeSaySo;”

    5) W/K certainly never have an issue pimping out George’s cuteness for the cameras when it suits them.

    I guess I’m conflicted. I admit I’d be completely disgusted and outraged if someone wanted to take pictures of my baby. But W/K are not me, and at the very least, they’re being disingenuous in the way they’re going about this. And a part of me wonders if they’re just not happy about George being photographed with his nanny but sans his mother so often.

    The real story is how Tanna fell from grace – that’s what I’d like to know!

    1. I think part of it is that it’s messing with their “we want a normal life and we’re hands on parents image.” After all she’s “sick” and he’s mostly away lately. Not terribly hands on. Another part is they want total control over their lives and images which in reality is not going to happen unless they decide to live underground and never appear in public again.

      1. I agree, @Lisa. William is constantly pulling that “I’m a normal person, leave me alone” stuff. Which I would sympathize with, except as long as he isn’t abdicating and is living a life of extreme privilege courtesy of British taxpayers, he’s NOT a normal person. You want to be normal, abdicate, go get a real full-time job.

        In terms of this issue re Kate, I think she actually loves the limelight and being a celeb -look at how radiantly happy she was at the Hollywood events and during the celeb events in Britain she attends. She and all the Midds are not in this for privacy. Trust.

        But, I admit in this case they pulled a really clever move using George as the weapon to knock the press in place. People were less than sympathetic at her topless smoking pics and her many commando Marilyn moments. But who’s going to argue about the safety of a child?

Comments are closed.

Back To Top