Connect
To Top

Why the press should be ashamed of themselves for publishing voyouristic Prince George pictures

Royal Central’s editor explains why he thinks the publication of certain photos of the young royals is wrong

As we all know, the Duke and Duchess are very protective over their children’s privacy, and so they should be! As of late, Kensington Palace have issues many warnings to the media about publishing photos of Prince George and Princess Charlotte to protect their privacy and family life. So it may be surprising to some (or unsurprising to others) that certain publications have decided to plaster the young children’s image all over their newspaper front pages with an accompanying full page spread inside.

Royal Central has of course taken the decision not to publish these photographs under any circumstances, because why would we? It becomes something of voyeurism when the press (and everyday citizens) take pictures of one and three-year-old children playing in a park.

I understand that people want to see the royal children grow up and watch them develop, however, this can be done without invading their privacy. Kensington Palace often release images of the young royals, most recently at the end of April to mark Her Majesty’s 90th birthday. The fact that these pictures are being published also poses a much wider problem that needs to be tackled. It is obvious that these type of pictures make huge amounts of money for the person who takes the photograph, so some are going to extreme measures to attempt to get the money-shot using extremely disturbing tactics.

You might remember a few months ago when it was revealed that certain photographers have been using techniques including having ‘decoy children’ lure Prince George into the camera lens. The press also hid outside of playgrounds and followed palace staff around in order to get snaps of Prince George.

How stupid and dangerous!

It doesn’t matter whether the children are in their back garden, or out playing in a public park, when will people realise taking pictures of children without the parents’ consent is wrong?

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have recently expressed their gratitude to the British press for not publishing unauthorised pictures of their children. With the pictures published in recent weeks however, one feels the mood at Kensington Palace is changing.

The more unauthorised pictures are published, the more hidden George and Charlotte will become. This will mean there will be less official photographs of the children, and the relationship between the press and the royals will get even worse.

There will be people who disagree with me, arguing that if somebody is in a public place they should expect to be photographed, but is that really true? Maybe so for well known celebrities, but the Royal Family are not celebrities, particularly not the children.

I am interested to see what the reaction will be to these pictures being published in the UK. One is for certain though. It is stalker-type behaviour, it is voyeurism and it is plain wrong!

Let us know your thoughts; comment below and voice your opinion!

  • Kathleen Ames

    I think it is a lot of fuss over nothing. The Duke and Duchess seem to want to become recluse while at the same time wanting the pomp and privilege of a royal lifestyle. The Duke only comes out for football matches. Paparazzi wouldn’t be following them if they led a more normal life and allowed us to see the children other than by Duchess Catherine’s fair hand.

    • Allane

      Do you not remember the Paparazzi hounding Princess Diana to the point of her death? Why can’t the Duke and Duchess be a little reclusive, they are a young married couple who would like some privacy at times, their whole live should not be under a microscope 24/7! You tell me how they are to “led a more normal life” when they are the future King & Queen, hence the need to be reclusive. The Paparazzi should be thrilled that the Duchess is such a fine photographer and she is willing to share some of her private pictures of her husband and children with the rest of the world.

    • Connie

      how many people who lead “more normal” lives allow people to see their children in any other way than by a parent’s hand? Your comment doesn’t even make sense.

      • Kathleen Ames

        We are not asking to see them other than by their parents’ hands. The parents are worse because they hide away as well!

        • Renny

          And we do see them, thanks to their parents. But you just said you want more. I would like to see how you react when you and your children are constantly followed and pictures of you are published for profit without your knowledge. There is no excuse for it. It is simply not right. As a parent, the instinct to protect your loved ones is natural. Those who demand more and condemn the parents for their protection are just thinking of themselves.

    • Carole Jackman

      By the very position they are in, it doesn’t allow them to live a ‘normal’ life…… There are a lot of nutters out there……….Even certain celebrities have there own security! Would you want someone following your families every move just because of the position they were born in!

      • Kathleen Ames

        We know they cannot lead what you and I would call a normal life and that is not what the public or the paparazzi wants them to do. But to hide away as these two do, only encourages illicit photography.

        • Renny

          Wrong again! If you look at the paparazzi photos taken of the children, they are almost always in London. In fact, they are photographed and sold to foreign magazines every single time they visit the capital.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Oh you mean like the ones taken at the weekend of them at the horse show (?) in Norfolk?

  • Kathleen Ames

    Yes I remember it very well thanks and precisely where did it get her? Not the topic in question but Diana courted the paparazzi then claimed they hounded her. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge should be out there learning their future role not hiding away in the countryside. No other Monarch has done so and have come to no harm. William will not have the long apprenticeship his father has had. He needs to be taking part in Royal life and learning his duties not playing ‘happy families’ month in month out coming out only for football matches. How many young fathers do you know who can chose to work forty hours per fortnight (when he turns up that is) and stays at home playing dad the rest of the time? The sooner they both take some responsibility for the role and the very well paid lifestyle they enjoy, the better.

    • Renny

      This sounds exactly like the insensitive excuse the article mentioned. If paparazzi, photographers and gawking fans left the children alone, perhaps it’d be easier for William and Kate to spend more time in London. But no, it’s the mentality like this that and wanting more, more and more from the children that has ultimately made Diana’s life a misery up to her death. William knows better than to let it happen. And by the way, he does so much more than attend football matches!

      • Kathleen Ames

        Have you checked his /royal duties yet. I think you are in for a surprise!

        • Renny

          Yes, I am fully aware of his royal duties, as a matter of fact. And he does his share of charitable work, investitures, and many more other than football matches. And he flies air ambulances, too. Your bitterness is sad. And obviously none here finds you credible.

          • Kathleen Ames

            It isn’t bitterness it is sadness that he is so unwilling to take his responsibilities. I am No.1 Royalist As to other peoples’ view of his workload or as it is known ‘workshy’, you obviously did not hear his interview in which he claimed ‘he was concentrating on being a parent’ nor have you read any newspapers lately!

    • Connie

      Perhaps you should learn about flying hours and duty hours.

      • Kathleen Ames

        I know exactly what his working (whether flying or on the ground) hours should be, forty per fortnight. He rarely if ever, completes that number of hours.

        • Renny

          And I am sure you have inside info from EAAA! You and your bitterness amuses me.

          • Kathleen Ames

            You obviously don’t know how easy it is to look at the daily engagements of each member of the Royal Family. Four engagements in four months. You call that work!

          • Maryl

            Prince William is the president of the Football Association–it would be very odd indeed if he didn’t go to football games.
            In the approximately two months since his return from the visit to India and Bhutan, he has been to Royal Ascot, the US Embassy, two garden parties (one at Buckingham Palace and one in Northern Ireland), the Order of the Garter ceremony, Patron’s Lunch, Trooping the Colours, HM’s 90th Birthday Thanksgiving Service, Chelsea Flower Show, two Heads Together Mental Health Initiative events, and dinner with the Obamas. He also did the photo shoot and interview with Attitude magazine, which has recently been published.
            He is taking on initiatives that require deeper preparation and understanding than opening post offices or the like. Getting involved in mental health issues is hardly something that can be measured by the number of engagements. I suspect that his appearance and words in Attitude magazine, widely quoted already, will have far more impact than 100 plaque unveilings (and I’m not diminishing the work of other royals here, just adding some perspective).
            As for how long an apprenticeship William will have, Charles is likely to live another 20 to 30 years, so William has plenty of time. In any case, he’s already had far more time to prepare than the Queen had, and that seems to have worked out just fine.

          • Kathleen Ames

            The Queen when Princess Elizabeth took part in ‘duties’ from 1936 – 1952, from the age of 10. As did Prince Charles when only a little older, Unlike William. Convenient you must agree that they made him President of the FA so that he could claim every football visit as a Royal Duty, and the increase in his number of engagements since the criticism of his being workshy is significantly obvious. Almost all you mention, such as their first ever garden party, Trooping the Colour, Patrons’ Lunch, Thanksgiving Service, meeting with Obama, etc., are all additional events relating to HM’s Birthday celebrations where all the family are involved and where HM has obviously drawn him in. We shall see whether or not the number continues. Amazing also that although he can’t leave his duties to carry out Royal duties per se, once again he can leave his ‘parenting’ to fly to France attend yet another football match. You are being truly naïve or stupid to think that William will spend more than minimal time meditating and studying mental health issues. All the research will be done for him and presented to him as will the speech he presents at whatever event he attends on it’s behalf. I hope that it is a subject in which he is truly interested.

          • Maryl

            While it’s true that Elizabeth often accompanied her parents, she was after all next in line. As was Prince Charles from the age of four. William is not the first in line, but he did often accompany his mother and his father on engagements. There are many photos of both him and Harry with their parents at various events. Diana famously introduced William to issues around homelessness when he was quite young.
            As for being president of the FA, so what? All the royals are involved in sport patronages to varying degrees, William no more than most. If William wasn’t involved with the FA, another one of them would be.
            You claim that his engagements have increased since the criticism of him as workshy. Then you say the increase is due to the additional events related to HM’s birthday. Well, which is it?
            The garden party was one of a series held every summer, not related to HM’s birthday. Nor was the meeting with Obama or the visit to Northern Ireland. Anyways, attending birthday-related public events is still very much part of the royal calendar. I’m sure you would have been up in arms if William had skipped any birthday-related events.
            If you think that taking on a patronage means just reading speeches by rote without being fully briefed (which includes asking questions and gaining some understanding), then I’m afraid it is you who is naïve. Much preparation goes into briefing royals (and other public figures) for patronage duties, especially on difficult issues like mental health. At times my job has included preparing such briefings, and I have also met royals when they have visited organizations I was involved with (as a lowly volunteer, let me add). While some of the chitchat is banal, they also ask quite informed questions, indicating that they know the work of the organization very well.
            I follow the royals because I enjoy it. It is rather curious that you seem to devote so much time to analyzing their activities when it seems to cause you such distress.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Sorry to disillusion you but both his attendance at the Garden Party where he spent two hours (and was then taken to Norfolk by helicopter) and the meeting with Obama were directly related to HM’s birthday. As to which option about his sudden attendance, the answer is both. Obama was here on a farewell timed to coincide with HM’s birthday. As for the FA you are right but we are not talking about other family members. He has continually refused royal dutieis but CAN attend football whenever and wherever. Yes, Diana famously, took William to her AIDS house on one occasion, amid a blaze of publicity for herself. We are talking about his duties now, as an adult. I suggest you look at his record for last year and, for the first four months of this year before the famous interview where he was accused of being workshy and where he said in his own words “I am concentrating on being a parent.” Other working dads should be so lucky!

          • Maryl

            Obama was in the UK to discuss the EU referendum with Cameron, as part of his farewell tour. Of course while he was in London he met the Queen, but his meeting with William, Kate and Harry was not a birthday event. Out of the thirteen or so events I mentioned, only three were directly related to birthday celebrations. Anyways, would you have preferred that he skip HM’s birthday celebrations? You’re determined to criticize him whether he attends events or not.
            “We are not talking about other family members”, you say, but you have been comparing him to other family members. Go back and read your own posts.
            Name the duties he has refused with credible sources, please (not the Daily Mail or its ilk).
            Diana and Charles both took their sons to a number of engagements — google for photos. Far more than one visit to an AIDS organization. And I could say to you, “We are not discussing Diana’s need for publicity” — but that would be silly.
            I have no problem with a reasoned argument for the abolition of the monarchy or for why they may or may not be good value-for-money, but this Daily Mail-style ‘outrage’ that is taking over the internet is beyond tiresome.

          • Kathleen Ames

            You could not be further from the truth if you think I am in favour of abolition of the Monarchy!!! I have grown up with HM the Queen and the Royal family and I remain her No.1 fan. That is exactly why I am so critical of William and Catherine because they are so lazy. The meeting with the Obama w’s a ‘private engagement’ so they could see George with the rocking horse and in his White House dressing gown! You are entitled to your opinion as am I but their record is abysmal. Check your facts.

        • Victoria

          Here’s the thing most people don’t understand about flying, in specific regard to Search and Rescue…you are accountable to aviation safety regulations that limit your flight hours and performance. If I fly 2 missions in an eight hour period, I am legacy required to become second on the duty roster. Meaning, I can only fly if first pilot is already in the air or timed out. When I’m on TO, I have to do paperwork training or other things.

          But, here’s what really matters- your comments come off as jealousy or unwarranted criticism. There are several senior royalist who, for now, are able and want to cover obligations. Maybe, just maybe there is an understanding within the family (as has been stated) and there are issues we don’t know about? Maybe the royal family finally figured out that pawning kids off to a nanny isn’t the best way to raise a child. William didn’t ask to be heir to throne. He was born into it. His life has been public tabloid fodder from his first breath. At this point, he’s third in line to the throne. He’s not the King. He’s not even the Prince of Wales. He isn’t even the first in his generation to lead a less formal lifestyle. Even his uncle, Edward, chose to dedicate more of his energy to his children when they were toddlers. I just think you’re being obtuse about his motivations or his responsibilities.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Well you are as entitled to your opinion as am I. They thing is that William may ‘only’ be third in line but bear in mind that he will not have the long apprenticeship that his father has had. In fact Prince Charles’ term as King, if HM lives as long as her mother, could be very short indeed, or even God forbid, non existent. William should, therefore be taking hold of his duties by at lest meeting and greeting the public if nothing else. Secondly, I don’t know whether or not you have children and a partner and I don’t need to know, but I would ask whether your husband/partner w’s able to work forty hours per fortnight and whether he was able to stay at home three/five days per week to be with his children? I doubt it very much. Last year William and Catherine carried out 147 duties. With one or two exceptions these involved going to the cinema, theatre, and sporting events. “Concentrating on being a parent”, William’s own words, is not as far as I am aware a profession.

        • Connie

          You appear to know nothing about flying hours actually.

  • Renny

    I applaud Royal Central for doing the right thing. Other websites and and newspapers are clearly doing it for profit with little regard to the royals. Many should follow your lead. The children are not a commodity. No child is whether they are royal or not.

  • Kathleen Ames

    Oh really? Have you actually looked at his ‘Royal engagements’ this year and last? His 94 year old grandfather could buy and sell him in terms of duties undertaken.

    • Renny

      He is second in line to the throne and makes a worthy public service outside of royal life. Last time I checked Prince Philip wasn’t flying air ambulances or raising a young family.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Are you having a laugh? His grandfather is almost 95 (this week) and has given 64 years of service to this country. AND he still carries out more engagements that his grandson!!

        • Renny

          His grandfather is consort to our current monarch. And unless you have been hiding under a bush (or listening selectively as it appears), it has been reported time and again that HM and the Duke of Edinburgh refuse to slow down. If you don’t believe William, Harry has said it too. They also both said they’ll be the first to take on the jobs if and when the older ones are ready to hand them down.

          • Kathleen Ames

            I know exactly who the Duke is thank you and it is probably because they know precisely how workshy William is while ‘concentrating on being a parent’ – his own words – that they don’t force more on him.

        • Victoria Wilder

          Right. But, Prince Phillip pointedly sent his children away as young as possible to schools that were guaranteed to produce adults with emotional issues. I can’t understand how people even dare suggest that William, with a horde of other living, senior royalist, and a real job, put cutting a ribbon ahead of helping to raise the future monarch in a loving, accountable manner.

          • Kathleen Ames

            A) Different times. The aristocracy have always sent their children to boarding school. B) Watch this space when George is between 7-9 years!

          • Kathleen Ames

            I wonder if you have a husband/partner and children? How many hours does your partner work? William and Catherine attended their first ever garden party last week in the face of much criticism of being workshy. Two hours I believe. They were taken home to Norfolk by helicopter at a cost of £5000 because a rail or road journey would be too tiring!

    • Carole Jackman

      That has nothing to do with taking & publishing photos of young children when they are having private family time! Please remember William also has a job as an Air ambulance pilot no matter how many hours in a week he does….. No one has a go at Tim Lawrence.

      • Kathleen Ames

        Why are you talking about? Tim Lawrence is not in line to the Throne so he has no Royal Duties to learn before he becomes King. Does or did your husband have the opportunity to stay at home with your children five days a week? I doubt it very much!

        • Victoria Wilder

          William is staying home five days a week? You sure about that? But, here’s the thing, I work Search and Rescue. Due to the stress, location, and other seasonal considerations, there ARE weeks when I get to be home all week. Then, there are weeks when I’m gone all week. Or, 48 hours straight with five days off. That doesn’t mean the work is less strenuous.

          • Kathleen Ames

            Please be assured that no one is doubting the normal stresses and strains of the job in question. What is being said is that William is not pulling his weight. I have no idea of your duties nor do I need to, but his are forty per two weeks. He rarely completes that number. One of his colleagues is alleged (OK alleged) to have said ‘when he turns up’. Even if he does do forty per two weeks, it hardly compares to anyone else in full time employment and by his own admission, he is ‘concentrating on being a parent’ and his Royal duties are almost non-existent unless they involve sport.

  • Barbara

    On point. There is no excuse for the kind of practices some vile paparazzi often use to photograph a child. Shame on them. I respect William and Kate and their wishes just as I respect any other parent.

More in Opinion and Reviews

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 30,033 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2017 Royal Central, all rights reserved.