Whinging Windsor

There’s a Royal Temper Tantrum in the news and of course, it’s not being thrown by the fourteen month-old prince, but rather the thirty-two year-old Prince William because a freelance photographer tried to take pictures of Prince George while out with his nanny at Battersea Park.

Kensington Palace released a statement that “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.  An incident last week has prompted Their Royal Highnesses to seek reasonable assurances from the individual about his behaviour.  The individual was spotted at a central London Park in the vicinity of Prince George, who was removed from the Park immediately.  There is reason to suspect that the individual may have been placing Prince George under surveillance and monitoring his daily routines for a period of time.”

The language of the statement suggests that Prince William’s legal team could be using the UK’s Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which was primarily passed to protect stalking victims as a means of stopping the photographer (and undoubtedly others if the tactic works) from snapping pictures of Prince George.  There are no laws that prevent photos of the Royal Family from being taken during their downtime, rather there is a gentleman’s agreement in place with the press.  Newspapers and magazines in the UK agree not to publish photos taken of the Royal Family on their downtime and in exchange, the Buckingham Palace Press Office leaks information so the outlets can still sell magazines and newspapers.  Now that there’s an international market for these photos, the Royal Family must come up with a new way of controlling the media.  By likening the taking of these photos to harassment, they might be using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which has been criticized for its vague wording to obtain a level of privacy that would not be otherwise afforded to them.  Under the act, harassment is defined as “behaviour which causes alarm or distress”.

One of the potential two photographers being singled out is Niraj Tanna who, according to his lawyer, “categorically denies and strongly objects to groundless allegations”.  This isn’t the first time the Royal Family has threatened Tanna with legal action.  He was accused of violating Kate Middleton’s privacy by taking a picture of her playing tennis from a public footpath when she was still a “private individual”.  Tanna insists that as a press photographer, he was within his rights photographing Prince George in a public park and any legal action will be “vigorously contested”.

Personally, I really don’t get why people really want photos of Prince George, he’s fourteen months-old, it’s not like he’s got a treasure map to the God Particle on his nappies, but he’s a future king and most people can’t get enough of tiny humans.  He was also born a public figure whose appearances in public have been limited by reclusive parents.

Prince William has always resented the press, from the time he was a child.  Unfortunately, with Prince William’s and Kate’s popularity waning, this reaction from the Petulant Prince is a bad PR move even if calculated to retroactively explain why the Cambridges will be retreating to Anmer Hall for the sake of privacy once the renovations there are complete.  Of course daily photos of Prince George out with his nanny would also have adverse effects on their public image given that parenting responsibilities are used as an excuse as to why Kate can’t do more official engagements.

Once again, Prince William seems to want things “his way” and will huff and puff through his legal team to live a private life as a public figure, all of the privilege and none of the inconveniences.  Ultimately, those cameras are going to be there for all of Prince George’s life, whether or not they should be.  Even if photographers can be dissuaded with claims of harassment, there aren’t enough lawyers in the world to go after each and every individual with a camera phone.  Instead of teaching his son legal intimidation tactics that serve to further alienate the public, maybe Prince William should be focused on helping his son and himself to come to terms with the realities of being a public figure.

The issue of privacy for a baby future king is an interesting topic, I’d love to hear your comments!

redheartsignature copy

54 thoughts on “Whinging Windsor”

  1. Thanks Lola, I started the comments on the previous thread.

    1. William is a vexatious litigant-in-the-making, this has been brought for an improper purpose;

    2. George’s presumed privacy is a ruse for something wider, extraneous and collateral (pampered, petulant upstart William uses his baby son for his own gain);

    3. Anyone who sucks from the public teat, from cradle to grave no less, particularly one who hasn’t earned the position and which is ultimately is at the discretion of the populace, doesn’t have the same presumed right to privacy as others;

    4. The baby has special protection police to prevent harassment and stalking, as claimed, so this claim as allegedly defined, is utterly devoid of merit, bound to fail, IMO; and

    5. Not sure about in the UK, but Prince George is of public interest, though he is not deprived of private parks and gardens; the view may be that by taking him to a public park, the royals are encouraging interest, like entrapment. They do have a choice.

    I suspect this will settle.

    1. Maybe if by some chance this legal attempt does work, Prince George will get to spend a lot more time with his parents, they’ll bring him along everywhere to take advantage of the privacy blanket. “So sorry, Commoners, I’ve got the kid, your cameras are useless here.”

      As someone who has been harassed and stalked, the wording of the allegations feels offensively opportunistic. They know what the photographers want: photos. When you have a stalker, you have no idea what kind of harm they intend, nor do you have hand-selected protection officers.

  2. Lola, sorry, thanks for the legal citation. It would be interesting to see how the law is interpreted by the courts in the UK.

  3. I’ve been blowing this horn for several years now, but it bears do so again: William is a man-child. And a man-child who is dead set in getting what he wants.
    He has always disliked the press and it only got worse due to the manner of Diana’s sad passing. And the coddling he received that came after the fact.

    But I find this to be a little too much, even for him. Perhaps the intent is to hide that for all purposes him and Kate are already living separate lives and he doesn’t want people to know. After all, he gets good press playing the ‘loving husband and father’. I find it funny that Harry gets roasted alive in the press and the man just keeps his head high and keeps walking without complaining (and owning up to his mistakes) and yet, we got “the good one” bitching about just everything. Funny or sad, you decide.

    1. I’m gonna go with “not funny” on this one.

      Prince Harry makes his mistakes but I think how he handles them is partially why people find him endearing. I know there are disadvantages to being “the good one”, but I think part of Prince William’s issue is that he has lost touch with his own humanity despite all his claims he just wants to be a normal person. The problem isn’t how others treat him, it’s how he perceives himself. Even if Prince William got a giant pile of normal delivered, his instinct wouldn’t be to dive in, it would be to have one of the servants inventory it, write a suitable thank you note and put it in Palace Storage.

      I’ve heard a lot of speculation lately that Prince William and Kate are living separate lives. I think it’s just the nature of their relationship. They strike me more as friends than partners. I suspect Kate spends a lot more time at her Mum’s than people realize, not because of any recent marital trouble but because of how it worked out with Prince William’s relationship claustrophobia, they spend intervals apart so he doesn’t feel “suffocated”.

      1. You’re right in that it is not funny.

        I think William has a distorted view of normal, he was raised with many privileges that he doesn’t really understand what a normal person goes through. I agree that I can respect Harry in the way he acts when he messes up; his interview after the Vegas Naked scandal, he is aware that he let people down and he felt regret on it. William wouldn’t say that, heck, I don’t think William is would be so self aware to see what a mistake that would be. And I’m sure he’s still not self aware enough to understand that people are just not going to put up with this kind of stuff for very long.

        I mentioned in “The Ups and Downs of a Royal Fairy Tale” that William felt suffocated shortly after the relationship was made public. And there is that he has a rowing eye and that he really wanted Isabella C (she dodged a bullet there, smart woman). So it wouldn’t surprise me if Kate spent more time at home with mummy than with William. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

      2. I agree that they probably live separate lives; they always have. Even while they were living together before marriage, and once they got married, in Wales, Kate was frequently at her mom’s or in London shopping. William goes off on his boys weekends. I think that’s just the nature of their relationship. They come together when they need to or when he wants her, but they also spend a good chunk away from each other. And maybe that’s a good thing. Some people just don’t get along with others for a long period of time and need lots of alone time.

        And that’s okay. If that’s their relationship, and that’s what works for them, then they can have it. Every relationship is different. The problem comes when their PR people push a fairytale romance and how they are so in love and meant for each other. Just be honest and no one will care.

        1. One of the problems is the vastly increased security costs, foisted off on the taxpayers. Every day she’s at her parents it is estimated at 10,000 pounds or so. If they want to be apart, she can be at KP and he can be at Anmer, but take the Middleton’s private residence off the list of places the taxpayers pay to secure (even though the costs are hidden from the taxpayers).

          If she needs to be with mummy 6 days a week, William has to pay for the security since Carole is not allowed to live in either KP or Anmer (RepublicNow would have a field day).

          The same problematic thing happens with Camilla’s home, but at least it is publicly-acknowledged that she spends a lot of time there and they can track the security costs.

          1. One of the things that bothers me about Prince William and Kate is that they never seem to factor in security costs which are concealed from the taxpayers footing the bill. Securing the house in Anglesey cost taxpayers around $2.5 million a year because the couple decided they wanted to live off-base. Securing Anmer Hall will cost an additional $2.5 million a year because they feel trapped inside their lavish newly renovated apartments at Kensington Palace. Anytime Kate spends time with her parents, it’s costly as you indicated. The Royal Family has a blank check when it comes to security, I think if the couple were forced to pay for their security or at least stay within a budget, they’d care more about the costs associated with their decisions. Imagine how many people could be helped with just the $2.5 million a year securing Anmer Hall is going to run, money they don’t even think twice about spending.

  4. There is certainly more going on here. When it comes to litigation, there usually is. You have presented a new idea, there are so many scenarios.

    Interesting though that the Act provides for damages. It’s very different to Australia, though some provisions and the structure are similar (hybrid of criminal and civil within the one Act).

    At first instance, I find it audacious that William is using an Act meant for the general public, who don’t have a retinue of publicly- funded, specially trained police officers for their protection 24/7. It’s an abuse of power, whatever way this is spun. In other words, William and Kate are using the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. This will backfire on him. He’s fast losing the goodwill that he never deserved in the first place.

  5. I agree Lola.

    Where I live, these types of complaints/actions are notoriously difficult to defend, leading to all types of abuse. Based on the commentary I’ve read about the equivalent UK law, it seems that the same holds true there. William is a snotty, power mad brat for doing this. As I said above, it is not within the intention of the law, though holding to the letter of it. We won’t know of course, because it will settle. Tanna is already being passive-aggressive with his response. He’s no doubt been advised of the difficulty in defending it.

  6. I don’t know for sure Prince William’s lawyers are using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it’s just a hunch based on the language that was used in the statements.

    Part of the issue I take with all of this is how Prince William uses his position and privilege to legally intimidate. I’m pretty sure Tanna said he settled with the Middletons with the tennis photos because the legal costs would have bankrupted him. It was said Prince William was out for blood on that one, he didn’t want to just go after the picture agency, he wanted the photographer to pay, too. Kate was seemingly so unbothered by the whole thing she wished Tanna a Merry Christmas but Prince William was so enraged by the whole thing he wanted to send a message.

  7. I’m guessing you are right Lola because this type of legislation is very different. I recognise its overarching purpose. For eg, usually in UK or Aus law the victim will not have to mitigate his or her circumstances. That is an anomaly in the law. So, in George’s case, it would be difficult to defend on the grounds that he has RPOs; that he could play on the grounds of the many private estates his family own and that there is a public interest in Prince George. Those types of arguments will be null and void in this legislation, so far as I can tell.

    Tanna, no doubt acting on legal advice, seems to be defending it on grounds that he hasn’t committed any offence or civil violation (rather than on grounds that genuine steps could have been taken to avoid the situation). That’s just my take.

    I loathe bullies. But I actually despise bullies who use power and wealth in litigation to intimidate even more. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute. The rule of law speaks to me.

    Continents like the UK and Australia are not meant to be litigious as in the US. However, with laws like this one and equivalents, things are rapidly changing.

    I doubt Kate was not bothered re the infamous tennis photos. It’s just that she was worried her upcoming engagement would have been axed had the truth been revealed. Courts expose uncomfortable truths, there is nowhere to hide when you sue.

  8. My initial stance was stalking a minor, even a royal one, even in public, is not okay and they had a right to complain. But that was before I knew Tanna was the photographer in question. Given how much history he has with the Midds, it is clear William is using Tanna to send a message to others to not take photos of George or else suffer William’s legal wrath. I’m now questioning the validity of KP’s claims of stalking. Seeing as it was Tanna, and seeing as they’ve used him as a scapegoat before, I doubt the stalking claims are anywhere near the severity that KP claimed. I still stand by my stance of stalking a minor is not okay, but that’s only if the minor is really being stalked. I doubt it in this case seeing as this legal action is not about protecting George and all about sending a message to the press.

    1. Indeed, that’s the point: we don’t know that the child was stalked or harassed. Tanna denies the allegations and in fact will defend them. All allegations look convincing when they are unchallenged.

      This gets down to whether or not he stalked and harassed Prince George, as defined by the Act (assuming that will be the mechanism to launch the suit) or whatever law is invoked. That said, I stand by my initial post.

      Given the protection and vast expanse of gardens the baby has and his unearned exalted position in life, he cannot be compared to an ordinary child. An ordinary child could be at risk because they don’t have the protection of specially trained and empowered police, nor do they necessarily have access to a private backyard.

      Such Acts were not designed for royals to bully in litigation those who support their unearned lifestyle and who are just trying to earn a living. Ordinary people put up with far worse in life. And I detest the correlation in the press release between the action of these two over-privileged brats and ordinary parents.

    2. Tanna being the photographer is what makes it so intriguing. Honestly, I feel like there shouldn’t have to be legal action on this because there shouldn’t be a market for photos of a small child in the first place but right or wrong, there’s a far more interesting story beneath the surface. I’ve always suspected Carole was the one tipping Tanna off about Kate, not realizing at the time the depths of her future son-in-laws animosity towards him, that’s why Kate initially balked at suing him over the tennis photos until Prince William went blood-thirsty. It was rumored that Kate actually tried to stand up to Prince William over Tanna, begging him to let the whole thing drop, but Prince William wouldn’t listen and it wound up putting a strain on the relationship at the time. My theory is that Carole begged Tanna to take the fall, keep her name out of it, she’d cover his settlement and legal costs on the DL and make it worth his while with future tip offs. Tanna has been a thorn in the side of both Prince William and Prince Harry since 2006 when Tanna snapped Prince Harry with a woman who wasn’t his girlfriend, Chelsy, partying at Boujis. Since then, the princes have made it known to Tanna that they absolutely loathe him, in fact, Tanna suspects he was “set-up” with the tennis tip-off so Prince William could exact some legal revenge, attempting to shut Tanna down as a royal photographer and bankrupt him with legal fees. I think Tanna’s had enough, in fact, I’m wondering if he’s intentionally trying to provoke Prince William to challenge the restrictions the Royal Family place on the media. These pictures are of a toddler. Prince George is cute, but these are not the kind of photos that bring in big money. Unless Tanna’s been hired by an outlet looking to do an expose on Kate not being the hands-on mother the PR office portrays her as, taking these kinds of photos of Prince George don’t make a lot of sense. After all, in the latest British Royal Family Popularity poll where Prince Harry ranked #1, Prince George fell at the bottom under “Other”. Something’s going on here, it’s not just about the photos, this slap fight of lawyer statements might just be Prince William and Niraj Tanna’s version of a duel. I do know that Niraj Tanna has held onto a lot of photos over the years he could have sold for much more than Prince George toddler photos, the other possibility is he views himself as a kind of lone cowboy documenting the real royal family and will at some point publish a coffee table book revealing all in one fell swoop,

      1. I don’t condone any stalking or harassment of any child, including Prince George. However, I don’t support the notion that he is an ordinary child and there ought not be any market for his photos. He’s not, of course. By virtue of his birth, he is in an exalted public position, the highest in the land, one which is unearned. He will live in unbridled luxury for life, subsidised by those who have no say. No other child has a chance at being Head of State in the UK or associated Cth countries with British Monarch as HoS. That is WRONG – ethically and morally. So, any argument that it is ethically or morally wrong for PG to not be photographed is hypocritical. It can’t be a different set of rules for the royals to take it all.

        By virtue, there is public interest in his photos. Under the law of the UK, I think this doesn’t matter. But I won’t subscribe to moral arguments about whether or not there is a market for PG’s photos. Everything in life comes with a price tag and this is the price royals pay for living in earned luxury, courtesy of hard working people. And it just adds to credence to the argument that royalty has no place in the 21st C. It would be better for democracy – and royal babies – if the British monarchy were abolished.

    3. a) The perfect solution, which would be glorious, would be for ALL photographers and ALL magazines to simply STOP taking photos of the Cambridges and also their child(ren). STOP completely. That way William could be ‘normal’ and the public wouldn’t have to look at photos of skinny Kate anymore either. George too would then have a placidly private childhood.
      If William gets more privacy as the result of his court injunctions, this may be an anticipated outcome. Also, the press could choose en masse to take photos of OTHER royals and hype them MORE & just ignore the Cambridges.
      b) Oh wait, If William stepped down from any future King role it would also solve this too. Either way there would be less of this Cambridge family to contend with. Win-win !
      c) Step up Prince Harry’s and Princess Eugenie’s and Princess
      Beatrice’s public royal roles & involvement as well. That would also be a solution right at hand. They seem more skilled as Royals with handling the press in general.

  9. For someone who wants his privacy William sure goes about it the wrong way.

    Lots of comments offering lots of viewpoints, most of them valid to me. The main being that William is a whiny, spoiled brat who wants things his way or else. And that includes his marriage and family. When he wants to go off with friends to hunt or party he’s going, Kate can stay home with the child/children. Or go to mom and dad’s or whatever as long as it doesn’t interfere with his life.

    Why wouldn’t he want to cover that up? He’s in the center of a kind of fairy tale and that fairy tale is becoming more like a horror story with him as the ugly psychopath trying to control everything and every one.

    I don’t begrudge Kate being close to her family. My concern is what is she going to do with the parents aren’t there? Assuming she lives a normal, healthy life, her parents will predecease her. Who will she run to then? Pippa? James? Or just hunker down in a corner of Anmer keep to herself? I truly hope she has some close friends, but those sightings are extremely rare. I think her close friends are Williams close friends and if they split who do you think they are going to side with?

    Can you imagine what it would be like if as king William had any actual power over things? For one thing, Kate would be gone. He would drop her so fast it wouldn’t be funny. And any photographer who dared to take a photo that wasn’t sanctioned by him would be in the Tower. (I know it’s not used for that any more, but the image of it is enticing…lol)

    This whole episode is painting William in a very ugly light. I think Kate might be upset because the photos are showing George with the nanny more than with her, but that’s what happens when you start to really use your nanny. You don’t hire super nanny, just to have her change a diaper on occasion. I think she may be hunkering down trying to save her sanity and just goes along with whatever he says. Which just makes me crazy, but that’s a whole other story.

    In the end, reality is William was born into the public eye as a prince and future king. Kate inserted herself into the public eye by pursuing him relentlessly. His parents seemed pretty smart in letting the press in on occasion to see how the boys were growing and it making the keep away from them while their are at school deal. They should do the same with George, however I don’t know if they can act as well as his parents did when on camera at this point. (I wonder if there is more than just an affection and partnership between them now. I think the truly, madly in love deal went out the window with the alleged first baby and subsequent break up.) Keep George home if you don’t want his picture taken. But realize that there is a world out there that is interested and you don’t get to play keep away just because you want things your way.

    On a final note, I seem to remember William emphatically stating that there wouldn’t be any other children any time soon at an event when he was questioned. I wonder if this pregnancy sent him over the edge.

  10. Personally I don’t think that T has been stalking G. I think T knows where G is because he has been tipped off by _________. Who could it be and why would that person(s) be doing such a thing?
    It has been written on numerous sites that he consistently gets the best pics of WK for the past seven years or so. IMO that kind of luck happens now and then but not day after day.
    So if a photog knows where to find his subject because someone close to the subject has shared private information. Is that stalking? Technically, yes, according to American law as I understand it. BUT…

    I don’t feel sorry for W, K or G as they are public figures and there are so many private parks and residences they can use. The public pays for their lifestyle and has interest in them. W needs to get a job to focus his attention on being useful and productive. Drop the lawsuits and figure out how to deal with fame. Go live at Anmer and no one can bother you there.

    The photog needs to get a job to focus his attention on being useful and productive instead of acting a bit like a pervy peeping tom. That kind of behavior is not so far from stage moms pimping out their daughters. And whoever is tipping off T should be ashamed and prosecuted along with T because I wouldn’t be surprised if some cash has changed hands.

    1. I agree, smells like a tip off to me. Otherwise how did Niraj Tanna find them in all the parks in London? Especially as the photos in question were, reportedly, taken in Battersea Park and there are lots of parks between Battersea Park and KP.

      1. That’s a very good point, Cathy. Maybe Kate mentioned to her Mom that George was on his way to the children’s zoo there. Or maybe the call is coming from inside the house.

        1. I wonder which staff members would have such private information such as where/when PG would be during the day. My guess is that very few people at the house would have such information, just people who are directly involved with the outing (RPO, nanny, mommy and daddy?)

  11. i’ve spent some time reading the twitter discussion between he royal reporters on this development.

    Firstly, there is no support whatsoever for William’s latest tantrum. Some members of the public are chiming in with cries of ‘think of the children’ and the reporters are not backing down.

    the other thing they keep pointing out is that it’s not the taking of the pictures William apparently objects to per his submission, but harrassment and that is the charge.

    Considering they’ve refused to give Tanna a permit to take pictures in the royal parks – the only press photographer to be denied [or delayed] whilst other received their permits promptly, why then take baby to a public park? That’s tempting a starving child with food.

    Also, PGtips isn’t going to Battersea Park to play with other kids. He is merely having park time with his nanny. Any random people approaching them are rebuffed. Therefore, why not take him to Private Buckingham Palace gardens. Did you know that BP’s gardens are 40acres complete with a lake, tennis courts, pool, aviary with birds? 40acres of complete privacy.

    Kensington Gardens isn’t as big as BP, but it is just as huge.

    Their apartment has a private several acres walled back garden. They are the only ones able to access this garden, rest of KP’s residents have to make do with KP’s Kensington Gardens.

    Here are is a picture of their private gardens when it was owned by charity. it has some people in it to give scale of what they enjoy privately.


    i really think this lawsuit is about William fighting for the false image that is trotted out of a normal couple doing normal things. You can’t have nanny spotted frequently alone with baby, Kate shopping, William never around his family etc etc and so forth.

    Also, if it is harrassment, then what the hell are the 2 car loads of RPOs doing? If PGtips is in danger, why are they not removing the source of the danger or take him to location where he isn’t in danger.

    Poor William and Kate. They simply must withdraw from London after all this harrassment and feeling trapped in their palace.

    1. I’m glad journalists are not backing down. I suspect Prince William used this particular instance to pick a fight with the media because he thought he could garner chubby cheeked sympathy from the masses in his ongoing battle against the media. He’s gotten some but there are still plenty of seats left on the Royal Sympathy Bandwagon, it didn’t pick up quite as many passengers as they had hoped. Personally, I wish photographers wouldn’t take pictures of children (the paparazzi here in NYC are brutal to Suri Cruise) but I view this incident as Prince William trying to bulldoze his own agenda using Prince George to make his crusade look cuddlier.

      I think calling it “harassment” was a tactic devised by Prince William’s legal team. Tanna was within his legal rights to take those photos. Laws favor the media over a public figure’s right to privacy, so the legal teams probably decided their best bet was UK’s Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

      Additionally, there’s a bill SB 606 that’s been passed in California (I think it was effective as of January of this year) that protects children (really this legislation was about celebrity children but it was broadly worded) from paparazzi by increasing penalties for taking pictures or audio of a child without the consent of a parent or guardian and in a harassing manner. The way they got the bill around the First Amendment was by saying that it targets the photographers’ conduct as opposed to the act of taking a picture. Ultimately, I think it’s going to be declared unconstitutional but I suspect Prince William wants to take advantage of public sympathy on the matter as a tactic while he can, just like he did when it looked like Princess Caroline’s family’s right to privacy ruling from the European Court of Human Rights strengthened his own position against the press (eventually the court favored Freedom of Expression over Princess Caroline’s family’s right to privacy but it was said the reason Rex and Tanna settled was because of Princess Caroline’s legal victory at the time).

      Prince William has detested the media his entire life but when you think of all the concessions the media has made to date for the Royal Family, I don’t think it’s wise for Prince William to launch this attack. Eventually the media is going to hit back and it won’t be pretty.

      I always get excited when I get an alert that you commented, Herazeus, because often you include a fascinating bit of info. In this instance, I had no idea about Tanna’s permit problems. And so the plot thickens.

      1. Law in the US has absolutely no jurisdiction in the UK and is unlikely to influence any court judgment in the UK. The US is not a Commonwealth country. In particular, celebrity children are also irrelevant. Prince George has a public position by virtue of his birth. He is not a ‘celebrity’ child, so defined. He has taxpayer funded police officers. It’s a very different beast – legally speaking and factually, actually.

        OTOH, the ECHR judgments do matter.

        1. The California Bill matters in terms of collective global consciousness, it was a very high profile highly televised piece of legislation, Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner giving impassioned speeches about the rights of children, voices cracking as they talked about fear, so moving I think if they asked that the waterboarding of paparazzi be permitted, the bill still would have sailed through. Prince William very much pays attention to this kind of thing and he’ll use any turned tide to power his own sailboat, wouldn’t matter if it were a privacy case settled on Mars, he’d still try to find a way to make it relevant to his own agenda.

          1. With respect, Prince William can try to do whatever he wants, but he cannot insert or impute US law into UK law, let alone laws that are yet to pass. Nor can he make it relevant when its relevance is about zero. Judges don’t tend to allow anyone to put hysterics into their courts in Aus; I would assume the same holds true in the UK, since our law derives from the UK common law and the hangover of British rule.

            What occurs in the US has very little, if no relevance, just as US law doesn’t get much attention in Australia. Even now though, UK law is not getting as much credence in our top court these days, which is an interesting turn of events …

            And again, as a matter of law, Prince George is not a celebrity baby. The children of celebrities are not in the public interest. Prince George is. He is the future King over the UK and other realms. It’s the highest of public office. See where I’m going with this? However, that said, no person, baby or not, has to contend with harassment and stalking as defined by relevant law. But again, Tanna has denied such allegations.

            I agree with you 100% in terms of emotive, moral arguments and that type of thing. Unfortunately or not, depending upon one’s view, it won’t be allowed to enter into a UK judge’s judicial reasons. The judge will decide on the fact and law, which as you cited, appears to be quite robust.

            Prince William pays attention to what happens in the ECHR (ie Princess Caroline’s case) because he can appeal to that court. He cannot appeal to a US court.

            1. US law doesn’t effect UK law, I’m not disputing that, the parallel I was trying to draw perhaps unsuccessfully, of it being a similar instance in Prince William wanting the benefits of a few to outweigh the interests of the many and how I think Prince William watches privacy cases around the world to see what tactics might work for him. Prince William isn’t objecting to the pictures themselves, he’s objecting to the “harassment” which was what the California bill did, the California bill skirted the Freedom of Press issue not by making the pictures themselves illegal but the behavior of the photographers. That bill passed because it was a well orchestrated play on emotions which Prince William seems to be attempting. I saw an anonymous post on Tumblr last night that reeked of the Buckingham Palace Press Office trying to portray Tanna as a Royal Stalker, attacking his behavior, not his right to take the pictures. Hopefully I’m being clearer. So in a nutshell, yes you’re right, US laws have no influence over UK law, but based on what I’ve heard about Prince William, I can see where he is probably looking towards other cases around the world to see what tactics have worked elsewhere as part of his personal lifelong anti-media crusade. I think he will try whatever he can, doesn’t mean it will work.

  12. Good point about the rpos. I don’t think pg was in any physical danger. But what bothers me is who is giving the info to T? I have heard that T played a major role in reuniting WK and horsey. So the midds got their golden goose and T benefited as well, so I’ve read.
    So for a group of people who have a history of scamming most everyone around them, including loved ones, parents using children for material gain or status or power, the possibility of this behavior continuing to the next generation is quite likely, IMO.
    I think the truth will come out.

  13. Is this all just a red herring so we all look the other way and don’t notice that Kate isn’t pregnant? Or doing any work with her charities? “Sorry folks but PGTips is getting harassed so Kate will have to withdraw from public life?”

    I don’t think kids should be targeted, they should be able to go to the park but it just seems to be more to the story.

    Does T possibly have a book coming out about the early days with the Middletons and to stifle him now will lead to closing down any further material from him?

    1. I think Prince William’s temper tantrum has more to do with his being batcrap crazy about photos. Remember over the summer how aerial pictures were published of Anmer Hall and Prince William freaked and asked for it to be declared a no-fly zone, claiming a pilot flew below the required 500 feet? The CAA said they weren’t even sure there was enough evidence to investigate Prince William’s claim but the rules were the same for royal residences as non-royal residences.

      The report may be taking attention off of Kate’s HG but I’m sure that’s accidental. I just can’t imagine Prince William doing anything self-sacrificing for Kate like trying to figure out ways to make her life better.

      I do think there’s more to this story, I just haven’t figured out if this a Prince William surprise attack in his never-ending battle with the press or if Tanna is intentionally instigating this because the press are fed up with Prince William’s rules. Or maybe this is some cooked up plot to explain why they are going into seclusion as soon as they can.

      Whatever it is, Prince William is coming off a smidge deranged.

      Cathy, I’ve wondered if Tanna is going to one day assemble a book. If Prince William is trying to make a preemptive strike, it’s a dumb move because he’s giving Tanna tons of free publicity for it. Tanna hasn’t broken any laws, he’s allowed to take pictures of the Royal Family when they are out in public. This whole thing appears to be Prince William trying to intimidate photographers and pioneer a case that will establish the precedence he wants, that no one can take a picture of him or his family when he isn’t doing an official engagement which is total rubbish. He wants laws that apply to him and the Royal Family that don’t apply to the rest of society so he can be just like everyone else.

      1. I think it’s interesting that the photographer in question is Niraj; months ago in tumblr someone screen shot a tweet of Niraj and said something of the lines of “One day you’ll know all.” It raised a few eyebrows amongst those like yours truly who think Niraj has some sort of contact with the Midds.

        Also, it wouldn’t be the first time that Kate/the Midds sue Niraj, he’s the one behind the pictures of Kate playing tennis in Cornwall, I believe, which prompted a lawsuit. So, I’m wondering if he’s going to fight back just because he’s fed up with these two or there’s something else going on.

        1. You are correct, that was Tanna who took the tennis pics. The case wound up being settled with the money going to a charity chosen by Kate.

          I’m sure there’s a lot more that’s going to be revealed one day.

          I’ve always suspected Carole was Tanna’s source but I think there’s more than one leak in the deflating tire of the British Monarchy.

          Hypothetically speaking, someone who would be an excellent gossip source would be Chelsy Davy who had a bit of a frenemies thing going on with Kate. At first they were friends/allies and Kate probably spilled some of her deepest darkest secrets to Chelsy. Chelsy also certainly would have been privy to certain private information about Kate and Prince William because she was dating Harry. Now imagine one of the times Kate did or said something that majorly rubbed Chelsy the wrong way. Chelsy might not have always kept Kate’s confidence when angry with her and somewhat tanked. Maybe Chelsy had a couple of friends spread around some scandalous gossip about Kate while they were out at a bar, standing ten feet away from her friends thinking people wouldn’t realize she was part of that group, playing with her straw, awkwardly trying to be inconspicuous. Hypothetically speaking of course.

          I also wouldn’t be surprised if one of the York Princesses were behind an anonymous tip or two to get back at Kate and leaked snide little comments like Kate taking forever to express one fumbling sentence because of her fake posh accent and how certain members of the Royal Family would make fun of her behind her back because of it. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

          Kate just doesn’t seem to play well with other women. I think whomever Harry dates is a potential gossip source.

          Sometimes the most scandalous part of gossip is where it came from. It would be very interesting if that were the story Tanna decided to tell.

          1. Niraj has always been associated in one way or another with the Middleton family. He always knows where to find them.

            Wouldn’t surprise me if there is more than one leak, Diana herself leaked a phonebook to the press, according to a news reporter. But I doubt it’s Chelsy, she and Kate didn’t seem to get along too well for them to be close. There’s an article that Harry disapproved of Kate because she enjoyed the association a little too much.

            If the rumor about Kate calling Beatrice a rhymes with witch in the roller disco is true, there might be bad blood there and Eugenie refusing to relinquish her place in a fashion show for Pippa was strong too.

            Hypothetically, there are many places where the leak could come from. And interesting that you mentioned the banned celebrity children pictures, on one hand, I can understand why some celebs feel that paps go too far (Suri Cruise being called a *itch) might be a good example, hiding in bushes and following them to school is another. But on the other hand, it seems extreme for me.

        2. I recall that tweet, but to be honest, I feel that Tanna enjoys stirring the pot, teasing a bit to get attention. I’m not sure it’s worth putting too much stock into his tweets. But I could be wrong.

          Certainly, his proximity and inside information means he would know more than most others, but whether or not he can/would reveal anything or note is another thing.

    2. Just to state that courts aren’t places of morals, except perhaps in family law. Moral opinions don’t enter into the law. If Lola is correct with the legal base for the pending lawsuit, Tanna will have problems if he has had PG under any kind of watch. These types of laws in the UK or Aus confer a very different kind of judicial power. Not sure about the US, but it is largely irrelevant anyway.

  14. I’m beginning to wonder about the timing of this myself. With her first bout of HG we saw a photo of her leaving the hospital a lot sooner. Haven’t seen anything of her this time around. Does make one think what the heck is going on.

  15. Lola some recent news: Willnot and Kannot may be headed your way in November/December. The Mirror has an article saying that the trip is in the early stages but if Kate feels ill it will be canceled.

    So, you might want to keep your eyes peeled for that one!

    1. I heard that, too. I didn’t hear why they were coming, though. December is the busiest month for tourism in NYC, maybe Kate is coming for our holiday store window displays? I really have no desire to see them, hopefully they won’t screw up traffic any more than it is that time of year.

      1. They’re unsure as to when they would be going, end of November beginning of December is when it’s mentioned. But again, only if the special snowflake is feeling better. The plans will be canceled at the first sign she’s not up to (aka ill).

        1. I would think ‘they’ would throw this NYC event announcement out as bait so to later prove how sick she claims to be. This way they can cancel the trip when it never existed in the first place. Just my opinion….

      2. Please, I hope they don’t come to America. Honestly, even if they did I don’t think anyone would know who they are. During the Diana years, so many Americans knew who she was, dancing with Travolta in the White House. But as you write about how things are different with Waity and Whiny. Americans love movie stars and athletes and mostly people who have accomplished something. And if anyone doesn’t know, a lot of us love the British actors, BBC and English-American history. We aren’t at all interested in watching a stick figure dressed in boring beige and her horse who must be a surrogate baby because he surely cannot be a child of Diana’s .
        Oh Lola if they do make it to NYC, you can come visit me in Atlanta!

  16. According to a story re-tweeted by Tanna himself, he is standing firm on the harassment allegation, as suspected, because that is what this will get down to. Emotions don’t count. Apparently, he’s also maintaining that his presence was furtive. It’s often used, but that can backfire because it proscribes such conduct as creepy.

    1. It’s interesting that you’ve mentioned emotions don’t count, as Aristotle said, “Law is reason free from passion.” I see this as an instance in which Prince William is attempting to make this an emotional case. One of the reasons I brought up the California legislation is that I can see Prince William trying to do the same exact thing in the UK. The California bill should never have passed, it’s unconstitutional, it was an instance of two very sympathetic public figures making an impassioned plea, asking that the rights of all US citizens as provided by the First Amendment be sacrificed for the betterment of a select group, celebrity children in the state of California. Prince WIlliam also wants rules that apply to him and his family and no one else. I’m going to be very disappointed if Prince William wins this. Tanna didn’t break the law. The Palace Press Office is trying to portray Tanna as the Big Bad Wolf after the royal family for years to play off public sympathy because Prince William wants rules that protect only Prince William’s interests.

  17. Exactly, agreed; William and their PR are trying to milk this by daring to compare the Cambridges to normal parents. They are not and the facts are entirely different here. I mean, I laugh when I read comments from other parents stating that they wouldn’t tolerate their child being photographed by a stranger. Well, to that I say:
    a) Tanna is not a stranger to the royals;
    b) Your kid isn’t being protected by specially trained armed police (likelihood of coming to any harm negligible); and
    c) Your kid wasn’t born to be the future King and thus not in the public interest.

    I’m looking at this from a sterile point of view because when rich people threaten law suits to wield power, it gets up my nose (I think you can tell). Everyone has an opinion, here and elsewhere. But I’m just trying to opine based on the possible law to be invoked and what I know given the different jurisdiction.

    If PW wins, it will be because it has been deemed that he stalked and/or harassed PG as defined by the Act (assuming that is the legal base). It’s difficult to call because of the draconian nature of such Acts, as previously stated.

    Anyway, Tanna states that he will vigorously defend the action, so it will be interesting … personally, I doubt PW will go anywhere near a witness box. If he dares, he will soon learn that he’s not in control. The nanny and RPOs will be forced to testify or the case will likely collapse. It will be a circus and I just cannot see it happening. It will not work out well for the royals. If PW wins, the backlash could be irrevocable. And if it goes to trial, it must be made public … at least the judgment.

  18. I must ‘fess up – I had read that article, but it did not influence what I posted. William is a bully and like most bullies, they don’t like to get into the witness box for fear of being caught out as liars. They don’t like to be intimidated, but they like to intimidate. 😉 His type is easy to read: threaten behind the scenes with brutal letters meant to scare the other party into submission. They rely on this intimidation to prevent any litigation and a fair trial where intimate details are revealed in public. That’s the problem William faces. There are no “secrets” when you sue.

    I’m not sure he would be called anyway. But it would be most uncomfortable to force his nanny to be called and give evidence. I’ve never heard of it before. But perhaps someone else has.

  19. what is also interesting is that they have thrown Harry into this too – the official release claiming Harry backs his brother and the concern for future royal children of Harry’s. And of course Harry was scowling at Tanna at the Inskip wedding. And – Tanna was one of the paps involved in the alleged cinema outing of Harry and Cress – something Palmer admitted Harry was perturbed about. So there may be an accumulation of annoyance with Tanna.

    So I do think more is going on here – with the royals it is best to keep in mind they make a fuss in one direction so we do not look in the other direction where they have something they wish to keep hidden.

    I do rather doubt the Tanna -Mid connection at least at this point in time. How do the photos Tanna sells benefit Kate in any way? There is also so much risk for her/her family if they are seen as being “leakers”.

  20. i believe Richard Palmer mentioned he “went up the wall about the theater pictures” which led some to believe he meant the photos of them in the box at the theater after Cressdia’s step father passed. which the press eventually apologized for. cinema would be the movie theater, theater would be going to see a play. i cant possibly know for sure, but it makes sense.

    back to the subject… what’s interesting to me is that if he’s worried about PG being harassed why open up the case by releasing a public statement? that only draws more supposedly unwanted attention. if it wasn’t simply about throwing Tanna under the bus or sending a message to the press (which is clearly a flop bc the reviews about this situation have not been raving) PW should have called the royal photographers – an assortment of them- to KP or BP, wherever and had a closed door meeting. set parameters, boundaries – wam bam problem solved. but no, as usual, he has to get the press involved which is the very thing he’s constantly complaining about. ugh, what a horse and pony show (pun intended)

  21. I just discovered your blog. I must say I’m hooked. Please don’t stop writing, I’m having way to much fun !
    (sorry if I make mistakes, I speak french)

Comments are closed.