Community Chat

[lovesrecess]

I would have thought Meghan and Harry were not naive enough to think simply by leaving the U.K. they would have complete privacy; on the contrary. They have upped the interest from the papparazzi and will spend the rest of their lives suing media outlets, photographers, etc if they want total privacy. They need to buy a cave. . At least back in the royal “bubble” things were structured enough to keep photographers “ hiding in the bushes” at bay. Did Meghan really think she and baby Archie could go out for a stroll, alone, and no one would see them or photograph them? Unfortunately, the more they demand privacy, the harder the papparazzi will work to invade it. Again, they need a cave! She and Harry are catnip for the press and they know it.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

@occasionalrain 

It's obvious, that walk with Archie and the dogs and the body guards was staged to trap a photographer into doing exactly what one did.  Planned so that their security team could set the rules and get the "warning" out.  They aren't naive, they know they can't escape the paparazzi unless they go withdraw from public life totally.  They just want to set some ground rules.   

---

You can set ground rules without staging a fake incident. 

[Snoopp]

I think its a preemptive strike, if you will. They will have to get used to the photos in public places.   If they move to California, it will probably be worse.

[HLP]

---

@Still Raining wrote:

What right to privacy can you have walking in public?  

---

My exact thoughts. And who do you think you are?, Remember you wanted to be a public citizen, hey welcome. Also no one was taking your picture before. Harry's always been a few short bricks shy of a load. Wonder how long this whining is going to last from the both of them?. I was tired of you both first time I heard you were a couple. She's so on, and I'm so tired of them, please go some place where we don't have to hear of you. 

[chrystaltree]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

@occasionalrain 

It's obvious, that walk with Archie and the dogs and the body guards was staged to trap a photographer into doing exactly what one did.  Planned so that their security team could set the rules and get the "warning" out.  They aren't naive, they know they can't escape the paparazzi unless they go withdraw from public life totally.  They just want to set some ground rules.   

---

You can set ground rules without staging a fake incident. 

I don't think it was a fake incident.  She took the baby and the dogs for a walk on the grounds on the estate they were staying in.  Where no photographer should have been.  Hence the "warning".   

---

[ROMARY]

I'm only guessing that any one of us can be photographed via i phone, etc., and then our photo can be posted throughout the world..............on the photographer's social media.......right?

'Anyway', it's going to be difficult to have pure privacy because regular folks are photographing just about everything, including restaurant food dishes, and spreading 'the news' everywhere.

I really don't know what this family is going to successfully do about it.

[Daisy Sunflower]

I chuckled when I saw the pics of her smiling at the camera.

Hope Archie wasn't too uncomfortable being strapped to her while she struggled with two dogs.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

@occasionalrain 

It's obvious, that walk with Archie and the dogs and the body guards was staged to trap a photographer into doing exactly what one did.  Planned so that their security team could set the rules and get the "warning" out.  They aren't naive, they know they can't escape the paparazzi unless they go withdraw from public life totally.  They just want to set some ground rules.   

---

You can set ground rules without staging a fake incident. 

I don't think it was a fake incident.  She took the baby and the dogs for a walk on the grounds on the estate they were staying in.  Where no photographer should have been.  Hence the "warning".   

---

---

I would consider it a fake incident if as you said "staged to trap a photographer"..."planned so that their security team could set the rules"  All fake, why play games.

[faeriemoon]

I have a feeling this hiking picture incident was a good opportunity to set a precedent.  Maybe it will work, but I don't think they are going to get as much privacy as they were hoping for with this move.

[occasionalrain]

He looked uncomfortable and, really, what was the point of taking him along if he couldn't see anything? That she had his face well hidden goes to the likelihood that it was staged.