Do Princesses get to be "private" in public spaces?

[PrincessMommy]

It's summer and I'm bored... 

Apparently the Duchess of Sussex requested (demanded) that no photos be taken of her while at Wimbledon.  Which is silly because they *always* show who's in the royal box (area?) on TV - several times during the game.  I do realize that have a camera on you occasionally from a distance is very different than having thousands of cells phones pointed at you at closer range.  But, isn't all the demanding and secrecy just asking for MORE issues with photographers?

But, still... should she be given privacy in such an instance?  Isn't part of the royal duties to be a public figure and represent the royalty??  

[HomeAgain]

I'm going to turn your question around.  Isn't it part of the public's duty to respect others' personal space and autonomy?  I think it's one thing to ask for consent for a picture to be taken, another to force yourself into a person's life so you can have a snapshot.

Not nearly the same thing, but kind of.  I went to a parade with my family.  The organizers took pictures and video of the parade, and occasionally asked us sideliners for consent for a photo: children doing cute things, etc.  I am in several of the pictures and it doesn't bother me because the focus is on the parade.  I would have been not okay with a more intimate moment with my family being the focus.  The people are not there to watch people watching the parade.  And it would have been an invasion of privacy because I was not the event.

[Junie]

If she wanted to not be photographed, she shouldn't have gone.  Also, she had 40 seats around her empty.  That's going to draw more attention to herself.  Truly, I can't figure her out.

She was an actress before she was a duchess.  Also, she's a friend of Serena Williams.  Either of those things would draw the attention of fans/photographers.

I don't think that people should invade her personal space, but I think anyone who purposely puts themselves in the public eye (being on a TV show, marrying a prince) has to understand that people are going to want a record (photograph) of being in the same place with her.

[Ellie]

9 minutes ago, Junie said:

If she wanted to not be photographed, she shouldn't have gone.  Also, she had 40 seats around her empty.  That's going to draw more attention to herself.  Truly, I can't figure her out.

She was an actress before she was a duchess.  Also, she's a friend of Serena Williams.  Either of those things would draw the attention of fans/photographers.

I don't think that people should invade her personal space, but I think anyone who purposely puts themselves in the public eye (being on a TV show, marrying a prince) has to understand that people are going to want a record (photograph) of being in the same place with her.

Totally this.

Megan knew from the get-go that she would be a public celebrity. We all know that, even we Americans. If she wants privacy, then she can have it at home. In public, at a well-publicized event, she's going to be photographed. The end.

[Selkie]

All I know (from my extensive research reading the comments section of British media 😉) is that Meghan and Harry seem to be very unpopular with the British people. There is a sense of resentment that the Sussexes are standoffish to the public, while at the same time they are living large off taxpayer money.

[HomeAgain]

13 minutes ago, Junie said:

If she wanted to not be photographed, she shouldn't have gone.  Also, she had 40 seats around her empty.  That's going to draw more attention to herself.  Truly, I can't figure her out.

She was an actress before she was a duchess.  Also, she's a friend of Serena Williams.  Either of those things would draw the attention of fans/photographers.

I don't think that people should invade her personal space, but I think anyone who purposely puts themselves in the public eye (being on a TV show, marrying a prince) has to understand that people are going to want a record (photograph) of being in the same place with her.

You do remember the circumstances of Princess Diana's death, don't you?  Permit me to think this bolded statement is crass in light of that.

Just because you want doesn't mean you are entitled to have. 

[Loowit]

I really have trouble coming up with a lot of sympathy for her to be honest.  She chose a career and then later married into a lifestyle that she would have to know came with publicity and pictures of her in public.  I can understand not always wanting to be on display, but that is a choice she made.  I do think that royalty should be free on their private property from unwanted photography, but in public I think it is part of the "job".

I feel sorry for the royalty that didn't choose that life and still have to deal with it because of their birth.

[mumto2]

It’s televised.......seriously she would have stayed home if she didn’t want to draw attention to herself.  Other members of the Royal family who outrank her seem to be attending without the media blackout......

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

That's what I meant in my post by stalking or harassing.   Taking a photo of Meghan sitting in a Wimbledon box is not the same thing as high-speed car-chasing Diana.  

No, but trampling consent is an ugly road to go down.  Do you feel you have the right to someone else's body, whether it is taking pictures or more, without their express consent?  Do you feel it's right to make money off of someone else's body by taking a picture of it, without their consent?

In this case, the duchess is not the event.  The duchess is attending an event.  What right do you have to capitalize on her attendance to something she is not a participant of?  Just because you want it and feel you should have it, regardless?

[Junie]

31 minutes ago, Junie said:

If she wanted to not be photographed, she shouldn't have gone.  Also, she had 40 seats around her empty.  That's going to draw more attention to herself.  Truly, I can't figure her out.

She was an actress before she was a duchess.  Also, she's a friend of Serena Williams.  Either of those things would draw the attention of fans/photographers.

I don't think that people should invade her personal space, but I think anyone who purposely puts themselves in the public eye (being on a TV show, marrying a prince) has to understand that people are going to want a record (photograph) of being in the same place with her.

 

16 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

You do remember the circumstances of Princess Diana's death, don't you?  Permit me to think this bolded statement is crass in light of that.

Just because you want doesn't mean you are entitled to have. 

I'm sorry you saw my comment as "crass".

Yes, I remember Diana's death.  She was illegally chased (at high speeds) by paparazzi who were intending to sell photographs of her for monetary gain.  Also, she was leaving a hotel or restaurant (I don't remember that detail) which is not a public event.

In my opinion, these situations are completely different.

[PrincessMommy]

10 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

No, but trampling consent is an ugly road to go down.  Do you feel you have the right to someone else's body, whether it is taking pictures or more, without their express consent?  Do you feel it's right to make money off of someone else's body by taking a picture of it, without their consent?

In this case, the duchess is not the event.  The duchess is attending an event.  What right do you have to capitalize on her attendance to something she is not a participant of?  Just because you want it and feel you should have it, regardless?

whoa, that's really ramping up the conversation several notches.  I don't think anyone is suggesting we get in her face and click photos like a herd of paparazzi.  

no, the duchess is not the event, but by grandstanding she made herself the event.   She's hogging the limelight and saying, "Don't pay any attention to me!" at the same time.   She's acting like an B-movie actress rather than a Royal, IMHO.   That's the way I read it.  

[Ellie]

25 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

You do remember the circumstances of Princess Diana's death, don't you?  Permit me to think this bolded statement is crass in light of that.

Just because you want doesn't mean you are entitled to have. 

It seems to me that a Royal sitting in a box at Wimbledon and not wanting to be photographed is far different from someone being hounded in a moving vehicle. Permit me to think that is crass of you to equate the two.

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, Patty Joanna said:

The question isn't about my own standards.  The question is about whether someone is a public figure.   

If you read the biographies of the royals and the history of the institution, you will find that most of the purpose of their existence is to be the public persona of the country, and that this understanding of their raison d'etre is bred into them.  Queen Elizabeth is especially as lly cognizant of this as part of all that goes with being Queen.  The palaces, the prestige, the respect...and the public persona.   

No, the question is about the public's duty to balance the personal needs and wishes of another, no matter how public the figure, with their own.  Any attempt to intrude without respecting a boundary should be immediately quashed.  If the duchess was acting in official capacity and BEING the event, it would be a different answer.  To say that a person should create a self-imposed jail unless they consent to having no rights is not a valid or moral thought.

[HomeAgain]

4 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

whoa, that's really ramping up the conversation several notches.  I don't think anyone is suggesting we get in her face and click photos like a herd of paparazzi.  

no, the duchess is not the event, but by grandstanding she made herself the event.   She's hogging the limelight and saying, "Don't pay any attention to me!" at the same time.   She's acting like an B-movie actress rather than a Royal, IMHO.   That's the way I read it.  

That's how you read what?  You provided no link so I went and looked up stories before I responded.  All of them touched on how much more private this couple has been and not a bit of hogging the limelight. 

[hjffkj]

i think everyone, even public figures, are entitled to the occasional bit of privacy even when out in public.  They should not be required to be ON all the time while out in public.  I can imagine it being incredibly draining and isolating to feel the only time you can fully relax is at home.  I don't find the request outrageous.  Now if she does this sort of thing often then I might feel differently because she did marry into a family that's whole purpose is to be the face of a country. 

[mumto2]

I don’t think anyone expects the royals to always be on when in public.  Over the years I have heard several stories of Royal encounters at grocery stores, corgi walking etc.  I have read (no pictures) that Kate uses buses frequently with George and Charlotte.  I think they frequently live normal lives for people with their own security team. 😂

 A part of me wonders if there wasn’t enough press on her first visit to Wimbledon last week and this media ban created way more than just going.  I think she is seriously in personal competition with Kate who had a great deal of positive coverage at Wimbledon on the first day.  I also think people give Harry more attention........

 

[SKL]

I don't know British law, but in the US, you have a right to photograph anyone and everyone in public places.  That's why Michael Jackson used to put masks on his kids' faces when they went out. 

I am a very private person, but if I went to Wimbledon, I assume that everyone there could take a photo of me if they felt like it.  For that matter, I'm sure I'm on countless security videotapes from every time I have been to any public or semi-public place.

What is the big deal?  Does she have a big pimple on her nose?  A black eye?  A habit of picking her nose in public?  What does she think people are going to take from her by snapping photographs?  We already know what she looks like.  Big deal.  She isn't even fat or ugly.  She needs to get over herself IMO.

Now if she was saying stay out of my booth, don't get in my face, don't ask me questions, I would understand that.

[Rachel]

I haven’t heard anything about this particular event. In general I would expect someone like her to expect to be photographed.  At the same time I could see that a person might think they understand what they are getting into, only to realize it’s way more than they expected.  She also just had a baby, she could be dealing with hormones and sleepless nights and who knows what else.

A couple years ago I went to a local event that an individual who is famous in his industry/our area also attended. If he had attended a similar event in a different area he probably would not have been recognized. It was incredibly eye opening. During the tour portion people kept snapping pictures of him and his wife sort of covertly.   They would pretend to be taking a selfie but really trying to get him instead of theirself.  Then as more people realized who he was, people started getting bolder and requesting photos with him, often asking his wife to snap the picture!   During the luncheon portion it was worse, people kept going up to his table, interrupting the conversation. I don’t know if he even ate. I was at the next table and it was disruptive for me, and they weren’t talking to me. I commented to the friend who was with me that I couldn’t imagine what it must be like for people that are even more well known.  After witnessing that, I decided I would never take a picture or go up to a famous/semi-famous person unless they were working in a professional capacity. 

[Pawz4me]

I don't keep up with celebs, so I don't know any of the particulars. But my general feeling is that if one is any sort of celebrity by choice then being photographed and asked for autographs comes with the territory. It's pretty much a job requirement, and one that the person certainly should have been aware of before pursuing/accepting a place in the spotlight. Also, as far as I'm aware no one has a right to privacy in a public space (that's here in the U.S.). But I've also never understood the allure of getting a photo or autograph of a celebrity. I just don't get the appeal. It's as if people think having a photo or autograph of someone famous increases their own importance? It kind of screams "low self esteem" to me. 

[Laurie]

2 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

   But, isn't all the demanding and secrecy just asking for MORE issues with photographers?

 

Yes!

I know it will never happen, but I'd like to see the public and press ignore them 100% of the time from now on.  It seems to me that there's a nasty little game being played...the mother's day photo they released showing just the new baby's foot pretty much convinced me of that.  

[PrincessMommy]

3 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Yes!

I know it will never happen, but I'd like to see the public and press ignore them 100% of the time from now on.  It seems to me that there's a nasty little game being played...the mother's day photo they released showing just the new baby's foot pretty much convinced me of that.  

I so agree.  there's so many other people I'd love to put on that list too,  But, it is just a pipe dream.  

[Katy]

Well Diana asked for quite a bit of privacy for her children until they were adults, and they were granted it.  So I think the rules must be different there.

And even though this is a famous event, it's a private, ticketed one, correct?  So I don't think it's that out of line.

Diana's death was discussed in a book about the Mossad a few years later.  They were pressuring her driver that night (or her boyfriend's) to spy for them, and he was crushed by the pressure and drank a lot more than he typically did. That had to do with the Fayed family, not Diana.  I'm still surprised that the rules regarding the royal family haven't been tightened down much more than they have as a result.

I resent the idea that everyone is sure Megan & Kate are constantly squabbling.  There has been NO indication of that. It's just the same sexist speculation that women always must compete.  The only reliable gossip I've heard is that Harry got angry with William over something a few months back, but he was still friendly with Kate. And he apparently forgave William almost immediately.  It was such a small thing I don't even recall what it was about.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

Well Diana asked for quite a bit of privacy for her children until they were adults, and they were granted it.  So I think the rules must be different there.

But I think maybe it's a whole different world nowadays, since almost everyone walks around 24/7 with a camera (cell phone) permanently attached.

[Frances]

43 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't keep up with celebs, so I don't know any of the particulars. But my general feeling is that if one is any sort of celebrity by choice then being photographed and asked for autographs comes with the territory. It's pretty much a job requirement, and one that the person certainly should have been aware of before pursuing/accepting a place in the spotlight. Also, as far as I'm aware no one has a right to privacy in a public space (that's here in the U.S.). But I've also never understood the allure of getting a photo or autograph of a celebrity. I just don't get the appeal. It's as if people think having a photo or autograph of someone famous increases their own importance? It kind of screams "low self esteem" to me. 

I agree with all of this, except the low self esteem part. I truly don’t understand people wanting pictures of or with famous people. Then again, I also don’t understand selfies.

[Lady Florida.]

3 hours ago, Junie said:

If she wanted to not be photographed, she shouldn't have gone.  Also, she had 40 seats around her empty.  That's going to draw more attention to herself.  Truly, I can't figure her out.

She was an actress before she was a duchess.  Also, she's a friend of Serena Williams.  Either of those things would draw the attention of fans/photographers.

I don't think that people should invade her personal space, but I think anyone who purposely puts themselves in the public eye (being on a TV show, marrying a prince) has to understand that people are going to want a record (photograph) of being in the same place with her.

Agree. TBH, I think she needs to stop acting like a pushy American. That's not who she's supposed to be anymore and she knew that going in.

[Ellie]

46 minutes ago, Katy said:

I resent the idea that everyone is sure Megan & Kate are constantly squabbling.  There has been NO indication of that. It's just the same sexist speculation that women always must compete.  The only reliable gossip I've heard is that Harry got angry with William over something a few months back, but he was still friendly with Kate. And he apparently forgave William almost immediately.  It was such a small thing I don't even recall what it was about.

ITA. And really, unless one of us actually were standing within earshot of a conversation between William and Harry, we don't know anything.

[Ausmumof3]

I’m not a fan of one rule for royalty versus another for the rest of the world.  So if everyone can be photographed or videoed in public without permission so can the royals.  Of course I’m also a fan of good manners which might mean respecting someone’s wish for a bit of space.

[Garga]

I don’t know what her motives could be—to garner more attention or an honest request for some peace.  But, yes, she did sign up for this and knew it ahead of time.  However, knowing it ahead of time and actually living with it day by day by day by day are two separate things.  It reminds me of stories where you’re granted wishes that seem like they’ll be great, but turn out to be curses.  Be careful what you wish for and all that. 

So, in a way I can understand that all the attention has got to be soul sucking and overwhelming.  And yet, unfortunately, that’s what the British Royals are there for.  To be seen.  We all know from every historical fiction novel we’ve read or show we’ve watched, that when you’re a royal, you don’t own your own life.  It’s only been in the past blink of an eye of time that royals could even marry who they wanted to.  Their lives are scheduled and dictated to in a way that most of us never have to deal with.

But they’re also so outrageously privileged that it’s hard to feel “poor little rich girl” for them. 

 

[gardenmom5]

the guy she had her security blast was actually taking a selfie with the tennis courts behind him - you can see the screen on his phone while he was taking the picture (it was in reverse mode.).  I wouldn't advise him to expect an apology from her.

she is completely out of control.  but having such a wide swath of empty seats surrounding her in the royal box will make darn sure people see her.   (I really think she wants that.)

I think she needs a shrink even more than she needs to learn manners and decorum.

[Shoeless]

Seems pretty bold of her to sit in the Royal box at Wimbledon and then complain she wants privacy.  

She wants the public to leave her alone, but also wants to accept financial support from the public.  It doesn't work that way.  It never has. 

She wants privacy for her child, but then teases little glimpses "Here's a little look-see at his foot!  What, you want more than that?  How dare you! He's a private citizen!...<later>...here's an artfully staged B&W photo of us gazing longingly at each other!  What, you don't like it?  How dare you! We want privacy!" 

Either be a public figure or don't.  If you are going to be a public figure, the public is going to want to interact with you.  Don't act so huffy about it.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, Selkie said:

All I know (from my extensive research reading the comments section of British media 😉) is that Meghan and Harry seem to be very unpopular with the British people. There is a sense of resentment that the Sussexes are standoffish to the public, while at the same time they are living large off taxpayer money.

when the relationship was announced - I was happy for harry, I wanted him to be happy.  as time has gone on....

from my own reading - what has really made them both disrespected by the british people  is their constant demand to have their cake, and eat it too, while the british people pay for it. they want privacy - except when they want attention. they can't have it both ways - but she's demanding it.  I'm very unimpressed with her.

and the photographs they've released to the public, smh.  they're not warm and friendly at all.  they're supposed to be "artsy" - but they're not that either.

this dislike from the public could all have been avoided by simply being friendly to the public upfront.  

4 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

 

That's what I meant in my post by stalking or harassing.   Taking a photo of Meghan sitting in a Wimbledon box is not the same thing as high-speed car-chasing Diana.  

or kate sunbathing topless on the patio of her vacation home in france (it was well back from the road - it was a very long telephoto lens).  THAT was out of line.

3 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

whoa, that's really ramping up the conversation several notches.  I don't think anyone is suggesting we get in her face and click photos like a herd of paparazzi.  

no, the duchess is not the event, but by grandstanding she made herself the event.   She's hogging the limelight and saying, "Don't pay any attention to me!" at the same time.   She's acting like an B-movie actress rather than a Royal, IMHO.   That's the way I read it.  

she isn't even a b-movie actress.  

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Well Diana asked for quite a bit of privacy for her children until they were adults, and they were granted it.  So I think the rules must be different there.

And even though this is a famous event, it's a private, ticketed one, correct?  So I don't think it's that out of line.

Diana's death was discussed in a book about the Mossad a few years later.  They were pressuring her driver that night (or her boyfriend's) to spy for them, and he was crushed by the pressure and drank a lot more than he typically did. That had to do with the Fayed family, not Diana.  I'm still surprised that the rules regarding the royal family haven't been tightened down much more than they have as a result.

I resent the idea that everyone is sure Megan & Kate are constantly squabbling.  There has been NO indication of that. It's just the same sexist speculation that women always must compete.  The only reliable gossip I've heard is that Harry got angry with William over something a few months back, but he was still friendly with Kate. And he apparently forgave William almost immediately.  It was such a small thing I don't even recall what it was about.

diana would take time to do informal photoshoots with the press - she would allow pictures on her schedule - with the caveat that outside those times they were to leave her children alone.

there is something untoward going on with her - how many new moms go through three nannies in less than six weeks? (not to mention the other staff that have left.)   three kids later,  kate's still on her first nanny.

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

Agree. TBH, I think she needs to stop acting like a pushy American. That's not who she's supposed to be anymore and she knew that going in.

I personally think she makes pushy americans look amateurish.

[hjffkj]

28 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

the guy she had her security blast was actually taking a selfie with the tennis courts behind him - you can see the screen on his phone while he was taking the picture (it was in reverse mode.).  I wouldn't advise him to expect an apology from her.

she is completely out of control.  but having such a wide swath of empty seats surrounding her in the royal box will make darn sure people see her.   (I really think she wants that.)

I think she needs a shrink even more than she needs to learn manners and decorum.

 

yes, but how is she supposed to know that.  The picture that is going around the internet makes it look like he is pointing his phone directly at her in very close proximity.  Ir looks quite invasive and I would have a hard time imagining most people with a security detail having them ask the man to stop.

[gardenmom5]

1 minute ago, hjffkj said:

 

yes, but how is she supposed to know that.  The picture that is going around the internet makes it look like he is pointing his phone directly at her in very close proximity.  Ir looks quite invasive and I would have a hard time imagining most people with a security detail having them ask the man to stop.

nor did anyone ask - just reacted.  the reaction in this case, will be worse than the "cure".  she comes off as a complete diva.   

it could have been handled in seconds just "please don't take pictures of the diva" - i'm not, I'm taking selfies - see....  oh, ok - enjoy the match.

and if she really wanted to blend in and not be noticed - why was the entire box around her empty?  *everyone* will notice her when she's in the middle of a sea of empty seats.

[SKL]

As far as her popularity, I frankly think they were predisposed to dislike her because she is American (and somewhat because she is not lily white).  Many still view diversity in the royal family as tainting it.  Which is kinda dumb, considering all the centuries when the royals married foreigners they didn't even know for political reasons.

Another thing - I heard there is a somewhat believable rumor that Harry is not actually a blood descendant of the Queen.  That may play into it as well.

That said, I feel sorry for anyone who is attacked unfairly over things they have no control over.  But that does not extend to the point of giving them more rights than everyone else has.  Princesses at Wimbledon get photographed.  Suck it up.

[hjffkj]

9 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

nor did anyone ask - just reacted.  the reaction in this case, will be worse than the "cure".  she comes off as a complete diva.   

it could have been handled in seconds just "please don't take pictures of the diva" - i'm not, I'm taking selfies - see....  oh, ok - enjoy the match.

and if she really wanted to blend in and not be noticed - why was the entire box around her empty?  *everyone* will notice her when she's in the middle of a sea of empty seats.

 

Who cares if she wants to be noticed or not. It is two different things to seek out attention because that is her job as a royal and having a phone a few feet from her seemingly in her face while she is in the middle of a conversation.

Yes, her security detail could have handled it better but her request not to have a phone in her face is not acting like a diva.  

[Katy]

Everything I read said this request isn't even abnormal for the royal family.  They've done it many times before.  People just hate Meghan for their own reasons, and, like many times before, are picking her out because of it.

[Shoeless]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Okay serious question - how does one get that Harry isn’t related to his grandmother when he looks so ridiculously like his father (like, moreso than his older brother?). That is bizarre.

 

Prince Harry looks a great deal like Prince Phillip as a young man, as well.  

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Okay serious question - how does one get that Harry isn’t related to his grandmother when he looks so ridiculously like his father (like, moreso than his older brother?). That is bizarre.

 

He looks much more like a man Diana admitted an affair with than he does like his father.

ETA: James Hewitt

Edited July 9, 2019 by Katy

[gardenmom5]

7 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

 

Prince Harry looks a great deal like Prince Phillip as a young man, as well.  

sorta OT - same with ronan farrow.  people love to proclaim him as proof mia had an affair with frank Sinatra (after they were divorced) - he looks exactly like john farrow.  mia's father.

[mumto2]

I don’t think being American helps her popularity but the fact that she doesn’t even really try to fit in is what really hurts her.  She doesn’t want to know how to be British or Royal unless it’s on her terms.  Also she somehow pushed a royal wedding through way to fast........the whole thing has been odd and the public noticed.  People were really happy for Harry and now I think the feeling is more a concern for Harry.  

 

 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

sorta OT - same with ronan farrow.  people love to proclaim him as proof mia had an affair with frank Sinatra (after they were divorced) - he looks exactly like john farrow.  mia's father.

 

Mia did have a relationship with him.  So did Gloria Vanderbilt.  Both Ronan Farrow and Anderson Cooper resemble Frank more than their identified fathers.  Anderson Cooper flatly said, "Frank Sinatra is not my dad."  Ronan said, "Well, couldn't we all be Frank Sinatra's son?" 

[gardenmom5]

26 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Who cares if she wants to be noticed or not. It is two different things to seek out attention because that is her job as a royal and having a phone a few feet from her seemingly in her face while she is in the middle of a conversation.

Yes, her security detail could have handled it better but her request not to have a phone in her face is not acting like a diva.  

it is embarrassing, and very disrespectful, to be treated in such a way.  it was multiple people - who didn't even know she was there, who were singled out by her security detail to "stop taking pictures of her" -.   ignoring the 200+ press photographers nearby...  one woman -  (she was taking pictures of the court), did go after the detail about the fact there was so much press there and they didn't ban them from taking pictures.  adding the fact MM was looking around to see who was looking at her. she said  security at least seemed embarrassed when called on it.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

Mia did have a relationship with him.  So did Gloria Vanderbilt.  Both Ronan Farrow and Anderson Cooper resemble Frank more than their identified fathers.  Anderson Cooper flatly said, "Frank Sinatra is not my dad."  Ronan said, "Well, couldn't we all be Frank Sinatra's son?" 

go look up the pictures yourself.

that mia farrow would play around wouldn't surprise me - her mother freely admitted she did. (with john wayne.)  but he also looks like his grandfather.

Edited July 10, 2019 by gardenmom5

[Katy]

It's against board rules to post celebrity photos.  You should take that down.

And apparently Mia has said Frank might be his biological father.  She didn't know but it was possible. He certainly doesn't look like Woody Allen.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

See I don’t see a resemblance at all there.  The nose and brow and eyes are totally Charles’.  Like, I’m shocked people would buy into that just based on images.  Putting the three side by side with no names or explanation, my kids link Harry and Charles no prob.

Both of them being redheads is about the closest similarity I see, and the family trees of both Diana and Charles explain that.

(and now my kids are muttering about why I’m having them assess photos of strange men 🤣)

I think he looks like both of them.  Who knows - after all they are all related in some way ... wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles?

There is DNA testing to prove it should that ever be necessary.

[Annie G]

I wonder if Megan was hoping to avoid every tabloid talking about how she hasn’t lost her baby weight or whether she’s lost it too quickly or whether she’s had lipo or whatever else celebrities do after a baby. 

I guess I give her some grace- she just wanted to go watch her friend play tennis. Yeah, she’s a royal but it’s not healthy to expect royals or celebrities to be ‘on’ all the time when they are out.  

Edited July 10, 2019 by Annie G

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, WendyAndMilo said:

I wonder if she is having a hard time as a new mom or has some unexpected leakage problems or something....I’m tempted to give her more grace than I would have if she hadn’t just had a baby.

this started before the wedding.

[gardenmom5]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think he looks like both of them.  Who knows - after all they are all related in some way ... wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles?

There is DNA testing to prove it should that ever be necessary.

yes.  it was a favorite ploy of kings - give their mistresses titles, especially their illegitimate sons.

[SKL]

34 minutes ago, Annie G said:

I wonder if Megan was hoping to avoid every tabloid talking about how she hasn’t lost her baby weight or whether she’s lost it too quickly or whether she’s had lips or whatever else celebrities do after a baby. 

I guess I give her some grace- she just wanted to go watch her friend play tennis. Yeah, she’s a royal but it’s not healthy to expect royals or celebrities or be ‘on’ all the time when they are out.  

I'm not sure what it means to be "on" in this context.  I mean I am "on" when I go to the ball game.  If "on" means I'm awake and not in my pajamas and have combed my hair (or at least put on one of those cute hats to hide my bed head).  I'm pretty much "on" whenever I leave the house.  It doesn't feel unfair to me.

I mean nobody is saying she needs to give a speech or do a volunteer gig at the Wimbledon.

Edited July 10, 2019 by SKL

[mumto2]

10 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

@mumto2- if you don't mind my asking.....what is the general local sentiment on the redo of "the cottage" renovation with tax money? 

🤣Not pleased.......