Buckingham Palace warns Harry and Meghan stepping back from life as senior royals 'will be complicated'.

[Vendetta]

To put this another way, the property isn't complicated. What is complicated is that Harry has been a symbol of England for all his life. He would like to stop being a symbol of England (which he hopes will reduce press attention on his family) without:

Really, I suspect what he'd have liked is for the Daily Mail to stop being racist about his wife, but since there's fuck all chance of that in our lifetimes he's going to do the thing that allows him to completely withdraw co-operation from the press. (One of the things the royals do is actively work with the press to produce coverage).

[Zaune]

Uhhhhhh.

Well, yes I suppose that would solve that particular problem, but it does seem like a crazy extreme solution. Am I missing something here?

I'm not at all in favour of of the idea of the Royals getting special treatment, but see Broomstick's comments further up the page: The British news media have demonstrated such a callous disregard for fact-checking or professional ethics that we might be a more democratic country if we had less freedom of the press.

[Ralin]

I'm not at all in favour of of the idea of the Royals getting special treatment, but see Broomstick's comments further up the page: The British news media have demonstrated such a callous disregard for fact-checking or professional ethics that we might be a more democratic country if we had less freedom of the press.

Pretty big gulf between that as a general proposal and 'make it illegal to write about the royal family without their permission.'

Again, maybe I'm missing some nuances here as an outsider, but that does sound crazy.

[Solauren]

As an appendium to my earlier observation about a law making publishing about the royals without consent illegal:

It would not relate to illegal activity. Therefore Prince Andrews legal situation would still 'fair game' in the paper. However, stalking his daughters for pictures and comments would not be.

[Zaune]

Fair enough then. Although I fail to see why making it illegal to do it to the Royals while leaving the children of Premiership footballers, Pop Idol winners and other celebrities fair game is in any way fair or just.

[Gandalf]

As an appendium to my earlier observation about a law making publishing about the royals without consent illegal:

It would not relate to illegal activity. Therefore Prince Andrews legal situation would still 'fair game' in the paper. However, stalking his daughters for pictures and comments would not be.

So why not just grant everyone the same protections, as opposed to the Glorious Ruling Family?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't the point that the kind of behavior you are describing is already more or less illegal to do to among the population at large, but exceptions are granted for "public figures" (politicians, royals, celebrities, etc.)?

[Solauren]

Isn't the point that the kind of behavior you are describing is already more or less illegal to do to among the population at large, but exceptions are granted for "public figures" (politicians, royals, celebrities, etc.)?

Exactly.

Start by enforcing it on the Royals (smaller group of people), especially as they are a primary target for the tabloids.
Then, when they move onto other figures, you increase the enforcement.

Just putting the royals specifically as requiring both Crown and Subject consent makes it that much more difficult. It would make it just about impossible without appointment.

That alone could be the warning/slap the british tabloids need.

Then again, maybe not. Hard to stop criminals if they just don't care....

[Gandalf]

Exactly.

Start by enforcing it on the Royals (smaller group of people), especially as they are a primary target for the tabloids.
Then, when they move onto other figures, you increase the enforcement.

Just putting the royals specifically as requiring both Crown and Subject consent makes it that much more difficult. It would make it just about impossible without appointment.

That alone could be the warning/slap the british tabloids need.

Then again, maybe not. Hard to stop criminals if they just don't care....

Alternatively, have it just protect everyone at the start, instead of reactive lawmaking wholly dependant on the legislature being bothered to protect the latest targeted group.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So ... travel back in time to retroactively change the way modern privacy laws/precedents developed?

[Solauren]

No, just adjust them now to what they should be. (For everyone, or just start small, whichever, that's up to the Brits to do)

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was responding to Gandalf's "have it just protect everyone from the start" statement, somewhat with tongue-in-cheek.

[Solauren]

Well, apparently, all it took was the Queen, her eldest, and his two sons sitting down and talking like adults for a little while.

Some crisis.

[Broomstick]

The press wants a crisis because, as we say in the US, that sells cornflakes (I have no idea what the British equivalent of cornflakes would be).

[FireNexus]

The press wants a crisis because, as we say in the US, that sells cornflakes (I have no idea what the British equivalent of cornflakes would be).

Probably “Toasties” or some stupid shit like that. The only thing the british do well is roasted potatoes. And they ruin them by calling them “Roasties”.

[Bedlam]

The press wants a crisis because, as we say in the US, that sells cornflakes (I have no idea what the British equivalent of cornflakes would be).

I'd guess that the British equivalent of Cornflakes would be Cornflakes, assuming cornflakes are thin flakes of sweetcorn originally made by Kelloges and eaten with milk for breakfast and not anything else. They're a very popular breakfast here.

[Broomstick]

Yes, that's what cornflakes are over here, too. I had no idea they were popular over there.

[Gandalf]

Well, apparently, all it took was the Queen, her eldest, and his two sons sitting down and talking like adults for a little while.

Some crisis.

This is what happens when you give glorified Kardashians official standings. People take their shit seriously.

[Solauren]

Well, apparently, all it took was the Queen, her eldest, and his two sons sitting down and talking like adults for a little while.

Some crisis.

This is what happens when you give glorified Kardashians official standings. People take their shit seriously.

Now now, give the royalty some credit. After all, they had ancestors that conquered, united, ruled, and that lead the creation of a Empire that shaped and evolved into the modern world.

The kardassians claim to fame are being related to one of the guys that got O.J off the hook, and sex tapes.

[Gandalf]

Now now, give the royalty some credit. After all, they had ancestors that conquered, united, ruled, and that lead the creation of a Empire that shaped and evolved into the modern world.

The kardassians claim to fame are being related to one of the guys that got O.J off the hook, and sex tapes.

I'm not sure that "had monstrous ancestors" is one of the better things to highlight on the CV.

[Broomstick]

This is what happens when you give glorified Kardashians official standings. People take their shit seriously.

Now now, give the royalty some credit. After all, they had ancestors that conquered, united, ruled, and that lead the creation of a Empire that shaped and evolved into the modern world.

The kardassians claim to fame are being related to one of the guys that got O.J off the hook, and sex tapes.

You left out "almost-forgotten Olympian athlete now best known for being trans gender".

[streetad]

The Royal family's relation with the more.. dubious elements of the British press is actually quite nuanced. The Palace's comms team, whoever they are, has the media on a pretty tight leash. An understanding exists that as long as they stay within certain boundaries (don't be ostentatious, don't get caught doing anything scandalous, don't have public political opinions, don't actively court the media) they are pretty much off-limits and the media coverage will be uncritical and even obsequious.

As soon as they step outside these boundaries they become 'fair game' to be treated just like any other pointless Kardashian-type celeb with the added outrage factor that they are 'leeching off the public purse' to make it extra spicy.

This is the key difference between how Harry/Meghan and William/Kate have been treated.

As for Piers Morgan, he appears to have personal beef with Meghan. Apparently she met with him several times to discuss how to position herself with the UK media only to drop him like the liability he is at the first opportunity.

[Broomstick]

I heard something about Meghan rebuffing sexual advances by Piers Morgan, or some sort of sexual harassment. Which, if true (and I have zero clue if it is or not) might also explain a lot.

[Solauren]

This is what happens when you give glorified Kardashians official standings. People take their shit seriously.

Now now, give the royalty some credit. After all, they had ancestors that conquered, united, ruled, and that lead the creation of a Empire that shaped and evolved into the modern world.

The kardassians claim to fame are being related to one of the guys that got O.J off the hook, and sex tapes.

You left out "almost-forgotten Olympian athlete now best known for being trans gender".

Yeah, but that's post-sex tapes

[Zaune]

I heard something about Meghan rebuffing sexual advances by Piers Morgan, or some sort of sexual harassment. Which, if true (and I have zero clue if it is or not) might also explain a lot.

Seeing as he's not been shot dead by Special Branch or hauled off to enjoy the hospitality of one of Her Majesty's Prisons, I suspect that might be at least somewhat exaggerated... unless this dates back to before she and Prince Harry became a couple. Even Piers Morgan has more sense than to get handsy with someone who has an armed security detail.