Queen ELizabeth Part IV

[Lucien]

HM met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at Buckingham Palace:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/11/natos-boss-meets-britains-boss.html

courtesy hja

[Lucien]

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=18-11-2009%20London

courtesy ppe

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?mailingid=16251&flush=1

courtesy royalimages.

[RoyalWatcher]

I love this day...the opening of Parliament. It's the one time a year that HM dons the royal wardrobe in all its finery. Love it! She looks so beautiful in all white.

[Lucien]

HM has issued a formal warning at the address of the paparazzi to leave her,and her family alone.With this formal step it will
be easyer to drag any creepy paparazzi to court who intrudes the private sphere of the Windsor Family.Good job Ma'am!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397664.stm

[RoyalWatcher]

AGREED.

As much as I love seeing photos of the Royal Family, they must have their privacy respected. And, I sure hope this is a prelude to a royal engagement...this girl can only hope!

[mcdnab]

The trouble is that the Royal Family are not the same as your usual a list celebs but their pics often carry the same price.
If we're talking about photographers committing trespass on what is private property then the Royal Family have an absolute right to pursue those individuals through the courts however it is far harder to complain about a picture being taken from a public road.
Britain doesn't have any what you would call robust privacy laws that would in most circumstances cover over intrusive press invasion therefore unless trespass was committed it is quite hard for the Palace to take any action. Proving harrassment in their position would be hard to prove.
The problem has always been that the Royal Family attract public interest in almost everything they do and they themselves are incredibly reliant on the media reporting on what they actually do (otherwise their value as patrons of the numerous good causes they are involved in would fade). One of their biggest complaints about the media's obsession with Diana was that due to the charities she chose and the enormous affection, popularity she attracted (helped by her good looks) she eclipsed the rest of the family (particularly the exceptional work the Prince of Wales was doing with the Prince's trust).
Unfortunately lfor the Royal family they didn't, unlike many celebrities, chose to sacrifice much of their private life but they do lead extraordinarily priviliged lives and that does come at a price.
Do they have a right to privacy yes of course but realistically much of what they do is going to come under public scrutiny - does a Christmas holiday at the Queen's private estate come under public interest - no not really but unfortunately the public here and abroad will continue to lap up pictures of the Family at their ease and the people responsible for that aren't the photographers or news editors who chose to take them but the fact that those people are in an increasingly difficult business and the public appear to have an unending appetite for those pictures.
Editors are now faced with losing circulation to those publications who ignore the Queen's request and get that picture of Prince William wandering hand in hand with Kate Middleton round Sandringham (which is what most commentators suspect that this is really about).
Even if there is no engagement announcement in the next six months (predictions for a Royal wedding are late next year or early in 2012 to tie in with the diamond jubilee, William's 30th and the London Olympics) the Palace and particularly Prince William are extremely concerned about a repeat of the kind of media scrutiny that CHarles and Diana's marriage faced in the 1980's - sadly its hard to thing they'll really escape it though - because whilst the paparazzi and the media moguls may have learned a lesson the public (you and i) haven't - given the choice most of us will still google the image, buy the paper or magazine that has the more private shot than the perhaps stale and staged image released to everyone!

[Lucien]

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/12/queen-and-family-clamp-down-on-pics.html

courtesy hja

Sandringham last sunday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1260125726.html

courtesy Ken,BRMB.

[RoyalWatcher]

If we're talking about photographers committing trespass on what is private property then the Royal Family have an absolute right to pursue those individuals through the courts however it is far harder to complain about a picture being taken from a public road.

I guess I'm not in total agreement with you regarding photographs taken on public roads. The paparazzi have extremely powerful telephoto lenses that can capture images from extreme distances. I have a BIG problem with that and so should HM's legal team. It's completely intrusive and that is exactly what the paparazzi continue to do and the papers continue buying those pictures.

I suppose until the British legal system changes its laws regarding privacy, the paparazzi will continue taking pictures from public roads that capture images of HM and her family on her estates. It's really a shame that the British Royal Family haven't pushed the legal system for more privacy protection just as other European Royal Families have successfully done.

[Lucien]

Queen's Territories:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/12/leaders-of-queens-territories-will-meet-.html

courtesy hja

[Lucien]

Pre-Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace today.A report by dear Ken:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1260989056.html

courtesy Ken,BRMB

[RoyalWatcher]

Fascinating. I have never heard of the pre-Christmas luncheon before. How long has this tradition been going on? Why have a pre-Christmas lunch? Is it primarily for the extended family who don't go/aren't invited to Sandringham?

[Lucien]

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/12/royal-tribute-to-soldiers-in-afghanistan.html

HM will honour the troops in Afghanistan in her Christmas broadcast tomorrow afternoon.

courtesy hja

[Lucien]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8430546.stm

[Marc]

I was researching a bit ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II and found an interesting fact thet present monarch is direct descendant of the Sarkozy family and therefore related to the family of Nicolas Paul Stephane Sarkozy de Nagy-Bocsa,President of France...here is her line from the Sarkozy family:


Elisabeth Sarkozy
I
Maria Maczesdy de Maczesd
I
Helene Rusory de Rusor
I
Michael Barcsay de Nagy-Barcsa-elder,died in 1716
I
Michael Barcsay de Nagy-Barcsa-younger
I
Peter Barcsay de Nagy-Barcsa,lived from 1737-1797
I
Karolina Barcsay de Nagy-Barcsa,died in 1810
I
Baroness Agnes Inczedy de Nagy Varad,lived from 1788-1856
I
Countess Claudine Rhedey de Kis-Rhede,lived from 1812-1841
I
Duke Franz von Teck,lived from 1837-1900
I
Princess Victoria Mary von Teck,lived from 1867-1953
I
King George VI of Great Britain,lived from 1895-1952
I
ELISABETH II,Queen of Great Britain,born in 1926

[Lucien]

HM Queen Elisabeth will address the United Nations this summer for the first time in over 50 years:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/01/queen-elizabeth-to-address-united-nations.html

courtesy hja