Its not 'creepy'....its big money. The Americans love a bit of Royalty its all good money to them.

But they are not just 'anyone' are they? Why would the press want a picture of joe bloggs in his garden :shrug:

The child is 1 years old and the photos were not authorised... it is creepy royal or not.

If it was Mr Smith down the road flying a drone over a garden to get a picture of a child in the garden...then thats creepy. But this is the press trying to get pictures of English Royalty. They probably were not specifically after pictures of Archie but he was obviously in the garden at the time. Its not creepy its opportunist and an invasion of privicy.

in america, the laws differ state to state but the principle is

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

So taking pictures of someone’s child on private property isn’t creepy, as long as the person is in the public eye? That’s beyond ridiculous, but anything to attack Meghan I suppose

You can hone on on google earth if you had a mind to on peoples property so not sure what the law is :shrug:

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully, not quite sure why Harry and Meg’s can’t do the same, .cake and eat it springs to mind with these two

It would be creepy if the person wanted them for themselves yes, but I assume they were taken for money? .so no I don’t find it particularly creepy, just someone seizing an opportunity

He managed a very secret life indeed :skull:

According to Californian law:

"This law prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the press in covering celebrities and other public figures."

It’s wrong to be photographing children in their own homes but please stop with the creepy line of defence.

The press get paid to get exclusive pictures, the one’s that are worth the most are the ones people don’t want the public to see.

:joker:

But they could have. taken it for money and their own pleasure... no one actually knows what they are going to do with that picture thats how wrong it is. It’s still creepy regardless

We all had photos taken as kids growing up in our school uniforms and that’s acceptable but someone taking pictures of kids in school uniforms at the park is not.

There is a difference.

Meghan has every right to sue.

everyone has rights to their privacy at home, regular people and celebrities

Meghan is in her full right to sue

that drone is so racist

It no more creepy than someone in the bushes with a long lens :shrug: its just a new twist on that

:laugh:

Just because theres money to be made doesn't make it any less creepy. Let kids be kids.

That's creepy enough as well tbf

:laugh:

Princess Anne is the hardest working Royal and we don't hear a word about it
she is the perfect Royal tbh, seen but not heard :hee:

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...irus-pandemic/

The 10 most charitable working royals
According to the GivingAssistant.org study, these are the most charitable working royals ranked by the number of patron visits they made between July 2019 and July 2020.

1.) Princess Anne - 73

2.) Prince William - 58

3.) Prince Charles - 48

4.) Prince Richard (The Duke of Gloucester) - 34

5.) Prince Edward - 33

who is Prince Richard :shrug:

...if it’s illegal to take those photographs, which it is...then it’s surely also illegal to publish them in the media...which leaves open the purpose for why they were taken and where they would appear...

I wouldn't say hanging out in pizza express in woking was particularly secret.