Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When even Oprah has started to walk back the racism claims makes you wonder
what is in the part of the interview that hasn’t aired.

Where do you see this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

Yep. You think any pap photog would dare take and sell an unauthorized photo of Meghan's child -- knowing how "sue" crazy Meghan and Harry are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

Yep. You think any pap photog would dare take and sell an unauthorized photo of Meghan's child -- knowing how "sue" crazy Meghan and Harry are?

Yes, you psycho.

Paparazzi can take photos of anyone they want in public. You seriously believe there’s a Harry and Meghan exemption??? You’re quite naive. If they tried to sue for something like this, the case would get thrown out of court. They successfully sued tabloids for things that were illegal like trespass onto her private property to take photos or publish copyrighted documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

Yep. You think any pap photog would dare take and sell an unauthorized photo of Meghan's child -- knowing how "sue" crazy Meghan and Harry are?

Yes, you psycho.

Paparazzi can take photos of anyone they want in public. You seriously believe there’s a Harry and Meghan exemption??? You’re quite naive. If they tried to sue for something like this, the case would get thrown out of court. They successfully sued tabloids for things that were illegal like trespass onto her private property to take photos or publish copyrighted documents.

But it's a Backgrid photo! You clearly don't know much about Backgrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

Yep. You think any pap photog would dare take and sell an unauthorized photo of Meghan's child -- knowing how "sue" crazy Meghan and Harry are?

Yes, you psycho.

Paparazzi can take photos of anyone they want in public. You seriously believe there’s a Harry and Meghan exemption??? You’re quite naive. If they tried to sue for something like this, the case would get thrown out of court. They successfully sued tabloids for things that were illegal like trespass onto her private property to take photos or publish copyrighted documents.

Boy, that’s sure fortunate that only a single paparazzi photographer was able to spot Meghan! He was able to make serious money when no other paparazzi were able to get even one shot. I guess he just got super lucky to happen upon Meghan when no other photographers could find her, right? Too bad he couldn’t get more shots of Meghan and Archie to sell, but I guess he just saw them for that split second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this information --


California paparrazi law protecting celebrity children:

" bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

WITHOUT CONSENT OF PARENT

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/#:~:text=California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.%E2%80%A6&text=September%2027%2C%202013-,California%20Gov.,photograph%20the%20children%20of%20celebrities.



So yeah, looks like Meghan approved photo. She's smiling in photo, too. Doesn't look upset AT ALL by paparrazi.

the parent need not give consent if the photographer did not harass, terrorize, torment or seriously alarm the child.

Seriously. This law was created so paparazzi couldn’t follow celebrities closely and goad them into yelling and causing a scene.

Meghan was walking on a public street. It looks like this photo was taken from across the street. They do not need her permission to publish it. Anyone can take a photo of anyone in public.

I can’t believe how clueless people are. And reading comprehension is very poor.

Lots of celebrities work with paparazzi to arrange for “candid” photos of themselves. I would bet something similar happened here. Otherwise, where were the other paparazzi? Why didn’t they also take pics of her on this “public street”? It would have made them big $$$!

This was a Backgrid photo -- AKA, the agency celebs call to give exact location of where they will be for "candid" shots. LOL Sure it was a random encounter.

And the photo was taken in LA -- that is a looooooong way from Montecito for Archie to go to school.

Hahahaha. Meghan stans are so gullible. They fall for all of her obvious bullshit.

Yep. You think any pap photog would dare take and sell an unauthorized photo of Meghan's child -- knowing how "sue" crazy Meghan and Harry are?

Yes, you psycho.

Paparazzi can take photos of anyone they want in public. You seriously believe there’s a Harry and Meghan exemption??? You’re quite naive. If they tried to sue for something like this, the case would get thrown out of court. They successfully sued tabloids for things that were illegal like trespass onto her private property to take photos or publish copyrighted documents.

But it's a Backgrid photo! You clearly don't know much about Backgrid.

+1. These are people who want Meghan to lie to them. They eat it up. It’s bizarrely subservient and masochistic imo.

[Anonymous]

It sure looks like Meghan and Harry need money. Reliable sources said Harry (had the audacity) to ask Prince Charles for more money when he was home for Prince Philip's funeral -- and that Prince Charles declined additional funds for their "California dream."

So what do we have here....Meghan setting up pap walk to sell photo and merch items for her and Archie. Why else would Meghan's Mirror have the EXACT details for everything she and Archie were wearing up so quickly? She's most likely getting a cut from the merching website.

I know Meghan's fans would never believe she would do this, but this has been her standard operating procedure since her Suits days. Sorry folks.


Interesting details on staged pap walks from this Cosmopolitan article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/q-and-a/a60015/paparazzo-explains-staged-celebrity-photos/:

"Why would a celebrity ever set up and stage photos?

The biggest reason is money. But they also release photos because they want to have control of their own image.

Many setup photos include a paid product endorsement, where a photo agency works as a middleman between a celebrity and a company who has a product to sell. It could be the latest cell phone that was just released, or a food or beauty product, or something as simple as them being seen shopping at a certain retail outlet. Certain photo agencies specialize in these types of fake paparazzi photos. They usually try to make the photos look natural and candid, but in reality, the celebrity and the photographer are working together. It's a paid photo shoot and the celebrity gets a big check. The readers of tabloid magazines and blogs have no idea!

Control is another big reason for staging photos. There are certain celebs who hate being photographed by paparazzi and they will do anything to avoid it. When your image is such an important part of your career, the last thing they want is to be photographed looking badly. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally set up. When they see paparazzi in real life, they put their heads down and hide their faces — unless they are promoting something.

Another example is when there is high demand for a certain photo. When Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's daughter Apple was first born, they worked directly with an infamous paparazzi photographer in New York. Together, they staged the first baby photos and made them look like candid pictures, then they sold the shots to a major magazine. The pictures were rumored to sell for upward of a million dollars. The paparazzi got a cut, and they took the rest.

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally setup.

Kim Kardashian is the biggest example of a celebrity who releases fake paparazzi photos. Kim has a personal paparazzi who she texts regularly. This man flies around the world, going wherever she asks him to be, and they work together to produce the latest fake paparazzi pictures of her. She reviews every image before they start selling them to magazines. If they shoot on a beach, these images are heavily Photoshopped and she chooses her favorites to sell."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sure looks like Meghan and Harry need money. Reliable sources said Harry (had the audacity) to ask Prince Charles for more money when he was home for Prince Philip's funeral -- and that Prince Charles declined additional funds for their "California dream."

So what do we have here....Meghan setting up pap walk to sell photo and merch items for her and Archie. Why else would Meghan's Mirror have the EXACT details for everything she and Archie were wearing up so quickly? She's most likely getting a cut from the merching website.

I know Meghan's fans would never believe she would do this, but this has been her standard operating procedure since her Suits days. Sorry folks.


Interesting details on staged pap walks from this Cosmopolitan article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/q-and-a/a60015/paparazzo-explains-staged-celebrity-photos/:

"Why would a celebrity ever set up and stage photos?

The biggest reason is money. But they also release photos because they want to have control of their own image.

Many setup photos include a paid product endorsement, where a photo agency works as a middleman between a celebrity and a company who has a product to sell. It could be the latest cell phone that was just released, or a food or beauty product, or something as simple as them being seen shopping at a certain retail outlet. Certain photo agencies specialize in these types of fake paparazzi photos. They usually try to make the photos look natural and candid, but in reality, the celebrity and the photographer are working together. It's a paid photo shoot and the celebrity gets a big check. The readers of tabloid magazines and blogs have no idea!

Control is another big reason for staging photos. There are certain celebs who hate being photographed by paparazzi and they will do anything to avoid it. When your image is such an important part of your career, the last thing they want is to be photographed looking badly. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally set up. When they see paparazzi in real life, they put their heads down and hide their faces — unless they are promoting something.

Another example is when there is high demand for a certain photo. When Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's daughter Apple was first born, they worked directly with an infamous paparazzi photographer in New York. Together, they staged the first baby photos and made them look like candid pictures, then they sold the shots to a major magazine. The pictures were rumored to sell for upward of a million dollars. The paparazzi got a cut, and they took the rest.

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally setup.

Kim Kardashian is the biggest example of a celebrity who releases fake paparazzi photos. Kim has a personal paparazzi who she texts regularly. This man flies around the world, going wherever she asks him to be, and they work together to produce the latest fake paparazzi pictures of her. She reviews every image before they start selling them to magazines. If they shoot on a beach, these images are heavily Photoshopped and she chooses her favorites to sell."

“Reliable sources”? Is that like: “People are saying....”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sure looks like Meghan and Harry need money. Reliable sources said Harry (had the audacity) to ask Prince Charles for more money when he was home for Prince Philip's funeral -- and that Prince Charles declined additional funds for their "California dream."

So what do we have here....Meghan setting up pap walk to sell photo and merch items for her and Archie. Why else would Meghan's Mirror have the EXACT details for everything she and Archie were wearing up so quickly? She's most likely getting a cut from the merching website.

I know Meghan's fans would never believe she would do this, but this has been her standard operating procedure since her Suits days. Sorry folks.


Interesting details on staged pap walks from this Cosmopolitan article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/q-and-a/a60015/paparazzo-explains-staged-celebrity-photos/:

"Why would a celebrity ever set up and stage photos?

The biggest reason is money. But they also release photos because they want to have control of their own image.

Many setup photos include a paid product endorsement, where a photo agency works as a middleman between a celebrity and a company who has a product to sell. It could be the latest cell phone that was just released, or a food or beauty product, or something as simple as them being seen shopping at a certain retail outlet. Certain photo agencies specialize in these types of fake paparazzi photos. They usually try to make the photos look natural and candid, but in reality, the celebrity and the photographer are working together. It's a paid photo shoot and the celebrity gets a big check. The readers of tabloid magazines and blogs have no idea!

Control is another big reason for staging photos. There are certain celebs who hate being photographed by paparazzi and they will do anything to avoid it. When your image is such an important part of your career, the last thing they want is to be photographed looking badly. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally set up. When they see paparazzi in real life, they put their heads down and hide their faces — unless they are promoting something.

Another example is when there is high demand for a certain photo. When Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's daughter Apple was first born, they worked directly with an infamous paparazzi photographer in New York. Together, they staged the first baby photos and made them look like candid pictures, then they sold the shots to a major magazine. The pictures were rumored to sell for upward of a million dollars. The paparazzi got a cut, and they took the rest.

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are a good example of a celebrity couple who hates paparazzi, but you will see nice photos of them released on a regular basis. Those photos are totally setup.

Kim Kardashian is the biggest example of a celebrity who releases fake paparazzi photos. Kim has a personal paparazzi who she texts regularly. This man flies around the world, going wherever she asks him to be, and they work together to produce the latest fake paparazzi pictures of her. She reviews every image before they start selling them to magazines. If they shoot on a beach, these images are heavily Photoshopped and she chooses her favorites to sell."

“Reliable sources”? Is that like: “People are saying....”?

No, credible royal reporters in UK.

[Anonymous]

So is Oprah distancing herself from their interview? Worried about fallout? She says "she didn't expect Meghan and Harry to go there" regarding racist accusations toward BRF.

I'm not sure I understand what Oprah is doing. Is she worried about being shut out of future BRF access? I would think she would know that she'll probably never get access to anyone but Meghan and Harry in the future.