Of the various press rituals surrounding the British royal family, a few sillies than the guard outside London's maternity ward, where squadrons of the news reporter are waiting in the street, sometimes for hours or days, for a woman to enter labor.
The following is bedlam: Bookmakers with paintings, updating the odds on names, suggestive monarchists and, for a lot of challenged journalists, the opportunity to photograph a few inches of exposed royal babies before the baby is whipped away to a palace
The only thing Worse, it does not seem to be able to photograph the newborn at all.
This did not go well with the press, who reported the decision as deviation from more than 40 years of tradition.
The Sun, Britain's highest circulation records, shook the couple for having overruled "our royal rights".
Keeping the nation in the dark over details, even after birth, is a bad look at the royal couple, "the newspaper's unsigned leader sniffed on April 12." The public has the right to know about the lives of those who are largely financed by their taxes. You can accept it or be private citizens. Not both. "
In interviews, journalists were more raw.
" It's like Harry is right now, he has just this bib in his bonnet that all media should be ignored, "says Arthur Edwards, 78, a photographer for The Sun, who has covered the birth of five children, including Harry, at Lindos wing at St. Mary's Hospital. "" Harry used to be the best of them all, "Edwards said." We would meet in a pub and we would Talk about everything, take it off on our plate. It would be open and open, and you never reported it. Now it's not even "Good morning." Nothing. He treats us just like telegraph poles now. "
The new couple's decision to exclude the press from their child's birth is hardly a surprise to anyone who has kept track. Last year, Harry and Meghan only let a reporter inside St. George's Chapel for their wedding, which came as a crushing blow to publications that gave the wedding saturation coverage.
This cold against photographers, of course, comes from Prince Harry, who was 12 when his mother was killed in a car accident, because her driver was trying to fly paparazzi on motorcycles.
The problem by excluding the press – rewriting an old symbiotic relationship with 19459007 – is that the press has a way to get its own back. intelligence And the weak will of newspaper editors, like the deceived fairy, who was not invited to princess ns doping in "Sleeping Beauty", could float for years around the family.
"This is the crushing of a tradition dating back decades," said a senior journalist, who would only discuss the matter on the basis of anonymity. "It's a price to pay for it, and that price is mockery."
Tires by Sussexes, in recent weeks, have not been nice. A Daily Mail columnist last week listened to Prince Harry to play with Oprah Winfrey for a television series on mental health.
"Her secret brand of half-cooked New Age spirituality, nailed with neoliberal politics and inspirational hokum, plays well with refrigerator-magnet philosophers like Harry and Meghan," wrote columnist Jan Moir, who continued to torment the couple in more serious tones for to refuse to show the child to photographers.
"While a new baby is a deeply personal and private event, a royal baby is also a totem of national celebration, a square of British joy," she wrote. "What is it for royal citizens if we cannot celebrate their children royals in a whole bonkers British orgy of bunting, popping corks and knit bootees? Two or three days later it won't be the same."
Then she went in for death . "Maybe Oprah has snapped the exclusive child's first look?" She asked. "I wouldn't put it past her. Or them."
The beef with the press has taken on a transatlantic thing, with Ms. Markles supporters pushing back in front American fashion. In February, five of Duchess's friends defended her against "global bullying" in an interview with People Magazine, a move that surprisingly surprised their royal handlers. Then film star George Clooney spoke in his defense and told a group of journalists that she had "persecuted and persecuted and chased in the same way as Diana was and it is history that repeats itself."
This charge was also ranked mildest by the royal reporters. Valentine Low, which covers the family of The Times of London, suppressed these claims as "complete imagination" and said many Americans failed to understand the traditional push-and-pull of royal coverage.
"The problem is that in some quarters, especially in the United States, some negative coverage is considered racist," he wrote. "Listening to some American networks is getting the impression that the British media are racist, sexist, snobbish and determined to climb up to any outsider who has the toughness of joining the royal family."
Mr. Edwards, the solar photographer, was more sad than angry.
" I photographed Harry when he came out in Diana's arms and I would have photographed him when he came out with his own baby," he said. "It's a happy occasion, with gambling companies coming up with a board name, it's a pretty big event."
He said that Prince Harry was extremely popular with the readers.
"I feel sorry for him" he said. "Because he becomes morose."