(Thumbnail image: The Telegraph)

Queen Elizabeth is fed up with the paparazzi. She’s warned the UK press to stay out of the royal family’s way during their holiday vacation at Sandringham. She has threatened legal action for taking and publishing private pictures of the royal family when they are off duty.

The announcement has the support of other senior members of the royal family and a royal photographer who has spoken out to back the family. But there are plenty of critics of the decision, raising the greater question of a royal family’s right to privacy.

We look at perspectives from Sky News, CTV, CNN, the Telegraph, the BBC, the Guardian, and Mail Online.

Sky News delves deeper into possible reasons behind the queen’s announcement.

“It’s been a tremendously growing problem, you might remember last year that there were photographs of Prince Edward allegedly hitting his dog, well he wasn’t, he was exonerated by the RSPCA, but the pictures and the captions told a different story. Well, these things take a long time to clear up and yes, the royal family, just like anybody else are entitled to privacy.”

Many are asking why now? Some speculate that it signals an engagement between Prince William and longtime girlfriend Kate Middleton. Others say it’s a cumulative buildup of past trouble with paparazzi. Still others say it’s a request for privacy over the Christmas holiday at their private Sandringham residence. CTV News discusses further.

“I think it’s simply at this point, a warning.”

“Quite often, the British media quite often respect these wishes, the problem has been…because such a demand – a single photograph can earn an individual a huge amount of money and there are many freelance photographers that are very difficult to control.”

CNN reports that this recent demand could have adverse effects on newspapers.

“But some feel meeting these demands could cause big problems for newspapers. Sometimes you need photos to prove the veracity of a story, therefore it is essential that sometimes these photographs are taken, otherwise stories of legitimate public interest may not make the paper and the public that pay the bill might not find out about it.”

The announcement highlights the often uneasy relationship Britain's royals have had with the paparazzi. The BBC focuses particularly on how it relates to Princess Diana and her death.

“The Princess of Wales frequently complained she was harassed. But Diana's relationship with the press was complicated, at times courted.”

“Her revelations about her relationship with Prince Charles in a BBC Panorama programme…[and] The frank admission of her battle against depression and bulimia, in the same interview.”

Telegraph TV suggests that the royal court can’t turn the press on and off.

“Critics say the royals, much like any other celebs, just have to accept if they are going to use the cameras to promote their work, they can’t turn them away whenever they feel like it.”

A Mail Online blogger agrees adding:

“The Press can't be confined merely to recording the official doings of the Royal Family. If it were, I doubt if the monarchy would last. We need glimpses of how they really live in order to maintain our interest and support.”

So how do you feel about the issue of public versus private issues? Was the Queen warranted in making such demands to the paparazzi or do such regulations infringe on the rights of the press?

Writer: Katlin Chadwick

Producer: