So what’s the truth about those conspiracy theories?
FROM Kate’s face being ‘transplanted’ from a magazine cover to outlandish rumours about the children’s clothing, the conspiracy theories about the now infamous Mother’s Day picture reached a new frenzy yesterday.
The fallout from the Palace’s handling of the crisis showed no signs of abating, as online sleuths shared ever more ridiculous claims.
Among the most ludicrous are suggestions that the Princess of Wales was not even present at last Friday’s photo shoot at all, but digitally ‘swapped in’ from a Vogue photograph taken eight years ago. Armchair detectives have also claimed the children’s clothing and other clues indicate the photo was really taken last December and stitched together for release on Mother’s Day.
Despite concerted efforts by the Palace to quench the smouldering rumours, the most eccentric theories have now been shared online tens of millions of times.
The rumours all stem from the now admitted fact that the portrait was digitally edited. Detailed study of the image shows pixels in at least 26 areas have been noticeably altered, from Charlotte’s sleeve to Kate’s misaligned zip. The glitches have fed the extraordinary theories. So is there a grain of truth to any of the conspiracy theories?
THE ‘CLONED’ VOGUE COVER
A ViDeO by one social media user, purporting to demonstrate that the Princess of Wales’s face was supplanted from the June 2016 cover of Vogue and put on her 2024 Mother’s Day portrait, has been viewed 35 million times. With her trademark smile and tilted head, Kate’s face does look remarkably similar in the two images.
But the theory has been demolished by eliot Higgins, the founder of forensic investigation website Bellingcat, who said: ‘There’s so many minor differences, like the reflection of the light in her pupils, the light and shadow on her face, the teeth visible, wrinkles . . . that it’s clearly just a photo of the same woman from about the same angle, not the same exact photo. it hurts my brain that i even have to point this out.’
He added: ‘These people are playing spot the difference and losing.’
There might also be copyright consequences had Kate cut-and-pasted her Vogue portrait taken by acclaimed royal portrait photographer Hugo Burnand.
PRINCESS CHARLOTTE’S MATCHING RED JUMPER
WiTH its distinctive ruffled neck line, the red cashmere sweater eight- year- old Charlotte is wearing under her cardigan appears to be exactly the same garment she wore to an event in December when – with her brothers George, ten, and Louis, five, and the Princess of Wales – she was pictured visiting the Windsor Baby Bank set up for mothers in need.
One U. S. internet ‘ sleuth’ claimed Charlotte was also wearing the same shoes – and suggested the photo was compiled from images taken on December 11.
Charlotte even seems to be wearing the same pink bracelet, allegedly ‘faded’ in colour since December. Meanwhile, George’s checked shirt and blue jumper also appear
close to those he wore the baby bank visit, albeit the collar would have had to be shaded blue for this to be the same shirt.
Yet neither George nor Charlotte, at the baby bank, were seen posing in the same positions as they appeared in the portrait.
And even royal children sometimes wear the same clothes. Lee Walton, imaging technician at DMG Newspapers, said about the Mother’s Day photo: ‘Whatever the online conspiracy theorists would have you believe, i can categorically say no one’s head or hands have been entirely replaced.’
DEBUNKING CLAIMS OVER LOUIS’S TEETH
ANOTHeR way to debunk the theory of the photo being taken last December is Louis’s missing tooth. in the portrait, the little boy has lost one of his lower baby teeth. But the tooth was there in photos of him on Christmas Day at Sandringham, suggesting the Mother’s Day portrait was taken after, not before, Christmas.
WHY ARE THE LEAVES ON THE TREES SO GREEN?
OTHeRS have insisted the photo is from earlier in 2023, due to the green leaves on a plant behind them.
But Guy Barter, chief adviser at the Royal Horticultural Society, said it was not possible to identify the plant and pointed out the UK has had a mild winter, with many plants in leaf ahead of times in the US, where many online critics live.
People in the UK also shared pictures of their gardens showing verdant leaves on shrubs and plants.
WHAT DO THE TELLTALE SIGNS OF PHOTOSHOP SAY?
THe Palace steadfastly refuses to release ‘ the original’ photo before Kate’s modifications. What does this tell us?
it would be worth a sizeable bet to suggest Prince William snapped more than one ‘ original photo’ during last week’s 40-minute session at Windsor. And some might show the young Royal Highnesses engaged in less than optimal poses. Perhaps one child was blinking as the shutter clicked, or yawning – or even doing ‘bunny ears’ in a moment of playfulness. Consider just how firmly crossed are the fingers of grinning five-year-old Prince Louis.
Whatever those ‘original’ images show – and the Palace is never going to release them – it is clear that not one of the frames was considered ‘perfect’ on its own.
By the time the Prince of Wales, acting as official photographer, handed back his wife’s £2,900 Canon 5D Mark iV camera, it will likely have had several near-identical photos, with different members of the family looking their best in different frames.
The most likely explanation is therefore entirely innocent – that Kate, 42, after reviewing her husband’s photographic efforts on the screen of her Apple Mac, harmlessly performed a simple editing trick to merge the best of each frame into one composite ‘perfect’ family portrait.
As she herself said in the mea culpa issued after the furore went global: ‘ Like many amateur photographers, i do occasionally experiment with editing.’
Details buried within the file’s ‘meta data’ properties show it was edited using Adobe Photoshop, at 9.54pm on Friday and at 9.39am on Saturday, reported Sky News.
Photoshop has a feature named ‘ Photo Merge’, which is designed for exactly this purpose. it lets you assemble a composite image by selecting the best parts from two or more near-identical photographs.
The software can ‘intelligently’ replace, for example, a blinking child’s face with the same child smiling beautifully from a photo taken a moment later. But it is not seamless, and it leaves its mark, as the royals have discovered to their cost.