Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Expert says Wales family photo, unlikely to have been edited by Kate.

223 replies

Primrosecottagelover · 12/03/2024 05:18

An expert, Jenny Smith from the American Graphic Institute has told the NBC, that the Wales family photo is heavily edited. The photograph appeared to have been edited by hand, not by AI and new clothing added. Smith told the NBC it would have likely been edited by someone very experienced, not Kate.
Expert on NBC: Kate unlikely to be the editor of the photo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XWxTdEICMtQ

NBC 10 talks to graphics expert who analyzed Princess Kate's family photo

NBC 10 News on Monday talked to an expert in user experience who analyzed the photo of the Princess of Wales and her children that was pulled by leading news...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XWxTdEICMtQ

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
smilesy · 12/03/2024 11:32

Rishi Sunak is definitely not elected, not even by his own party- they chose Liz Truss and when she went he got in as second choice

By convention, the leader of the party that wins the election comes PM. The party are at liberty to change the leader at any time during their time in government so we absolutely do not elect the PM, just the members of parliament. Rishi Sunak may not have been the party’s first choice for leader but it was nonetheless the party that decided on him. Not the electorate of the country. What about when Tony Blair handed over to Gordon’s Brown. I don’t recall that being down to the electorate, or even through an election in the party. So to say democracy is not functioning on the basis of the PM not being “elected” is not correct. We elect parties not personalities, although clearly personalities have an effect on the way some people vote

Freakinfraser · 12/03/2024 11:44

Op I was with you till you started all the daft bring on the revolution talk.of course this won’t end the monarchy lol.

on the initial subject matter. Yes, I read various reputable experts views after rhe picture was ran through forensic software.

it is a composite picture it seems. Ie pics brought in from other images and there was a very sophisticated tool used, rectangular something or another it’s called, and no amateur would use that. But there has been some sloppy editing also, so it does seem she may have had a crack at it too.

it is a major edit, not minor. 26 different edits. Most editing is her face and the kids hands.

What they can’t see it what other pics they used to create this composite image. It could have been just other snaps taken at the same time, but that’s possibly doubtful as it was done on a Mac in adobe. It does seem her face has been switched out. But could just be for a pic taken seconds before. But a huge amount of other stuff done to it.

it’s a very bizzare thing to do. They clearly want people to think she looks healthy , and that’s fine, but this was a foolish route to take. Their pr team should have known the huge risk in this. It would obviously have been better to issue no pic than one so heavily manipulated the agencies can’t trust its authenticity. And the fact they won’t issue the original is quite telling. It would indicate they can’t.

areyoutheregod · 12/03/2024 11:48

ChVrches · 12/03/2024 11:14

Well yes Meghan and Suits were filmed in Toronto so yes it was in the press and yes the move to the US of A. Meghan though makes her living by appearing in public so it is to be expected whereas the Princess of Wales is a woman who is currently ill. That's just my take on it.

even after she left and admitted she had mental health issues and suicidal thoughts? Even when she was pregnant? what's Megan being in suits got to do with it? Kate is the princess of Wales. Why would she not get the same level of press attention, or greater? Theres nothing surprising about the current fuss at all given how the press have always behaved.

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:49

@smilesy when Gordon Brown took over there was immense pressure for him to hold a general election - there was a snap election planned for 2007 which he called off due to the banking crash.
This was precisely why Boris Johnson held a snap election in December 2019 so he couldn't be criticised as being a PM who hadn't " gone to the country".
Precedent can easily be broken but it is very useful when politicians or the RF want it to be...

RemarkablyBrightCreature · 12/03/2024 11:56

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:49

@smilesy when Gordon Brown took over there was immense pressure for him to hold a general election - there was a snap election planned for 2007 which he called off due to the banking crash.
This was precisely why Boris Johnson held a snap election in December 2019 so he couldn't be criticised as being a PM who hadn't " gone to the country".
Precedent can easily be broken but it is very useful when politicians or the RF want it to be...

Not strictly true - Johnson held his election in 2019 purely to get a mandate for Brexit. His “oven ready deal” which we all now know was no such thing needed a majority in the Commons to get through and they didn’t have that. If the Tories had still had a majority I don’t think there’s any chance Johnson would have called that election.

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:59

Strangely David Cameron had introduced a fixed term parliament act to abolish things like that happening.
This country is a joke

oakleaffy · 12/03/2024 12:01

ChVrches · 12/03/2024 11:02

@oakleaffy are you saying that the Princess of Wales died and they are pretending she is alive and they are telling her children to pretend she is alive? That is nuts.

I'm not saying that.... But that's the only conclusion I can come to for all the drama over a photoshopped image...why the fuss otherwise?

Personally I think Catherine is just having some peace and quiet away from the media glare.

MrsFinkelstein · 12/03/2024 12:03

User14March · 12/03/2024 08:02

@MrsFinkelstein it’s interesting she just says ‘surgery’.

Why? She did have surgery, we have no right to know what kind if she doest want to tell us.

BenefitWaffle · 12/03/2024 12:06

Merrymouse · 12/03/2024 09:43

The whole Catherine thing is very dangerous for constitutional monarchy as it paints them in the same light as the rest of the political world eg untrustworthy and dissembling.

In the past century, a King has abdicated, and the family have survived the scandals of Princess Margaret, Charles and Diana, and Prince Andrew and even, back in the day, Prince Edward and Princess Anne. For much of this time the press viewed the Queen as frumpy and boring.

I think they will survive this.

This was before social media. I do not think the Royal family really understand how much of a game changer this is.

Photohopping · 12/03/2024 12:20

Honestly photoshop tutorials are all over the internet and the program can be downloaded onto any half decent computer. If you’re interested in photography it’s really not that hard to create a composite. Also photo manipulation has been around since cameras were invented.. check out this one from the Boer war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Shadow_of_Death_(Roger_Fenton) not to mention arctic exploration photographer Frank Hurley, famous for his composites https://www.filmsnotdead.com/the-mad-photographer-the-truth-about-frank-hurleys-work/ the idea that photographs are inherently truthful has always been wrong!!

Valley of the Shadow of Death (Roger Fenton) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Shadow_of_Death_(Roger_Fenton)

RemarkablyBrightCreature · 12/03/2024 12:25

BenefitWaffle · 12/03/2024 12:06

This was before social media. I do not think the Royal family really understand how much of a game changer this is.

Totally agree. I also think the royals can’t have their cake and eat it. As a republican all this nonsense only continues to show the whole institution for what it is.

Icedlatteplease · 12/03/2024 12:27

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:29

@Icedlatteplease if you think that the RF don't have any real power you should probably learn a bit more about how they do things. I was shocked about the exemption from the race relations act revealed in a previous post, but not surprised.
Everything in our constitution rests on precedent and requires the RF to comply. The pantomime of Black Rod not letting the monarch in to the chambers without consent is just an example, when you see that they have set the agenda beforehand.
I can't think of another modern democracy that has hereditary heads of state and no written constitution.
After Liz Truss there should have been an election, by precedent, but there wasn't. The country is in a mess at the moment and the last thing we need is serious speculation about the future head of state's wife/ mother. They need to get a grip.

They really isn't anything in what you have said that is factually accurate.

We do have a written constitution in the firm of the laws of the country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom. The laws of country are the constitution

We have Laws historically written by a monach nowadays written by a democracy.

Precedent does not make or change them. Where Precedent may show up a difficult in law that's when Parliament make amendments to law.

The Royal family are legally required to obey the law as the Magna Carta makes that rule. That's not Precedent that is law

Election frequency is determined by law see here not precedent . There wasn't an election after Liz Truss because legally there would be no need be and there was no way Conservatives would call one at that point.

Black Rod actually has no legal right to prevent entry to the Monach. Legally the monach could enter if he wanted to. The ceremony you talk about is literally that. Ceremony, pomp and symbolism. It wouldn't be a good idea since the symbolism is reminding the monach that whilst he has a legal right to enter the last king who challenged the independence and authority of parliament was beheaded.

Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

oakleaffy · 12/03/2024 12:28

The rot set in with Andrew and Epstein and then Harry selling his stories. -Let the monarchy pay for itself - They don't need us to pay for them, they are very wealthy and quite able to support themselves.

Now the Queen and Philip have gone, I think the 'RF' is just in a shambles.

I personally can't think of Camilla as 'Queen?' - That's just a stretch too far.

Obviously Camilla and Charles are very well suited , and it's a shame they didn't marry back then, instead of putting Diana through hell.

The ''Tampongate'' recordings- It was obvious listening to the tape that they are a very compatible couple deeply at ease with each other.

Just go and live your lives without input from the Taxpayer.

Andrew is just ghastly {my opinion} officious and pompous.

Icedlatteplease · 12/03/2024 12:33

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:49

@smilesy when Gordon Brown took over there was immense pressure for him to hold a general election - there was a snap election planned for 2007 which he called off due to the banking crash.
This was precisely why Boris Johnson held a snap election in December 2019 so he couldn't be criticised as being a PM who hadn't " gone to the country".
Precedent can easily be broken but it is very useful when politicians or the RF want it to be...

No that was the spin.

Boris needed to go to the country to break the stalemate in parliament. Parliament were unable to make laws and function because noone could agree to anything to do with the EU. May didn't hold enough seats to force any laws through.

It needed to go to a general election to force to matter one way or another.

Nothing to do with precedent, simple political and legal necessity.

ismu · 12/03/2024 12:58

@Icedlatteplease
You're quite simply wrong.
The written "constitution" is no more than precedent. Nothing that is done in parliament or by the RF is set in stone, simply procedure.
The symbolism of Black Rod is there to suggest that the monarch governs by the consent of parliament, but this is not how things happen in reality.
We don't have a proper written constitution in this country.
Magna Carta only pertains to England and possibly Wales but does not stand in the rest of the UK, particularly in Scots law. We might as well appeal to the Declaration of Arbroath. The Wikipedia article you've quoted is mainly a long defence of all the reasons we don't need a codified constitution!
There's a shocking lack of understanding of constitutional arrangements, law and politics in the UK. The RF are absolutely central and they should be doing their best to sort out the current speculation as honestly and transparently as possible.

Icedlatteplease · 12/03/2024 12:58

ismu · 12/03/2024 11:29

@Icedlatteplease if you think that the RF don't have any real power you should probably learn a bit more about how they do things. I was shocked about the exemption from the race relations act revealed in a previous post, but not surprised.
Everything in our constitution rests on precedent and requires the RF to comply. The pantomime of Black Rod not letting the monarch in to the chambers without consent is just an example, when you see that they have set the agenda beforehand.
I can't think of another modern democracy that has hereditary heads of state and no written constitution.
After Liz Truss there should have been an election, by precedent, but there wasn't. The country is in a mess at the moment and the last thing we need is serious speculation about the future head of state's wife/ mother. They need to get a grip.

Big difference between power and constitutional power.

Many politicians have been warning about Charles' attempting to sidestep democratic power for years

beAsensible1 · 12/03/2024 12:59

it obviously wasn't her. why would she be editing shots for press? it so beyond the realm of the believable.

Gloriosaford · 12/03/2024 13:02

flapjackfairy · 12/03/2024 05:37

I totally agree. What is all the fuss about !

Well quite, we should all know our place and never question the royals, smile and doff our caps, genuflect kowtow and be amazed by their god given superiority.

skyfalldown · 12/03/2024 13:04

thank god we have an expert to tell us this, I wouldn't have known otherwise. I just assumed the future queen was mucking about on photoshop in her spare time.

Icedlatteplease · 12/03/2024 14:05

ismu · 12/03/2024 12:58

@Icedlatteplease
You're quite simply wrong.
The written "constitution" is no more than precedent. Nothing that is done in parliament or by the RF is set in stone, simply procedure.
The symbolism of Black Rod is there to suggest that the monarch governs by the consent of parliament, but this is not how things happen in reality.
We don't have a proper written constitution in this country.
Magna Carta only pertains to England and possibly Wales but does not stand in the rest of the UK, particularly in Scots law. We might as well appeal to the Declaration of Arbroath. The Wikipedia article you've quoted is mainly a long defence of all the reasons we don't need a codified constitution!
There's a shocking lack of understanding of constitutional arrangements, law and politics in the UK. The RF are absolutely central and they should be doing their best to sort out the current speculation as honestly and transparently as possible.

My apologies for picking the most expedient explanation of the UK constitution

I could have chosen the UK Parliament website to explain how our code of laws make up the constitution of the UK

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/constitution/

Or the constitution Society

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/

There are many laws outlining/limiting the relationship between monach and Parliament. For example Bill of Rights 1689 uk gov based on the principles of the Magna Carta. Or the Acts of Union 1707 which focused on codifying the joining of English and Scottish law

For those of us that do prefer lighter reading Time offers lighter reading regarding the laws the royals are allowed to ignore here. (Thus implying they do have to follow the rest)

But you are right. Nothing is fixed is stone. Laws can be changed. But there are Laws that codify how that happens too.

The symbolism of black rod in the opening of parliament is about the Independence of parliament to rule
UK gov. I think that may be what you are trying to say but I'm really not sure. It really is just pomp and ceremony as opposed to anything actual legal.

The UK constitution - The Constitution Society

A detailed explanation of the development of the UK's constitution: written by experts but easy to understand.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution

Icedlatteplease · 12/03/2024 14:16

Personally I find the exemptions the Freedom of Information Act that were lobbied for and given fairly shocking https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05377/

Anawi · 12/03/2024 14:19

beAsensible1 · 12/03/2024 12:59

it obviously wasn't her. why would she be editing shots for press? it so beyond the realm of the believable.

Quite!

The 'apology' statement was carefully worded. It didn't say she edited this photo, that was left for people to infer themselves. The statement said:

"Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing,"

Presumably, they thought making it sound like Catherine did it was the best way to get people to stop fussing about it.

PS - I hate myself for getting drawn into this enough to reply, I've been trying so hard to ignore these posts 🙈

Gloriosaford · 12/03/2024 14:24

Charlie is an arrogant twit, how can anyone take him seriously, best mates with Jimmy savile 🙄

aliceinthecities · 12/03/2024 14:24

I know! I am never on the royal threads and got drawn in enough to spend so much time here in the last day! it's fascinating though, the claim that it was Kate who edited it, made her look like a "normal", down-to-earth person editing her families' pics and normal royal admirers all lapped it up. It was a good calculation. Except the audience for this crisis unexpectedly grew much wider and no one outside the circle of royal admirers believes that Kate has edited the pics.

If she did and released them to world's press, having photoshopped in her own head, they all must be either incredibly stupid or completely unaware of the world and arrogant, or all three. That still leaves the question of what the PR office was doing...

BenefitWaffle · 12/03/2024 14:25

Gloriosaford · 12/03/2024 14:24

Charlie is an arrogant twit, how can anyone take him seriously, best mates with Jimmy savile 🙄

And Peter Ball convicted paedophile.

Swipe left for the next trending thread