FAKE KATE?
said...As fake as it/they can be:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13179371/SARAH-VINE-picture-smiling-Kate-welcome-truth-country-needs-William-not-realise-it.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13179863/Princess-Wales-sweet-Mothers-Day-photo-suffers-awkward-editing-fail-Charlottes-arm-appears-disconnected-sleeve.html
said...MIDDLETON MYSTERY
“The growing mystery surrounding the whereabouts of Kate Middleton deepened on Sunday as a photo shared by Kensington Palace was pulled by four major news agencies over fears the image was ‘manipulated’”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/kate-middleton-picture-pulled-agencies-1235848256/
“Chris Ship, ITV News’ royal editor, said there were ‘serious questions’ for Kensington Palace after it appeared that elements of the image, including Princess Charlotte’s sleeve, were doctored.”
https://deadline.com/2024/03/kate-middleton-photo-pulled-afp-ap-reuters-manipulation-1235852644/
“The family shot shows Kate without her wedding ring, which seems a peculiar choice for a picture illustrating a happy family life.”
https://www.thelist.com/1536190/kate-middleton-first-family-photo-since-surgery-reveals-telling-clues/
“The royals, however, know how to take and stage images — and so likely would have been aware that the lack of a wedding ring would be commented upon, or its significance analyzed.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/photo-agencies-pull-manipulated-snap-of-kate-middleton-and-her-children
“Other commenters have pointed out the awkward position of Princess Charlotte's left arm, odd crease areas on Prince Louis' sweater and pants, and a strange black object between Charlotte's waist and sleeve.
“[Another commenter] noted that Charlotte's hair also appeared much longer than in photos taken two months earlier, and Louis' right hand showed his fingers crossed in a seemingly unnatural way.
“Other detractors point out the photo's background; it features lush green grass and a tree in leaf, which seems a bit early for a pre-spring day in London.”
https://www.thelist.com/1536190/kate-middleton-first-family-photo-since-surgery-reveals-telling-clues/
“… [Another fan] speculated, ‘no ring, tree in full bloom in winter, jeans after major abdomial [sic] surgery, face shape completely different from car photo …’”
https://pagesix.com/2024/03/10/royal-family/kate-middleton-photo-given-kill-notification-by-photo-agencies-after-suspected-editing/
“Catherine was not seen leaving the London Clinic, in the city’s Marylebone neighborhood, on Jan. 29, where she had spent 13 days after the surgery.
“[And] there were no pictures of her being visited in the hospital by her husband or children …
“Charles, by contrast, was photographed leaving the same hospital after being treated for an enlarged prostate.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/world/europe/princess-kate-middleton-surgery-photo.html
said...MIDDLETON MYSTERY — COMMENTS:
Taylor B:
The people saying it’s minor photoshop know nothing. News agencies aren’t going to pull a royal family released image without a major reason. I’m guessing it’s AI with photoshop.
DStuff:
As someone who has experienced major surgery followed by a long hospital stay... You don't look like this... hearty and hale in tight jeans […] I just don't buy this photo […]
The Maven:
I hope this isn't an indication of a ‘Weekend at Bernie's’
https://nypost.com/2024/03/10/entertainment/kate-middleton-family-photo-recalled-by-picture-agencies-over-fears-its-been-digitally-manipulated/
said...The photo “is understood to have been sent on to the palace press office on Saturday DIRECTLY BY THE COUPLE.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13180643/Kates-Mothers-Day-picture-taken-Prince-William-digitally-manipulated.html
posted by Anon @ 00:36
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Remember when, whilst showing off Prince Louis (?), Kate wore the exact same dress as in Rosemarys Baby! :D
Royal watcher blog claimed at some point premarriage that Kate had "ties" of some sort to Jeffrey Epstein.Seems unlikely. Where are her parents & siblings?
For the Mail columnist Liz Jones to have been given online ‘column inches’ to STRONGLY SUGGEST & imply that Kate Middleton is *LYING* in her claims to have:
(a) taken a photo that she ‘didn’t’ in fact take (because someone else took it, according to Ms Jones); and
(b) to have edited said photo that she ‘didn’t’ in fact edit (because someone else edited it, according to Ms Jones),
… the Mail’s legal team will first have had to satisfy themselves that Liz Jones was NOT potentially libelling Kate Middleton &/or stating something capable of being proven untrue.
In other words, the Mail’s lawyers will have given the go-ahead to Liz Jones’ column only *after* concluding that Ms Jones’ assertions about Kate Middleton’s ‘apparent untruths’ (to put it kindly) are essentially either TRUE …. or, that a reasonable person would have just cause for *believing them to be true*, based on the available known facts.
The Daily Mail and MailOnline would in no way risk a legal action from Kensington Palace.
Nor would the Mail risk falling out with senior royals or being cast as villains by British MPs, the BBC, the chattering classes and the wider public for unjustly impugning Kate Middleton’s integrity and truthfulness.
Ergo — assuming one has faith that the Daily Mail/MailOnline lawyers’ did their due diligence — Liz Jones suggestions in the Mail that Kate is ‘lying’ may be assumed to be potentially TRUE.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home