The recent scrutiny surrounding a photo from Archie‘s christening has sparked widespread debate.
Many observers are questioning its authenticity, with claims that it has been altered using Photoshop.
This particular image caught my attention too, as I felt something was off at first glance.
So, let’s dive into the details.
As a body language expert, I’m always keen to analyze images and videos critically.
The first thing I noticed about this photo was Prince William‘s presence.
It seemed to me that he could have been digitally inserted into the frame.
At first, I thought, “No way this is real!” However, I knew that to truly assess the situation, I needed to track down the original source of the image.
To get to the bottom of it, I searched for the highest resolution version available.
Interestingly, among all the royal family photos, the ones from Archie’s christening came with a unique warning on the licensing website.
It stated that these images were restricted assets, requiring special approval from royal communications before they could be used.
This was unusual, as I’ve licensed numerous royal images without encountering such restrictions.
Some might argue that the warning was due to Archie being in the picture.
However, similar warnings do not accompany pictures of other royal children like Charlotte, Louis, or George.
This inconsistency piqued my curiosity even further.
As I scrutinized the high-resolution image, I noticed something peculiar about William and Catherine’s appearances compared to Lady Jane, Lady Sarah, and Meghan.
Their features seemed sharper and more defined while William and Catherine appeared somewhat blurred.
Initially, I thought there might be an issue with Catherine’s shoes appearing to float above the rug.
But after further inspection, I realized it could simply be a matter of her feet being positioned at an angle.
So, no significant concern there.
Then, discussions arose regarding the EXIF data of the photo, which indicated it was taken just two days after Archie was born.
Critics argued this was implausible since newborns typically don’t look so alert so soon after birth.
However, I’ve learned that EXIF data can be manipulated, and it’s not always reliable.
Photographers can forget to adjust their camera settings, leading to discrepancies in the recorded date and time.
It’s essential to approach such claims with caution, recognizing that this data alone doesn’t confirm the legitimacy of the photo.
Another point of contention involved Camilla and Charles wearing outfits similar to those from Prince Louis‘ christening.
Upon closer examination, I found that while Camilla wore the same necklace, her dress was distinctly different.
The absence of neck ornaments in one photo and their presence in the other confirmed this.
As for Charles, while the suit may look similar, the tie and handkerchief were different, suggesting no intentional deception.
Critics also claimed that Lady Jane and Lady Sarah were absent from the mirror reflection in the background.
However, the camera angle explained this anomaly, as Lady Sarah’s hat was visible but appeared lower due to the positioning of the camera.
Additionally, the large clock obstructed Lady Jane’s reflection entirely.
An intriguing detail emerged when I noticed that the time on William’s watch matched the clock behind him.
This level of detail often goes unnoticed, but it highlights how closely fans observe these images.
Another supposed flaw was Catherine’s chair, which appeared to lack back legs.
However, upon examining a high-resolution version, I could see both legs hidden from view due to perspective.
Lastly, some viewers commented on Harry’s choice of footwear and his awkward leg crossing, which drew criticism for being unfashionable.
Meanwhile, discussions about Archie’s hand being odd seemed unwarranted; after all, it was just a baby hand.
In the end, this analysis revealed that while skepticism is natural given the royal family’s history, the evidence suggests that the christening photo is indeed genuine.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and discussions around this topic will likely continue.
Related Stories
