Tominey: Princess Kate has no understanding of the gravity of her manipulated pics
The royalist media has some understanding that the Princess of Wales’s Mother’s Day frankenphoto fiasco cannot be buried or ignored. They tried that and it came back and bit them on the ass. So they’ve been trying other methods of deflection and minimization – first it was “everyone edits photos,” then it was “Kate just wanted her kids to look cute.” Then it was “but Prince Harry and Meghan manipulate their photos too,” only that was such an egregious lie, every outlet has now backtracked on their claims. Throughout it all, I haven’t even gotten the sense that William and Kate understand how badly they f–ked up and how their haphazard propaganda means that the monarchy’s credibility has taken a huge hit. Speaking of, Camilla Tominey wrote another piece about the fiasco after her first effort landed with a dull thump. “Picture agencies, paparazzi and the Palace: The battle to control the truth” is partly a history lesson of how “the Windsors have always taken their own photos,” but there are several interesting quotes critical of poor, “demonized” Kate and William. And because it’s Tominey, there’s a lot of whataboutism with the Sussexes too. Some highlights:
The Mother’s Day photo: Yet the decision by picture agencies to issue a “kill notice” withdrawing the Mothering Sunday photograph, which was taken by Prince William but edited by his wife, lays bare a tension that has been building in recent years over the extent to which the royals have exercised that control. It’s not just a problem that members of the Royal family are sidelining professional photographers, and consequently the picture agencies that distribute their work, such as Getty Images, Reuters and Agence France-Press. It is also the amateur nature of the editing – and its implications for a media trying to be as accountable as possible to the public.
Photo agencies can’t trust the Windsors: As Martin Keene, a former group picture editor at the Press Association, points out: “All picture agencies have truth and accuracy [in] their DNA – it’s something that really matters to them. The only thing that they have is their trust and their credibility and they need to know that, for their clients and the people who look at their pictures – the readers, the viewers – that their picture really was what the photographer saw when the picture was taken, and that it hasn’t been manipulated since that time.”
Control freak royals: One former royal photographer explained: “A lot of this has stemmed from William and Harry being control freaks when it comes to pictures of their own children. They grew up hating the paparazzi for chasing Princess Diana around and have had a tendency to tar all royal photographers with the same brush. So, with the odd exception, we no longer see royal photographers – the ones who cover the day-to-day official engagements and all the overseas tours – being invited in to take more candid family photographs. Instead, the royals either photograph their children themselves or choose their own pet photographer to take more intimate shots. And that can sometimes lead to problems.”
An agency insider criticized Kate: While photographic agencies do allow photographers to make minor adjustments to images (such as cropping), photographs which have been digitally manipulated must carry an editor’s note before being sent out. According to one agency insider: “It’s nice that the Princess has been shooting her own stuff but she appears to have no understanding of the gravity of what she’s done by changing the image before putting it out for circulation.”
Archie’s christening photo: The picture agencies are now investigating two other photographs, including Prince Archie’s official christening picture, taken by fashion photographer Chris Allerton in 2019. Getty said the portrait – showing the two-month-old with Meghan, Prince Harry, King Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland and Princess Diana’s sisters – had been “digitally enhanced”, a claim Allerton has described as “a load of cobblers”. It came after an editor’s note was placed on an image of the late Queen with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren which was snapped by Catherine in August 2022 at Balmoral. As the controversy around Allerton’s photograph shows, however, even using professional photographers can present a challenge for the royals – especially if they are perceived to be “in the pay” of the principals. Royals have traditionally always had their “favourites”. For Diana, it was Tim Graham. For Camilla, it is Hugo Burnand, who took the official Coronation photographs.
Using a favored professional photographer: As one picture editor explained: “The trouble with this approach is the images produced are designed to cast the subject in as favourable light as possible. Therefore the images aren’t a true representation. It’s not the same as having a photojournalist take the pictures from a position of complete impartiality.” Invariably such photographs end up being “edited” by a spin doctor, rather than a professional picture editor, which can again lead to problems. “These people aren’t trained to spot inconsistencies and potential manipulations,” added the picture editor.
Michael Middleton just got tossed under the bus too: “The truth is that the royals have got form when it comes to manipulating their own pictures. I remember being quite suspicious of some images taken by Kate’s father, Michael Middleton. There was obvious blurring and movement and darkening. Elements of it have been going on for years.”
Again, the controversy over Archie’s christening photos was a complete lie and Allerton spoke out in his own defense and Getty backtracked and removed the note. Tominey is just tossing Allerton and the Sussexes in the conversation as yet another deflection from how badly the Waleses f–ked up. That being said, Tominey at least acknowledges the f–kup. The thing is, the conversation about “it’s bad to have a favored professional photographer” is kind of weird given the fact that we’ve gotten some very prominent examples of photographers coming out to defend their integrity within this same newscycle. They tried to say Misan Harriman manipulated his portrait of the Sussexes, and Misan clapped back HARD. Same with Allerton. If anything, this shows why the palace should always use professional photographers who are willing to defend themselves and their work. Also: that mention of Michael Middleton is a warning shot, huh?
Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace & Sussex Royal IG.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pLHLnpmirJOdxm%2BvzqZmcW5jaoJ1e9OopKKmla6ssb7Ip5qeq6OUuKLAxJifmquPo7ygwc2dnKurpJa7pbXNoJaono%2BptaarxquYr6Gkrqywsr6hnKuXnZa7qrzUpZitnZSUvaqv0mg%3D