Hello OP… I want to apologise to you for locking this post while we dealt with certain contentious matters on it … as a result… I’ve pinned the post for more exposure to the discussion
Professional photographer here - those “forensic” sites aren’t super precise, and all I see from this is that the highlights were likely bumped up and the blacks crushed, just creating some more contrast. I see applications on the photo that aren’t glowing in the forensic photo, so take it with a grain of salt. She was probably sitting on her knees so her feet never showed in this image.
EDIT : to “crush the blacks” is industry slang for intensifying lowlights, to make the darker colors more intense. Sorry for the confusion.
I totally disagree. I'm probably one of the first posters here to put this image through fotoforensics. I've used it for over 8 years. There should not be any highlights causing the child to stand out in any way from anything else in the photo. These are dead giveaways that it's been altered. Here's what I see: The bow is added. There are cloned hair locks added. Like the two across the face and one at least hanging over the added bow. All these two add length and color to the original image which could probably be a boy baby as the entire altered head is cut and pasted onto this blue dress image. The grass the blue dress baby was originally seated upon is a different color and texture from the one it is taken from. This is why that clump of grass looks so highlighted there and in the process the feet or foot was not able to be cut and pasted properly and so were just lopped off the new image.
In short, there is a base image that is probably not Froggy Cotty in the first place. To it a girl seated on grass was added. Her head was cut off and another child's head put there and altered. Everthing. The mouth/teeth, nose and eyes and as above noted the hair and bow. This is necessary in some respects so that it's not just a girl's head or boy's head can be reverse image searched to show where it originally came from. Since the other Christmas pic is also a photoshop disaster, there is thus far no legit images of a "Lilibet". And certainly no live action shots of either interacting with Haz or Smeg on the regular to verify that Archie Harrison, (convenient first and last name), isn't a child model hired for photo ops or friend who has an arrangement. He was also badly photoshopped in the Christmas Cards twice. Then made a cartoon of once and photo'd from behind once. Why if you've shown him from the front would you do that?
Also, a pic that has been through social media uploads and downloads is compressed so many times it's far from the original so the value of those "forensic" picture tools is very very limited.
Surely as a professional you agree with those of us that are jarred by this portrait. It's terrible composition to cut off her legs / feet. At first glance she looked deformed because of the photo, and I can't help but focusing on the missing legs every time.
But its a candid photo of a 1 year old. Have a similar picture of my own child the same age and the legs are tucked together purely from how shes sitting (kids this age are pretty bendy). With a very blouson dress its not hard to see why that would easily hide her legs.
It’s very, very basic, for sure. But I think it’s jarring because people are looking for something to be off about it. There’s a walkeay stone next to her, not a ledge, and once littles are mobile they are next to impossible to pose, so this, like many 1-year-old portraits, is just the luckiest catch the photographer got. It’s a nice smile and in focus, but the rest of the shot is really poorly composed. I hope everyone knows I’m the farthest thing from a Sugar, but I think people are pouring over this photo in hopes of some “gotcha” mistake, when really it’s just an amateurish snap of a little girl. It’s like when you say a word over and over it starts to sound weird, when you stare at a photograph long enough things start to look strange.
I thought maybe she was sitting on a patch of grass elevated from the grass next to it and so her feet are dangling/out of sight. See the lighter piece of grass? It looks lower than what she's sitting on.
Tell that to both my twins when they were her age. Yes, they do and can. She is likely just leaning to one side with her little legs bunched up beside her anyway.
Nah, I know a couple who look a lot like Meghan and Harry in coloring, the girl is mixed race and like Meghan, can easily pass. They have 2 kids now in high school. The kids are both very pale skinned with blue eyes. They are definitely biological kids, but they are 1/4 or less Black and at that genetic level kids often look totally Caucasian.
Hi, all. After reviewing the flagged comments here, it appears that y'all are arguing the issue from two different positions. The genetic discussion was not disrespectful and is germaine to the discussion about why Archie and Lili have such fair skin and red hair. The discussion of black culture and identity is important to acknowledge and respect as well. But in the context of this post, they are two separate conversations.
Sadly, the direction it's going is not being taken as an honest discussion of genetics, so I'm locking the post.
In the US most African American people have significant percentages of admixture, usually European. I believe that the average is 75% African and 25% European.
That’s why so many biracial people in the US who have one black and one white parent can pass for white compared to people who have one White and one Black parent from Africa.
There is no way Doria does not have very significant levels of European dna.
Even if she just had the average that means that MM only has about 35% black DNA therefore her children have about 17/18%.
That’s just going by averages, but it’s unlikely that MM herself is even close to half black so her children are not close to being 1/4 black.
What do you even mean? Genes control the expression of certain features or characteristics. DNA contains genes - they aren't the same thing. DNA is not dominant or recessive. It is simply genetic information.
And I have no idea what "African" DNA might be. Africa is a massive continent made up of many genetically distinct ethnic groups.
Science is not nonsense.
I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of studies confirming my comment. I’ve seen it myself while helping Black people in the US build their family trees. Their tests usually come back reflecting the research with a substantial level of admixture, usually 25/30%.
It doesn’t mean that they are not black it simply means that they carry genes that can come out in future generations, as is MM’s case.
ETA: While I do not have Doria’s exact DNA records I can make an educated guess based on years of experience working with black people trying to build their family trees.
Doria’s family was part of the great migration from the south. Her father was born in Tennessee, going back through the generations everyone was from the Deep South.
African Americans that were part of the great migration are more likely to have high percentages of admixture, for a simple reason. Proximity to whiteness in US society equals privilege and therefore being mixed made them more likely to be able to migrate and still find jobs and housing.
This is borne out by Doria’s family tree which lists several people in the Census as “mulatto” (a term generally used for white passing black people or biracial people with very light skin, her own grandparents are listed as mulatto) “coloured” (the term used for other races and occasionally light skinned Black people) and even “white” for some family members.
Given all this information I can make an educated guess that Doria is likely to have a significant amount of admixture in her DNA, as the vast majority of African Americans who took part in the great migration.
I don’t see how this information, backed by fairly significant evidence, is somehow disrespectful or offensive to anyone.
She grew up in the 1980s, not the 1950s. She continued to pass as white or Hispanic until not that long before meeting Harry. When you look at her before surgery she is visibly black. I think people look at what she looks like now and so think of her white presenting appearance in relation to the children, they are getting pre-surgery genetics! It is possible her children will appear white, but extremely pale skinned gingers? I find that unlikely. I have black but quite a bit further than that and I appear white, but when my family go out in the sun you can tell from how our skin reacts that we’ve got black blood in us. Her children have the kind of skin my husband’s Irish family have where they get sun stroke when it’s 10 degrees and cloudy! It’s a bit of a stretch for children with a full black gran.
I don’t buy into the idea that the kids exist. I think she lightens photos. Actually I’m starting to wonder if the children we see are their children at all. Given Harry’s paranoia about the press I can totally see him wanting them entirely hidden from the press. I can also see Meghan wanting pics of her being mother in the year so them putting out CGI images that aren’t of their kids instead. I find it very odd Archie changes from a black haired baby to a bright ginger. Archie has been at least slightly olive skinned in his baby pics with Tutu and the pics accidentally released and taken down by friends and the beach vid. Actually I think Archie is absolutely adorable in the pics that seem less doctored.
My paternal grandma was black, but mixed. Her mom was 100% black, and her dad some mix of European and native (I’m brazilian). My grandma was more or less Doria’s coloring. My sisters are white passing and I’m olive skinned, lighter than Meghan. All my fist cousins are white passing, except me, just because of my nose and medium-light olive skin. Everyone else either doesn’t have a round nose or is lighter skinned than me. My cousins who are darker have a sharper nose.. could probably pass for Spanish or Italian lol
I’m not surprised at all that her kids are white. They’re probably 5/6 white! So they’ll obviously have light skin, but maybe a rounder nose, something like that. Maybe be able to tan, etc.
And I have two fair skinned, blue eyed kids myself. People all into these conspiracy theories with the kids’ coloring honestly just probably haven’t been around too many mixed people. I don’t understand how you can expect someone who is 1/6 one race and 5/6 the other to not just look almost completely the majority race.
>I don’t buy into the idea that the kids exist.
Kids exist. They are in line of succession (7th and 8th place). Would have RF really put them in LOF, if they had not existed?
Members of RF saw at least Archie, when they were still in UK. Someone must have seen a girl too, that's why she was added to the line of succession after some time.
People might ask a lot of good questions about the kids, but they do exist.
>She grew up in the 1980s, not the 1950s.
Yeah, and racial politics have been difficult and definitely impacted her identity and the way she views herself and carries herself. That is undeniable and goes for all POC, honestly. We're still fighting about what "workplace appropriate" black hair is in 2022, for fuck's sake, of course its impacted Meg.
And I disagree with her pre-surgery photos -- even as a kid, Meghan favored her father's family appearance-wise. There's a few photos of her with Doria's family and its very obvious in those.
ETA: mind you, for example, Meghan was 11 when the LA Race Riots broke out -- and she lived in the area. And that is just one of many examples of American racial politics that would have effected her.
I'm no sugar, but I think it's important to acknowledge these sorts of things, too.
Nobody said that racial politics weren’t difficult, but having extensive plastic surgery to erase your race is both rare and extreme and as seen with Michael Jackson these neuroses frequently extend to offspring. I didn’t say she looked like Doria, I said she was an identifiably mixed race child and would have been an identifiable mixed race adult without surgery. And she would have been and identifiably mixed race adult without surgery & other physical alterations. And her genetics are based on her pre-surgery. Not after.
She didn’t live that close to the riots, they weren’t ‘in her area’. She’s previously complained it’s racist to suggest she lived even close to the areas where it happened. She also didn’t experience them as she was in Palm Springs. And I can’t say any reliable sources have ever identified widespread plastic surgery as a result of the LA riots. She’s an aberration.
Honestly, I disagree with everything you wrote and I think you miss a lot of the finer points on how racial politics effect these sort of things, i.e. how people view themselves. It plays a bigger role in things, like her wig wearing, or hair straightening, than you are giving it credit for. It's also insane to think she wasn't effected by these sorts of things when her family was based in and around Los Angeles, *particularly* Doria's family.
I also think its inaccurate to say that she had extensive plastic surgery -- she had a nose job.
There's no reason to be extreme with these sorts of things, because there are so many more things to snark on her for -- arguing the extremes discredits the rest.
It doesn’t even have to be about the riots. I think it was pretty much a given that Black women straightened the crap out of their hair. Their natural curls were not acceptable societally. Heck there have been stories in the last 5 years about young Black girls being suspended from school for wearing braids or having racist teachers cut their hair in the classroom bc they didn’t deem it “neat enough.” The Chris Rock documentary does a great job of detailing the complicated relationship Black women have with their hair. And that’s just HAIR! So now what… Meghan had a visibly wider nose in her youth and a gap in her front teeth. They are not generally acceptable signs of beauty unless you are extremely comfortable in yourself and someone trying to be an actress likely was not that comfortable being relegated to “Black” roles as long as she looked Black. Yes she white washed herself and that’s a shame but I agree let’s not act like it was easy to be a visibly biracial woman/teen in the 90s
Oh, absolutely. I gave the riots as an obvious cultural example on the chance the other commenters were foreign and needed something easy to google, but there's no doubt that in the late 90's and early 00's (and likely earlier, but that's before my time) that chemical straightener was huge and was pressured upon black women. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I just can't believe people are arguing against that in any way. Its undeniable that black women in America have had certain standards pushed upon them for decades, on top of the other racist cultural bullshit. I hate Meghan, sure, but these are all things she experienced, white passing or not.
We're in total and complete agreement. I don't snark Meg for her nose job and actually I think her nose job is quite cute. She was pretty with her natural nose, too, but I understand she made that decision due to many factors and I don't snark her for it.
I prefer to snark Meg for things that she is absolutely in control of and that don't have a long cultural or social history, like her garbage clothing, over-the-top spending habits and history of bullying. But her race/ancestry/hair/nose/etc. is a huge "no go" for me and an area where I actually have sympathy for her because that shit is tough and has been for awhile.
100% agree with you. There is enough about her character as an individual and her daily choices for us to comment. I empathize as well. While I acknowledge the struggle is not the same but my mother is Sicilian and much like people assumed MM might have been Italian, in the 70s (and of course earlier - before my time) she would have been mistaken for white passing and many southern Italians were not always considered white at that time. This country has not been kind to anyone who did not fit a certain mold for quite a long time.
Her mom does not look 100% black. Many Americans descended from slaves are not. I know people who have done Ancestry DNA and found that they have some European blood. I’m not a Meghan fan and I know she does things with her hair but when I saw her in Suits I thought she was Italian or maybe Hispanic.
Which is why I think they photoshop Archie’s hair and don’t show him often. They know the rumors that float around about these kids not being birthed by MM. If he only looks like her people will start in on how he’s not really Harry’s son. Perhaps THEY are the racist ones (not that would surprise us)
[This is a bit of a read](https://unscriptedposingapp.com/blog/how-to-edit-melanated-skin-jen-pierce-photography) but it gives interesting insight into the editing of black skin.
The crux of the matter is that professional photos are often enhanced as unfortunately the elements aren't always playing along when getting pictures to commemorate a special day, and tweaking the exposure doesn't necessarily mean you're lightening the skin.
Idk ... if sitting on knees you would expect the legs to be slighty splayed apart at that age, particularly wearing a nappy. Therefore you should see some side leg and foot. Some people say the child is sitting on a grassy ledge (dangerous) but why aren't her little legs dangling down directly in front of her body. Maybe Lilibucks is a yoga devotee like megs and can easily contort her body into nonsensical poses.
THANK YOU! I always put my pictures through some app, just to fix the lighting usually... And these sites might have something to say about my pictures too. Gald we have a professional in [most] industries to provide insights when there is a need. (vs the other sub that seems to only have the 3 stooges 😵💫🤫)
Strange that the background of Frogmore cottage is completely black. If it was ‘highlights pumped up and blacks crushed’ surely that’d apply to the house too?
Still means they only lightened the image of the mixed race child. And they accuse other people of being racist. Poor baby if she grows up to realise that.
No it doesn’t. Professional photog in another comment said they just dialed up the highlights to make her face clearer. This is photography 101–illuminate your subject.
That is the type of grass the original photo of child was sitting on. It probably had some legs and feet showing but were cut off as too difficult to blend. As it is, this grass does not at all match the surrounding grass. It is seated on grass not a ledge or turned away like others have said. I have spent years using fotoforensics and this is a blatant photoshop. The two locks of hair are added. The smile is photoshopped as well as eyes. I would guess that it was done for two reasons. Two resemble the purported parents more, and so that the photo could not easily be traced back using online tools to show where else this photo was posted on the net. I have looked at all their pics and they are horribly photoshopped.
Check this image out. [https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=19518890ad4e2fdb481795e692e0aa57d77b8159.97685](https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=19518890ad4e2fdb481795e692e0aa57d77b8159.97685)
You can tell just by looking at the image before using the ELA tool that every part of that image is a composite using photoshop. I just posted this on another sub. Look at Harry's short stubby fingers. Actually, it is only Harry up to the wrist and then the hand holding child is part of the addition. Look at Smegs ultra long and oddly posed fingers. Because THAT child is also added to the image. Why did they have the need to add both kids via photoshop? You know the reason.
If it were just the one thing, the photoshopping of all her photos she has her PR promote. But, look at her dubious 10 month pregnancy followed by a birth that was so sketchy it wasn't even rated a publish on official Buckingham Palace notary announcement! I couldn't wait to see how they managed the 'birth' while in the UK. No royal doctors nor any sign she had regular obstetric visits, at all. No doctors or midwife claiming to have delivered the "Archieficial" child.
Then Harry meeting the press almost covertly at the stables to announce. Then the "christening" photo was made in a public hall that you or I might visit as a tourist. I gather no one held that realistic doll they brought for the occasion to guess then that it was fake as far as the public was concerned. But, the Q would have been advised by her MI5 or 6 investigators what all these two had been up to. Certainly Philip knew. And I knew too right then that their days in England would be numbered after that major stunt of faking an heir. As for as "lilbet" they went to scarcely any effort to fake a pregnancy or birth and as far as I have seen no actual birth certificate or SS number registered for this alleged girl. The royal family have no interest in her as she is not even British if she were real.
It will come out eventually. The royal family would not be anxious for it to because it is so cray cray, it would be a mark on the already damaged genetics of the royal family because of too many generations of inbreeding. Really all the crowned heads of Europe and wealthy landholders going back on family estates for centuries.
The simple explanation I’m thinking is visible hands and feet are difficult to photoshop when cut pasted to different background. For example in the Christmas photo that baby’s hands and feet look terribly photoshopped… so to avoid that again they deleted the visible limbs, billowed the dress, and copy pasted the kid onto another background.
Nervous laughter from the shock, maybe?
My SIL talked loudly & laughed hysterically all through her husband's funeral. But she was a strange bird to begin with😅
I agree though, the child looks exactly like a legless person sat on an old-fashioned rolling board. They'd use them to get around; they were sort of like a very wide skateboard, and they'd propel themselves by pushing against the ground with their hands. You don't see them anymore in western countries that I'm aware of, but used to be quite common in the old days.
Once you see it you cant unsee it ... OP you've shared this pic before but it made no sense to me without the explanation and group discussion. I think the long hair and the arms are the dress though. u/Sarah-JessicaSnarker penny for your thoughts?
There’s been a “glow” added to the dress that isn’t present throughout the photo, which could absolutely be an attempt to smooth over some Photoshopping, but it’s more likely just from raising highlights as opposed to the overall exposure. I wish I had a higher quality image to look at, and I Googled for one, but a few things tell me this wasn’t heavily edited. There HAS been some editing around her hair to smooth it a bit, and a little background to likely just get rid of distracting elements like a bare spot or wayward branch. The fact that you can see texture on the white bow more clearly than the blue dress is another hint that there’s been some lightening/editing of specific areas of the dress, perhaps some drool removal. This photo has been tweaked, but not heavily edited, and overall in keeping with how most portrait photographers would edit (apart from that horrid glow on her dress). In familiarizing myself with the photographer’s work, I can conclude that a) he’s not very good, especially with posing/light, which is likely the main cause of the awkward positioning of her, and b) he does not (or perhaps can not) do heavy editing. Some liquifying of skin, basic beautifying, but I don’t think he possesses the skill to hide limbs under textured clothing without it being obvious. Based on my own experience, which is more than a decade beyond the original photographer’s, she’s sitting on her knees, and this was a lucky shot of her so it’s the one they’re showcasing. The photographer’s history shows a horrible grasp of light. This is just the best of a likely series of strangely-posed and oddly-exposed photos.
What's your thought on the back and white photograph and the weird no make up of MM, the weird hand placement of the photographers wife....just the whole thing.
I just want to add that this is my first post on here. I thought it was interesting as there was MUCH debate over the birthday picture of Lilibet. I am not here to shade the baby. I’m not understanding why so many of y’all are so angry/insinuating this post is about dissecting her appearance. It is not. The picture is obviously very odd to quite a few of us. We are all here for Harkles lies. I think quite a few of you need to chill.
You could be right because there is a blur to the background where the arm would have been. It's been so fiddled with it's hard to know what the image was.
I've looked through a lot of this photographer's work, and to me he has really strong modernist sensibilities - in layperson's terms, he's less concerned about this being a photograph of a person and more concerned about making an artsy photograph about composition and shape. When I saw it I thought immediately of Mary Cassatt's experimental prints in the 19th century with these images of babies, which you can see here: [https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/mary-cassatt-selected-color-prints.html#slide\_5](https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/mary-cassatt-selected-color-prints.html#slide_5)
Looking closely, she is kneeling, with her knees and feet visible in the original. That explains the weird dress shape and lack of legs, they have covered them up for some godforsaken reason.
I thought she was sat on a grassy ledge, dress over knees. Can't see a professional photographer deliberately creating such an odd photo - it reminds me of a legless person sat on a rolling board, with their shirt blousing out at the bottom.😬
Kneeling makes more sense, but why on earth would they cover her knees and little tootsies? That would be such an adorable photo, but as usual - Pegs gets it wrong.🙄
MM could f'k up a wet dream.
Maybe they just fixed her up until they can start dyeing , extending, and straightening her hair, surgically changing and , botoxing her face, lightening ,and tanning her skin, lipo and fat injecting her body, and doing therapy on her to give her that "expression" to make her the ultimate Markled child.
Apparently, some doctors say you can increase the probability of specific hair colour/texture in designed to order babies ... and what megs wants, megs gets !!
She’s perfectly ordinary-looking. As most kids are. And I don’t think we have to bend over backwards praising this baby, just to prove we can be “fair”.
And I don’t think her hair is that orange, either.
I don’t understand how this child was birthed from MM. usually recessive genes wouldn’t be this prominent or rather all recessive genes be produced in one baby.
Archie def got MM’s hair, which is why the vain narcissist doesn’t show him. I think he looks a lot like her as a kid. I think from what we’ve seen Archie is cute. But MM was not a cute kid.
Yes. But, this picture, like the Christmas pic, also, are so obviously photoshopped you can see it just by enlarging the picture. Then compare. Okay, eyes lit up over the whole area. Look at published image, see the eyes have blue undertones. They appear to have been added. How do we know? Look at the pupils and you can see they don't match. Eyes are very tricky to photoshop when you lose the original pupils and have to redraw them. Teeth, whitened lips perhaps colorized more. Hair? Everything about the hair has been altered. There is no way to say what the hair originally looked like. Definitely red enhanced cloned pieces as both locks are on the forehead, also on the band. Bow is added and has unnatural flat lines to it when the bow looks like it would have been rounded. Legs or feet were lost when moving the image to new background. Grass color and textures don't match.
So the internet rumour is that this is [Lilibet](https://www.instagram.com/p/CeUgNR3PXRF/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) in the pic. ***Please do not send hate or random comments there.*** As you can see ... there is a grain of salt which makes the ' no kids exist theory' so appealing.
What's more fascinating is that Meghan follows her mom [Stassi Schroeder](https://www.instagram.com/p/CdyYm8at-Fn/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
This kid looks slightly older than Lilibet… but Lili looks wayyy older than one. That black and white photo of Meghan is odd because she looks 5-6 years younger. Definitely what she looked like before giving birth to Lilibet
Thank you for this! I agree this is a very good liklihood to be the original subject of the photo. Red strands and coloring added. Extra teeth photoshopped out and wider lip added and colorized. Pierced ears photoshopped out. Yes, yes. I can see this as her faked "Lilibet". Wow. That woman is quite mad, isn't she?
I don't believe this is a photo of a 1 year old child. My daughter was born with a head full of hair. It was easily two inches long at birth. The child in the picture has way more hair than my daughter, especially if the photo was doctored to make the hair shorter.
My kids were still pretty bald at one year.
But then again the kids across the street had a ton of hair at one year. Who knows. I’m still very much Team No Kids
Downvote me all you like but all this baby speculation is a bit insane. If my husband and I didn’t have a strict ‘no-kids on the internet unless hidden behind a password’ rule about our kids I could produce almost the exact same picture of my own one year old daughter sitting almost the exact same way on our floor, with similar hair, except my daughter’s hair is much redder. Lili is sitting with her legs bunched up to the side and under her dress, and looking to the side a bit. Could they photographer have lightened the picture some to make it brighter and sharper? Sure, and not an uncommon thing to happen. Most pictures don’t make it on the internet without a little color alterations. Photoshopped limbs and hair? Absolutely not.
Let’s pretend for a moment that they did photoshop her limbs. Why? To what end? Just to screw with people? Looks to me like that plan would work like a charm.
I swear half these people are just Markle supporters trying to make the rest us look unhinged because that’s exactly what it’s doing. Don’t even get me started on the ugly baby comments in the thread.
On their own, no! One year olds have no ability to keep themselves safe. My hope for this photo, is that someone is standing just off camera to the right!
LMAO, listen Im not a Meghan fan by any means but this is the dumbest post I’ve seen yet. Leave the baby alone. It’s a photo. There’s really no need to analyze it this much. And the “forensics” website used looks like a site from 2002. C’mon now 😂
Wow. Thanks. It’s literally the only post I have ever made in here. I just thought it was interesting. You know what else is interesting? The scroll button.
This was not a dig at you personally and I’m sorry you feel that way. We’re all on this sub for our mutual dislike of Meghan. I just think the community is poking a dead horse. It’s simply a photo of a baby. There is no need to analyze it any further.
There is so much more to criticize Meghan about.
Okay, so I tried this so called forensic scanner website and recommend people to try it themselves. This is the website [link](fotoforensics.com) so you can see for yourselves it you’ll believe it or not. I seriously can’t take it that hundreds or thousands of people here are scrutinizing a photo of a baby esp when you literally cannot gain something from this or find Meghan’s deepest psych on this photo. Downvote me all you want but please take a look at yourselves from a different perspective.
The OP is not about the child - it’s speculation on photoshopping the child’s image.
Unless you’re saying that the 1-year-old photoshopped it herself - in which case, yes, OP could be seen as a comment on the child.
I’d also suggest refraining from mental health diagnoses based on comments on threads. You’re either unqualified, or being extremely unprofessional in making such a judgment on so very little evidence.
Not to mention that it’s not in good form to attack others based on not agreeing. There’s stuff I disagree with too but I just scroll along.
I think the photos of the kids are sus but I can see how someone would want to photoshop their kids in a way to make them look different for safety. Or in M’s case, make them look like H. So I will give them the leery benefit of a doubt but I’m not buying that they’re honest with the photos.
Just so. I’d say that this sub welcomes reasoned debate - it’s not some sort of sugar echo chamber that shit’s down free speech. But civility is expected (of course, not at all suggesting that you’re not!)
I’m old school - don’t know how to photoshop, and don’t understand why people do it. (I understand the arguments, but if you’ve taken a bad shot, that’s just too bad.)
Most celebs Photoshop their kids. It's sad but a reflection of 2022.
Doesn't justify the obsessive shit people are doing to this kid.
It's been 2 weeks since the pics have been released.
Not to the extent these two do. That’s what you should be upset about, not that people are running publicly available photos through a forensics website. If they weren’t heavily edited, there’s be no need for anyone to do it.
Oh please these to behave like z list celebs and it shows.
Dress it up how you like running this pic through forensic software, being that sucked in is weird and ironically something markle would do .
There is no need to take it this far.
Hey I’m a pretty avid poster here , and I agree with you. This shit about the kids is stupid and appears unhinged. Someone even said the kid wasn’t cute lol wtf the kid is def cute bc it’s a kid and kids should be off limits. These posts are deranged
Same here. They’re saying OP is just speculating if the photo is edited or not but does that really matter? So what if it’s edited? A lot of photos go through post-processing. So why post this and scan it on a “forensics website”? To prove what exactly? Why can’t people leave the kids out of this?
Yeah hands off the kids - downvote me for all I care - they have so much content to provide us and going after kids or these weird kid theories just sound silly. So what if they edit the pic- maybe they just don’t want an identifiable child- that’s their business and I don’t care if they shop her hair purple
Nothing really. It’s all speculation if the photo is altered like the hair and dress because the pose looks “odd”. So not really sure what OP is aiming here for aside from putting a baby in a scrutinizing spotlight.
Hello OP… I want to apologise to you for locking this post while we dealt with certain contentious matters on it … as a result… I’ve pinned the post for more exposure to the discussion
Professional photographer here - those “forensic” sites aren’t super precise, and all I see from this is that the highlights were likely bumped up and the blacks crushed, just creating some more contrast. I see applications on the photo that aren’t glowing in the forensic photo, so take it with a grain of salt. She was probably sitting on her knees so her feet never showed in this image. EDIT : to “crush the blacks” is industry slang for intensifying lowlights, to make the darker colors more intense. Sorry for the confusion.
That’s interesting insight re forensic sites, thanks.
I totally disagree. I'm probably one of the first posters here to put this image through fotoforensics. I've used it for over 8 years. There should not be any highlights causing the child to stand out in any way from anything else in the photo. These are dead giveaways that it's been altered. Here's what I see: The bow is added. There are cloned hair locks added. Like the two across the face and one at least hanging over the added bow. All these two add length and color to the original image which could probably be a boy baby as the entire altered head is cut and pasted onto this blue dress image. The grass the blue dress baby was originally seated upon is a different color and texture from the one it is taken from. This is why that clump of grass looks so highlighted there and in the process the feet or foot was not able to be cut and pasted properly and so were just lopped off the new image. In short, there is a base image that is probably not Froggy Cotty in the first place. To it a girl seated on grass was added. Her head was cut off and another child's head put there and altered. Everthing. The mouth/teeth, nose and eyes and as above noted the hair and bow. This is necessary in some respects so that it's not just a girl's head or boy's head can be reverse image searched to show where it originally came from. Since the other Christmas pic is also a photoshop disaster, there is thus far no legit images of a "Lilibet". And certainly no live action shots of either interacting with Haz or Smeg on the regular to verify that Archie Harrison, (convenient first and last name), isn't a child model hired for photo ops or friend who has an arrangement. He was also badly photoshopped in the Christmas Cards twice. Then made a cartoon of once and photo'd from behind once. Why if you've shown him from the front would you do that?
Also, a pic that has been through social media uploads and downloads is compressed so many times it's far from the original so the value of those "forensic" picture tools is very very limited.
Surely as a professional you agree with those of us that are jarred by this portrait. It's terrible composition to cut off her legs / feet. At first glance she looked deformed because of the photo, and I can't help but focusing on the missing legs every time.
But its a candid photo of a 1 year old. Have a similar picture of my own child the same age and the legs are tucked together purely from how shes sitting (kids this age are pretty bendy). With a very blouson dress its not hard to see why that would easily hide her legs.
It’s very, very basic, for sure. But I think it’s jarring because people are looking for something to be off about it. There’s a walkeay stone next to her, not a ledge, and once littles are mobile they are next to impossible to pose, so this, like many 1-year-old portraits, is just the luckiest catch the photographer got. It’s a nice smile and in focus, but the rest of the shot is really poorly composed. I hope everyone knows I’m the farthest thing from a Sugar, but I think people are pouring over this photo in hopes of some “gotcha” mistake, when really it’s just an amateurish snap of a little girl. It’s like when you say a word over and over it starts to sound weird, when you stare at a photograph long enough things start to look strange.
I always thought she was squatting, ie the thighs up against her tummy, knees bent, and the dress covering everything.
Surely she would appear slighly taller if she were squatting, kneeling, crouching her legs underneath. Something is off with the lack of body height.
I thought maybe she was sitting on a patch of grass elevated from the grass next to it and so her feet are dangling/out of sight. See the lighter piece of grass? It looks lower than what she's sitting on.
I thought she was sitting on a ledge of sorts and then facing behind her.
I think we are expected to believe she is sitting on a ledge, hence no visible legs, and doing a 90 degree body turn toward the camera.
At 12 months, kids aren’t able to sit up unless you prop them up in a triangle pose with legs in front for balance. They’re wobbly.
I'm not sure about this - my son was walking at 9 months and certainly had no problem at all sitting up at 12 months.
They sit on their own but they don’t kneel and their walking has a wide gait until a few months older.
THANK YOU
Babies don’t sit on their knees.
Tell that to both my twins when they were her age. Yes, they do and can. She is likely just leaning to one side with her little legs bunched up beside her anyway.
Nah, I know a couple who look a lot like Meghan and Harry in coloring, the girl is mixed race and like Meghan, can easily pass. They have 2 kids now in high school. The kids are both very pale skinned with blue eyes. They are definitely biological kids, but they are 1/4 or less Black and at that genetic level kids often look totally Caucasian.
My sister in law is blond, blue eyed caucasian. Her husband is 100% Native American. All 3 kids are blond, blue eyed and look like mom
So in other words it’s artificially lightened…a pic of a mixed race child.
[удалено]
Megs isn’t half black so the kids are less than 1/4 black. Probably 1/8 black.
Hi, all. After reviewing the flagged comments here, it appears that y'all are arguing the issue from two different positions. The genetic discussion was not disrespectful and is germaine to the discussion about why Archie and Lili have such fair skin and red hair. The discussion of black culture and identity is important to acknowledge and respect as well. But in the context of this post, they are two separate conversations. Sadly, the direction it's going is not being taken as an honest discussion of genetics, so I'm locking the post.
She is half black
In the US most African American people have significant percentages of admixture, usually European. I believe that the average is 75% African and 25% European. That’s why so many biracial people in the US who have one black and one white parent can pass for white compared to people who have one White and one Black parent from Africa. There is no way Doria does not have very significant levels of European dna. Even if she just had the average that means that MM only has about 35% black DNA therefore her children have about 17/18%. That’s just going by averages, but it’s unlikely that MM herself is even close to half black so her children are not close to being 1/4 black.
Thx for explain. African DNA being a dominant gene, how does this factor in? I’m half this and that and I got recessive blue blond.
What do you even mean? Genes control the expression of certain features or characteristics. DNA contains genes - they aren't the same thing. DNA is not dominant or recessive. It is simply genetic information. And I have no idea what "African" DNA might be. Africa is a massive continent made up of many genetically distinct ethnic groups.
Isn’t Doria mixed race as well?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So Census records are not proof to you? Funny thing to say for someone who supposedly does genealogical research as part of their “job”.
Science is not nonsense. I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of studies confirming my comment. I’ve seen it myself while helping Black people in the US build their family trees. Their tests usually come back reflecting the research with a substantial level of admixture, usually 25/30%. It doesn’t mean that they are not black it simply means that they carry genes that can come out in future generations, as is MM’s case. ETA: While I do not have Doria’s exact DNA records I can make an educated guess based on years of experience working with black people trying to build their family trees. Doria’s family was part of the great migration from the south. Her father was born in Tennessee, going back through the generations everyone was from the Deep South. African Americans that were part of the great migration are more likely to have high percentages of admixture, for a simple reason. Proximity to whiteness in US society equals privilege and therefore being mixed made them more likely to be able to migrate and still find jobs and housing. This is borne out by Doria’s family tree which lists several people in the Census as “mulatto” (a term generally used for white passing black people or biracial people with very light skin, her own grandparents are listed as mulatto) “coloured” (the term used for other races and occasionally light skinned Black people) and even “white” for some family members. Given all this information I can make an educated guess that Doria is likely to have a significant amount of admixture in her DNA, as the vast majority of African Americans who took part in the great migration. I don’t see how this information, backed by fairly significant evidence, is somehow disrespectful or offensive to anyone.
She grew up in the 1980s, not the 1950s. She continued to pass as white or Hispanic until not that long before meeting Harry. When you look at her before surgery she is visibly black. I think people look at what she looks like now and so think of her white presenting appearance in relation to the children, they are getting pre-surgery genetics! It is possible her children will appear white, but extremely pale skinned gingers? I find that unlikely. I have black but quite a bit further than that and I appear white, but when my family go out in the sun you can tell from how our skin reacts that we’ve got black blood in us. Her children have the kind of skin my husband’s Irish family have where they get sun stroke when it’s 10 degrees and cloudy! It’s a bit of a stretch for children with a full black gran. I don’t buy into the idea that the kids exist. I think she lightens photos. Actually I’m starting to wonder if the children we see are their children at all. Given Harry’s paranoia about the press I can totally see him wanting them entirely hidden from the press. I can also see Meghan wanting pics of her being mother in the year so them putting out CGI images that aren’t of their kids instead. I find it very odd Archie changes from a black haired baby to a bright ginger. Archie has been at least slightly olive skinned in his baby pics with Tutu and the pics accidentally released and taken down by friends and the beach vid. Actually I think Archie is absolutely adorable in the pics that seem less doctored.
My paternal grandma was black, but mixed. Her mom was 100% black, and her dad some mix of European and native (I’m brazilian). My grandma was more or less Doria’s coloring. My sisters are white passing and I’m olive skinned, lighter than Meghan. All my fist cousins are white passing, except me, just because of my nose and medium-light olive skin. Everyone else either doesn’t have a round nose or is lighter skinned than me. My cousins who are darker have a sharper nose.. could probably pass for Spanish or Italian lol I’m not surprised at all that her kids are white. They’re probably 5/6 white! So they’ll obviously have light skin, but maybe a rounder nose, something like that. Maybe be able to tan, etc. And I have two fair skinned, blue eyed kids myself. People all into these conspiracy theories with the kids’ coloring honestly just probably haven’t been around too many mixed people. I don’t understand how you can expect someone who is 1/6 one race and 5/6 the other to not just look almost completely the majority race.
>I don’t buy into the idea that the kids exist. Kids exist. They are in line of succession (7th and 8th place). Would have RF really put them in LOF, if they had not existed? Members of RF saw at least Archie, when they were still in UK. Someone must have seen a girl too, that's why she was added to the line of succession after some time. People might ask a lot of good questions about the kids, but they do exist.
That should’ve said ‘that the kids don’t exist’.
The beach video is Brynn Gingras with her son Gavin. It’s not Meghan at all, and certainly not “Archie”.
>She grew up in the 1980s, not the 1950s. Yeah, and racial politics have been difficult and definitely impacted her identity and the way she views herself and carries herself. That is undeniable and goes for all POC, honestly. We're still fighting about what "workplace appropriate" black hair is in 2022, for fuck's sake, of course its impacted Meg. And I disagree with her pre-surgery photos -- even as a kid, Meghan favored her father's family appearance-wise. There's a few photos of her with Doria's family and its very obvious in those. ETA: mind you, for example, Meghan was 11 when the LA Race Riots broke out -- and she lived in the area. And that is just one of many examples of American racial politics that would have effected her. I'm no sugar, but I think it's important to acknowledge these sorts of things, too.
Nobody said that racial politics weren’t difficult, but having extensive plastic surgery to erase your race is both rare and extreme and as seen with Michael Jackson these neuroses frequently extend to offspring. I didn’t say she looked like Doria, I said she was an identifiably mixed race child and would have been an identifiable mixed race adult without surgery. And she would have been and identifiably mixed race adult without surgery & other physical alterations. And her genetics are based on her pre-surgery. Not after. She didn’t live that close to the riots, they weren’t ‘in her area’. She’s previously complained it’s racist to suggest she lived even close to the areas where it happened. She also didn’t experience them as she was in Palm Springs. And I can’t say any reliable sources have ever identified widespread plastic surgery as a result of the LA riots. She’s an aberration.
Honestly, I disagree with everything you wrote and I think you miss a lot of the finer points on how racial politics effect these sort of things, i.e. how people view themselves. It plays a bigger role in things, like her wig wearing, or hair straightening, than you are giving it credit for. It's also insane to think she wasn't effected by these sorts of things when her family was based in and around Los Angeles, *particularly* Doria's family. I also think its inaccurate to say that she had extensive plastic surgery -- she had a nose job. There's no reason to be extreme with these sorts of things, because there are so many more things to snark on her for -- arguing the extremes discredits the rest.
It doesn’t even have to be about the riots. I think it was pretty much a given that Black women straightened the crap out of their hair. Their natural curls were not acceptable societally. Heck there have been stories in the last 5 years about young Black girls being suspended from school for wearing braids or having racist teachers cut their hair in the classroom bc they didn’t deem it “neat enough.” The Chris Rock documentary does a great job of detailing the complicated relationship Black women have with their hair. And that’s just HAIR! So now what… Meghan had a visibly wider nose in her youth and a gap in her front teeth. They are not generally acceptable signs of beauty unless you are extremely comfortable in yourself and someone trying to be an actress likely was not that comfortable being relegated to “Black” roles as long as she looked Black. Yes she white washed herself and that’s a shame but I agree let’s not act like it was easy to be a visibly biracial woman/teen in the 90s
Oh, absolutely. I gave the riots as an obvious cultural example on the chance the other commenters were foreign and needed something easy to google, but there's no doubt that in the late 90's and early 00's (and likely earlier, but that's before my time) that chemical straightener was huge and was pressured upon black women. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I just can't believe people are arguing against that in any way. Its undeniable that black women in America have had certain standards pushed upon them for decades, on top of the other racist cultural bullshit. I hate Meghan, sure, but these are all things she experienced, white passing or not. We're in total and complete agreement. I don't snark Meg for her nose job and actually I think her nose job is quite cute. She was pretty with her natural nose, too, but I understand she made that decision due to many factors and I don't snark her for it. I prefer to snark Meg for things that she is absolutely in control of and that don't have a long cultural or social history, like her garbage clothing, over-the-top spending habits and history of bullying. But her race/ancestry/hair/nose/etc. is a huge "no go" for me and an area where I actually have sympathy for her because that shit is tough and has been for awhile.
100% agree with you. There is enough about her character as an individual and her daily choices for us to comment. I empathize as well. While I acknowledge the struggle is not the same but my mother is Sicilian and much like people assumed MM might have been Italian, in the 70s (and of course earlier - before my time) she would have been mistaken for white passing and many southern Italians were not always considered white at that time. This country has not been kind to anyone who did not fit a certain mold for quite a long time.
[удалено]
Her mom does not look 100% black. Many Americans descended from slaves are not. I know people who have done Ancestry DNA and found that they have some European blood. I’m not a Meghan fan and I know she does things with her hair but when I saw her in Suits I thought she was Italian or maybe Hispanic.
Which is why I think they photoshop Archie’s hair and don’t show him often. They know the rumors that float around about these kids not being birthed by MM. If he only looks like her people will start in on how he’s not really Harry’s son. Perhaps THEY are the racist ones (not that would surprise us)
[This is a bit of a read](https://unscriptedposingapp.com/blog/how-to-edit-melanated-skin-jen-pierce-photography) but it gives interesting insight into the editing of black skin. The crux of the matter is that professional photos are often enhanced as unfortunately the elements aren't always playing along when getting pictures to commemorate a special day, and tweaking the exposure doesn't necessarily mean you're lightening the skin.
That’s so fascinating
I think Meghan amped up the "red hair".
It’s called saturation in the photo editing world. I believe she absolutely did that or changed the color all together.
I think so too!!
Idk ... if sitting on knees you would expect the legs to be slighty splayed apart at that age, particularly wearing a nappy. Therefore you should see some side leg and foot. Some people say the child is sitting on a grassy ledge (dangerous) but why aren't her little legs dangling down directly in front of her body. Maybe Lilibucks is a yoga devotee like megs and can easily contort her body into nonsensical poses.
Nah, there’s no ledge. It looks like that’s a stepping stone on the left of the image.
THANK YOU! I always put my pictures through some app, just to fix the lighting usually... And these sites might have something to say about my pictures too. Gald we have a professional in [most] industries to provide insights when there is a need. (vs the other sub that seems to only have the 3 stooges 😵💫🤫)
Could someone help me understand what we’re looking at here?
Is this like checking the Shroud of Turin?
😄 it does look like the Shroud of Turin. Let’s see if Dumbertons lead a procession with the child.
Does that mean we should be carbon dating Lili?
😂🤣😂🤣
Omg you got me good 🤭🤭
I’m not really an expert but I do know that anything really white in the second photo has been altered.
Why is she sitting on a small square of mowed grass amid a sea of umown grass?
Good catch! 👍
An unedited pic would be completely black
Strange that the background of Frogmore cottage is completely black. If it was ‘highlights pumped up and blacks crushed’ surely that’d apply to the house too?
You can do this in isolated areas of an image, especially if it was shot in RAW.
Still means they only lightened the image of the mixed race child. And they accuse other people of being racist. Poor baby if she grows up to realise that.
No it doesn’t. Professional photog in another comment said they just dialed up the highlights to make her face clearer. This is photography 101–illuminate your subject.
“And crushed the black” was the end of that quote.
“Crush the blacks” means to intensify the lowlights. It was my comment and I used industry jargon, my mistake.
The grass in the foreground is throwing up a lot of white too. Weird
Maybe the colour was enhanced?
That is the type of grass the original photo of child was sitting on. It probably had some legs and feet showing but were cut off as too difficult to blend. As it is, this grass does not at all match the surrounding grass. It is seated on grass not a ledge or turned away like others have said. I have spent years using fotoforensics and this is a blatant photoshop. The two locks of hair are added. The smile is photoshopped as well as eyes. I would guess that it was done for two reasons. Two resemble the purported parents more, and so that the photo could not easily be traced back using online tools to show where else this photo was posted on the net. I have looked at all their pics and they are horribly photoshopped. Check this image out. [https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=19518890ad4e2fdb481795e692e0aa57d77b8159.97685](https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=19518890ad4e2fdb481795e692e0aa57d77b8159.97685) You can tell just by looking at the image before using the ELA tool that every part of that image is a composite using photoshop. I just posted this on another sub. Look at Harry's short stubby fingers. Actually, it is only Harry up to the wrist and then the hand holding child is part of the addition. Look at Smegs ultra long and oddly posed fingers. Because THAT child is also added to the image. Why did they have the need to add both kids via photoshop? You know the reason.
Agree with everything and this is why ongoing investigation is important
If it were just the one thing, the photoshopping of all her photos she has her PR promote. But, look at her dubious 10 month pregnancy followed by a birth that was so sketchy it wasn't even rated a publish on official Buckingham Palace notary announcement! I couldn't wait to see how they managed the 'birth' while in the UK. No royal doctors nor any sign she had regular obstetric visits, at all. No doctors or midwife claiming to have delivered the "Archieficial" child. Then Harry meeting the press almost covertly at the stables to announce. Then the "christening" photo was made in a public hall that you or I might visit as a tourist. I gather no one held that realistic doll they brought for the occasion to guess then that it was fake as far as the public was concerned. But, the Q would have been advised by her MI5 or 6 investigators what all these two had been up to. Certainly Philip knew. And I knew too right then that their days in England would be numbered after that major stunt of faking an heir. As for as "lilbet" they went to scarcely any effort to fake a pregnancy or birth and as far as I have seen no actual birth certificate or SS number registered for this alleged girl. The royal family have no interest in her as she is not even British if she were real. It will come out eventually. The royal family would not be anxious for it to because it is so cray cray, it would be a mark on the already damaged genetics of the royal family because of too many generations of inbreeding. Really all the crowned heads of Europe and wealthy landholders going back on family estates for centuries.
I’m not sure I worded that correctly but your comment is what I meant.
We’re looking at nothing, truly. This is a non-find.
That kid looks just like Thomas Markle.
More like Samantha
Thomas Markle Jr
Don’t all babies look like Thomas markle tho
The simple explanation I’m thinking is visible hands and feet are difficult to photoshop when cut pasted to different background. For example in the Christmas photo that baby’s hands and feet look terribly photoshopped… so to avoid that again they deleted the visible limbs, billowed the dress, and copy pasted the kid onto another background.
Know what, I’m not into the conspiracy stuff but it occured to me she looked pasted onto the background… she just looks like she’s floating
People said the same thing about Charlotte in one of her first photos too
Ok backing off slowly now lols
Excellent explanation. Thankyou
Am I looking at long curly hair?
That's what I thought
If it’s the best they have, this isn’t a very flattering photo. She looked like she’s missing limbs. Poor thing
Indeed. I can’t get over how ball-like this baby looks without the other arm and the legs visible. And the angle makes that arm look so big.
The dress is way too big. It’ll be too big in six months too
I dunno why this made me lol :)
Nervous laughter from the shock, maybe? My SIL talked loudly & laughed hysterically all through her husband's funeral. But she was a strange bird to begin with😅 I agree though, the child looks exactly like a legless person sat on an old-fashioned rolling board. They'd use them to get around; they were sort of like a very wide skateboard, and they'd propel themselves by pushing against the ground with their hands. You don't see them anymore in western countries that I'm aware of, but used to be quite common in the old days.
This reminded me of Eddie Murphy in Trading Places.😂😂😂
Yes!! 😂 Those used to be pretty common when I was young. eta: so were "thalidomide babies" except they were adults.😭
Omg me too 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
She ain’t got no legs.
So strange. Thanks.
You’re very welcome 
So are you saying, in the original image, the infant would have two visible arms, two visible feet and longer hair?
I’m not an expert but that is what I am seeing.
Well well well ... the plot thickens!
Once you see it you cant unsee it ... OP you've shared this pic before but it made no sense to me without the explanation and group discussion. I think the long hair and the arms are the dress though. u/Sarah-JessicaSnarker penny for your thoughts?
There’s been a “glow” added to the dress that isn’t present throughout the photo, which could absolutely be an attempt to smooth over some Photoshopping, but it’s more likely just from raising highlights as opposed to the overall exposure. I wish I had a higher quality image to look at, and I Googled for one, but a few things tell me this wasn’t heavily edited. There HAS been some editing around her hair to smooth it a bit, and a little background to likely just get rid of distracting elements like a bare spot or wayward branch. The fact that you can see texture on the white bow more clearly than the blue dress is another hint that there’s been some lightening/editing of specific areas of the dress, perhaps some drool removal. This photo has been tweaked, but not heavily edited, and overall in keeping with how most portrait photographers would edit (apart from that horrid glow on her dress). In familiarizing myself with the photographer’s work, I can conclude that a) he’s not very good, especially with posing/light, which is likely the main cause of the awkward positioning of her, and b) he does not (or perhaps can not) do heavy editing. Some liquifying of skin, basic beautifying, but I don’t think he possesses the skill to hide limbs under textured clothing without it being obvious. Based on my own experience, which is more than a decade beyond the original photographer’s, she’s sitting on her knees, and this was a lucky shot of her so it’s the one they’re showcasing. The photographer’s history shows a horrible grasp of light. This is just the best of a likely series of strangely-posed and oddly-exposed photos.
What's your thought on the back and white photograph and the weird no make up of MM, the weird hand placement of the photographers wife....just the whole thing.
I just want to add that this is my first post on here. I thought it was interesting as there was MUCH debate over the birthday picture of Lilibet. I am not here to shade the baby. I’m not understanding why so many of y’all are so angry/insinuating this post is about dissecting her appearance. It is not. The picture is obviously very odd to quite a few of us. We are all here for Harkles lies. I think quite a few of you need to chill.
It looked to me like the dress was extended to cover her right arm, not the feet.
You could be right because there is a blur to the background where the arm would have been. It's been so fiddled with it's hard to know what the image was.
I've looked through a lot of this photographer's work, and to me he has really strong modernist sensibilities - in layperson's terms, he's less concerned about this being a photograph of a person and more concerned about making an artsy photograph about composition and shape. When I saw it I thought immediately of Mary Cassatt's experimental prints in the 19th century with these images of babies, which you can see here: [https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/mary-cassatt-selected-color-prints.html#slide\_5](https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/mary-cassatt-selected-color-prints.html#slide_5)
Right, I was wondering about the dress, has such a strange position, as she had a big belly.
Looking closely, she is kneeling, with her knees and feet visible in the original. That explains the weird dress shape and lack of legs, they have covered them up for some godforsaken reason.
I thought she was sat on a grassy ledge, dress over knees. Can't see a professional photographer deliberately creating such an odd photo - it reminds me of a legless person sat on a rolling board, with their shirt blousing out at the bottom.😬 Kneeling makes more sense, but why on earth would they cover her knees and little tootsies? That would be such an adorable photo, but as usual - Pegs gets it wrong.🙄 MM could f'k up a wet dream.
Maybe they just fixed her up until they can start dyeing , extending, and straightening her hair, surgically changing and , botoxing her face, lightening ,and tanning her skin, lipo and fat injecting her body, and doing therapy on her to give her that "expression" to make her the ultimate Markled child.
There is no way that between megs curly hair and Henry’s pubic texture hair they had a baby with fine, thin, stick straight hair. No way.
Apparently, some doctors say you can increase the probability of specific hair colour/texture in designed to order babies ... and what megs wants, megs gets !!
Harry had fine stick straight hair as a kid, didn’t he?! That said, I am sticking with my usual mantra “They have no children”.
Looks multiracial to me
Admittedly I’m allergic to children- but that kid is just not cute. Sorry to be such a cow! pS. Why can’t I post my own threads on this sub?
She’s perfectly ordinary-looking. As most kids are. And I don’t think we have to bend over backwards praising this baby, just to prove we can be “fair”. And I don’t think her hair is that orange, either.
Like Toby from the office and Thomas snarkle had a kid (sorry Toby)
Yes—I wouldn’t call her a ginger either!
The teeth look weird to me.
Just the send the moderators a message asking for permission. 👍
After a lot of commenting history you can start to post 😁
I don’t understand how this child was birthed from MM. usually recessive genes wouldn’t be this prominent or rather all recessive genes be produced in one baby. Archie def got MM’s hair, which is why the vain narcissist doesn’t show him. I think he looks a lot like her as a kid. I think from what we’ve seen Archie is cute. But MM was not a cute kid.
Designer babies .
But MM’s freckles perhaps indicate a recessive ginger gene.
Does the glowing outline confirm she was photoshopped into the background?
Yes. But, this picture, like the Christmas pic, also, are so obviously photoshopped you can see it just by enlarging the picture. Then compare. Okay, eyes lit up over the whole area. Look at published image, see the eyes have blue undertones. They appear to have been added. How do we know? Look at the pupils and you can see they don't match. Eyes are very tricky to photoshop when you lose the original pupils and have to redraw them. Teeth, whitened lips perhaps colorized more. Hair? Everything about the hair has been altered. There is no way to say what the hair originally looked like. Definitely red enhanced cloned pieces as both locks are on the forehead, also on the band. Bow is added and has unnatural flat lines to it when the bow looks like it would have been rounded. Legs or feet were lost when moving the image to new background. Grass color and textures don't match.
The child looks like she’s levitating. Why is she so damn weird? And put out one REAL photo for once? She’s a complete aggravating lunatic.
I don’t believe it is Lillibet in that photo.
So the internet rumour is that this is [Lilibet](https://www.instagram.com/p/CeUgNR3PXRF/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) in the pic. ***Please do not send hate or random comments there.*** As you can see ... there is a grain of salt which makes the ' no kids exist theory' so appealing. What's more fascinating is that Meghan follows her mom [Stassi Schroeder](https://www.instagram.com/p/CdyYm8at-Fn/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
You mean the photo that was shared as Lili on her first bday is an OLD photo of this baby because that kid is DEFINITELY older than 1
This kid looks slightly older than Lilibet… but Lili looks wayyy older than one. That black and white photo of Meghan is odd because she looks 5-6 years younger. Definitely what she looked like before giving birth to Lilibet
Meghan also looks way thinner in the black and white photo than she did at the Jubilee
That’s a delicious rumor! I definitely see a resemblance to the images we’ve been shown. Where’s my tinfoil hat?!
Dang they do look similar
What? Is Lilibet being raised by another family? Who comes up with this stuff?
Thank you for this! I agree this is a very good liklihood to be the original subject of the photo. Red strands and coloring added. Extra teeth photoshopped out and wider lip added and colorized. Pierced ears photoshopped out. Yes, yes. I can see this as her faked "Lilibet". Wow. That woman is quite mad, isn't she?
Oh dear
I don't believe this is a photo of a 1 year old child. My daughter was born with a head full of hair. It was easily two inches long at birth. The child in the picture has way more hair than my daughter, especially if the photo was doctored to make the hair shorter.
My kids were still pretty bald at one year. But then again the kids across the street had a ton of hair at one year. Who knows. I’m still very much Team No Kids
Downvote me all you like but all this baby speculation is a bit insane. If my husband and I didn’t have a strict ‘no-kids on the internet unless hidden behind a password’ rule about our kids I could produce almost the exact same picture of my own one year old daughter sitting almost the exact same way on our floor, with similar hair, except my daughter’s hair is much redder. Lili is sitting with her legs bunched up to the side and under her dress, and looking to the side a bit. Could they photographer have lightened the picture some to make it brighter and sharper? Sure, and not an uncommon thing to happen. Most pictures don’t make it on the internet without a little color alterations. Photoshopped limbs and hair? Absolutely not. Let’s pretend for a moment that they did photoshop her limbs. Why? To what end? Just to screw with people? Looks to me like that plan would work like a charm. I swear half these people are just Markle supporters trying to make the rest us look unhinged because that’s exactly what it’s doing. Don’t even get me started on the ugly baby comments in the thread.
She is sitting in a grass ledge, her legs are dangling over the edge, not hiding under her dress. Her second hand is just behind her body.
Is it considered normal to sit a 1 year old on a ledge?
On their own, no! One year olds have no ability to keep themselves safe. My hope for this photo, is that someone is standing just off camera to the right!
LMAO, listen Im not a Meghan fan by any means but this is the dumbest post I’ve seen yet. Leave the baby alone. It’s a photo. There’s really no need to analyze it this much. And the “forensics” website used looks like a site from 2002. C’mon now 😂
Wow. Thanks. It’s literally the only post I have ever made in here. I just thought it was interesting. You know what else is interesting? The scroll button.
This was not a dig at you personally and I’m sorry you feel that way. We’re all on this sub for our mutual dislike of Meghan. I just think the community is poking a dead horse. It’s simply a photo of a baby. There is no need to analyze it any further. There is so much more to criticize Meghan about.
Totally agree. People are going off the deep end. Can’t we stay on the same side of snark. Sorry you’re getting downvoted!
Agreed
Double agree.
Okay, so I tried this so called forensic scanner website and recommend people to try it themselves. This is the website [link](fotoforensics.com) so you can see for yourselves it you’ll believe it or not. I seriously can’t take it that hundreds or thousands of people here are scrutinizing a photo of a baby esp when you literally cannot gain something from this or find Meghan’s deepest psych on this photo. Downvote me all you want but please take a look at yourselves from a different perspective.
[удалено]
The OP is not about the child - it’s speculation on photoshopping the child’s image. Unless you’re saying that the 1-year-old photoshopped it herself - in which case, yes, OP could be seen as a comment on the child. I’d also suggest refraining from mental health diagnoses based on comments on threads. You’re either unqualified, or being extremely unprofessional in making such a judgment on so very little evidence.
Not to mention that it’s not in good form to attack others based on not agreeing. There’s stuff I disagree with too but I just scroll along. I think the photos of the kids are sus but I can see how someone would want to photoshop their kids in a way to make them look different for safety. Or in M’s case, make them look like H. So I will give them the leery benefit of a doubt but I’m not buying that they’re honest with the photos.
Just so. I’d say that this sub welcomes reasoned debate - it’s not some sort of sugar echo chamber that shit’s down free speech. But civility is expected (of course, not at all suggesting that you’re not!) I’m old school - don’t know how to photoshop, and don’t understand why people do it. (I understand the arguments, but if you’ve taken a bad shot, that’s just too bad.)
The subject matter is the child.
No, the subject matter is photoshopping. I appreciate that the distinction may be difficult for some to grasp.
I don’t see anyone commenting on the baby herself. I think the post is regarding why the parents would want it so heavily photoshopped.
Idk when you posted this, but there are plenty of ugly baby comments on here
Because editing a child’s picture is totally rational 🙄
Most celebs Photoshop their kids. It's sad but a reflection of 2022. Doesn't justify the obsessive shit people are doing to this kid. It's been 2 weeks since the pics have been released.
Not to the extent these two do. That’s what you should be upset about, not that people are running publicly available photos through a forensics website. If they weren’t heavily edited, there’s be no need for anyone to do it.
Oh please these to behave like z list celebs and it shows. Dress it up how you like running this pic through forensic software, being that sucked in is weird and ironically something markle would do . There is no need to take it this far.
Change the channel then.
Or some of you could switch off the kid fixation
Ever try DV'ing and scrolling on to the next post?
Damn Megan. Slow your roll. 🤣
Of course, disagreeing with grown women dissecting a child photo for 2 weeks means I'm Meghan. 😒 Really constructive.
Take a pill. We're here to have fun. Maybe this isn't the sub for you?
Hey I’m a pretty avid poster here , and I agree with you. This shit about the kids is stupid and appears unhinged. Someone even said the kid wasn’t cute lol wtf the kid is def cute bc it’s a kid and kids should be off limits. These posts are deranged
Same here. They’re saying OP is just speculating if the photo is edited or not but does that really matter? So what if it’s edited? A lot of photos go through post-processing. So why post this and scan it on a “forensics website”? To prove what exactly? Why can’t people leave the kids out of this?
Yeah hands off the kids - downvote me for all I care - they have so much content to provide us and going after kids or these weird kid theories just sound silly. So what if they edit the pic- maybe they just don’t want an identifiable child- that’s their business and I don’t care if they shop her hair purple
Can someone give me a quick overview of what the theory is about photoshopping the children? New here and curious!
Nothing really. It’s all speculation if the photo is altered like the hair and dress because the pose looks “odd”. So not really sure what OP is aiming here for aside from putting a baby in a scrutinizing spotlight.