Photographer claims the Monday photo of Prince William & Kate is legit

On Monday, the Daily Mail was beside itself with glee that they got to publish a Kensington Palace-authorized photo of Prince William and a shadow they claimed was the Princess of Wales. The photo was supposedly taken on Monday, in Windsor, as William left Adelaide Cottage to be chauffeured to Westminster Abbey for the Commonwealth Day service. William’s staff immediately told the Mail that William was “dropping off” Kate at a “private appointment” on his way to the Abbey. The problem, as internet sleuths quickly deduced, was that there’s literally no proof that the shadowy figure is Kate, and the uncropped photo looks hella manipulated too because the brick background doesn’t match whatsoever:

Before 2024, we probably would have not bothered forming much of a conspiracy theory about this. People would have noted the inconsistent bricks but, since Kate was seen regularly in public, people would have just shrugged and moved on with their day. But given all of the shenanigans – a missing princess, a scandalous Frankenphoto, Kensington Palace’s loss of credibility – it seems quite sane to question what the hell is going on with this dumb photo. Well, the New York Post spoke to the photographer, who swore up and down that the photo is legit and not manipulated.

The paparazzo who snapped the pic of Kate Middleton riding alongside Prince William in a car Monday is speaking out to quash online conspiracy theories that the photo was doctored.

“We don’t change our photos in Photoshop other than adjusting the light levels if necessary,” photographer Jim Bennett told The Post. Bennett said he and a partner were hired by a news outlet to get a shot of Prince William heading to Westminster Abbey for a royal event.

“The cars left Windsor Castle and I photographed them a short distance away on Datchet High Street — outside No. 39, to be precise!” he said. “Car shots are unpredictable at the best of times and with some reflection on the glass, it can be difficult.”

He added: “As it happened, it wasn’t until I checked on the back of the camera to make sure I had a frame of Prince William that I realized there was someone sitting next to him. It turned out to be Catherine!”

Bennett’s account addresses speculation that Middleton’s silhouette was edited into the photo – and clears up the misconception that the image was released by the royal family. Instead, it was taken by a professional photographer and then syndicated in the US by the photo agency GoffPhotos.

Sleuths have compared the profile of Middleton in Bennett’s photo to a shot of the princess at a 2016 ceremony, speculating that she was edited into the new photo alongside her husband. Others have noted inconsistencies with the pattern of bricks seen above the car and through its windows. However the Datchet High Street address provided by Bennett also seems to debunk suspicions of forgery. Though the grouting between the bricks does appear inconsistent in the photo, closer inspection of the building shows an outer brick wall at car level, which has notably different grouting than what is visible on the building itself higher up.

[From The NY Post]

When one conspiracy dies, ten more rise from the ashes – so, let’s assume that the brick issue has been solved and that the brick wall background has been explained. I’ll even go so far as saying that I believe that he didn’t Photoshop the back of Kate’s head into the photo. This is legitimately a photo of William in the backseat with a woman who turned away from the camera. It’s also worth noting that if Bennett got the call to go to this one place and take Huevo’s photo, then the whole thing was probably a set-up from start to finish, which we knew already given the palace briefing to the Mail. KP told the Mail: send a photographer to this location to get this photo. The Mail sent a stringer and packaged the whole thing with Kensington Palace’s approval. After KP leaned so hard on every British outlet to get them to refuse to publish the pic of Kate and Carole last week, this was the quid pro quo, another palace-authorized photoshoot. So much for respecting the sanctity of Kate’s privacy and her delicate recovery. That’s over now!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

79 Responses to “Photographer claims the Monday photo of Prince William & Kate is legit”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MaryContrary says:

    So the only “clean shot” he was able to get was the back/side of her head? Weird. And taking it at his word that it wasn’t doctored-doesn’t mean it was current. The story at first was he was on his way to the Commonwealth Service-then it was stated it was from the day before. Also-Sarah Vines in her DM column mentioned that as a sign that there’s a crack in their marriage-that he’s not looking at her . . .

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      He doesn’t say that he saw her face. So, how does he conclude it’s Kate?

      • Lucy says:

        He didn’t even notice there was someone in the other seat, then the palace jumped in and said it was Kate. He’s just repeating what was announced which doesn’t prove anything about it being her and not some body double. And with the level decision making KP is showing, body double is in no way out of the realm of possible .

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        This whole thing is sketchy. He saw the back of a woman’s head and assumed it was Kate, in a full updo for an appointment, but she’s too sick to even take a legit photo head on.

        I maintain that looks more like Rose’s cheekbone than Kate’s, but whatever is going on here, it only raises more questions.

      • B says:

        PLUS Backgrid paparazzo were interviewed in NY and swore up and down there was no car chase and that everything was routine. What did we find out later? They LIED there was a car chase, it was dangerous and there was enough evidence to arrest them.

        Why would I trust a paparazzo now? Why would I trust KP now? They have both proven themselves to be liars.

      • Shawna says:

        @B – yep, paparazzos are literally photographers for hire, so why won’t they say what they were hired to say?

    • MollyF says:

      @WiththeAmerican, I agree: to me too it looks like Rose…
      anyway it could be really anyone at this point, how can they continue this game is beyond me.

      Kate must really be incapacitated or something, anything would be better than this.

    • Kathleen says:

      Why is it weird? The car was moving, you don’t get a whole lot of time to take any shots. If she happened to look away as he snapped the photo, that’s pretty much it.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Kathleen, your argument would almost make sense if we were still in the Polaroid picture era. We’re not. If Jim Bennett only managed to get one photo off, then he sucks as a photographer, unless that was the job he was told to do. Otherwise, most photographers would have clicked off a many number of pictures.

        Jim Bennett has been photographing the BRF for years. He’s not a rando assigned to a task. Bennett has done public and private events with QE2.

        Could be wrong, is this the first time Will has arrived at a Commonwealth Service without being seen exiting the car he arrived in? Just wondering if the vehicle he arrived in is the same as the one he was giving Kate Uber service to her private appointment? lol

  2. sparrow says:

    Claim on all you like. You’re actually making it worse for them.

    • ecsmom says:

      WHY is she wearing her hair up and probably a hat to a personal appointment. AND if she can sit in a car looking really good, her face is not swollen or bruised, why can’t we get a real picture and a statement from her.

      You are exactly right, it just makes it worse!!

      • So much worse 🥴

      • CC730 says:

        This. The same with the photos with the kids. If she’s well why not do another one? More recent.

      • Tuesday says:

        I think this is a million dollar question! Kate wears her hair down with hats, tiaras, etc. And most of the time that it’s up it’s in just a ponytail for official events, but she got an up do to go to the doctor? GTFO.

  3. Advisor2U says:

    The pic might be legit, but not recent.

    Where was she going with a ”fascinator/hat with a bow” on her head, if she wat not heading to an official function (like the CWD-service or any other service). Becky English made it known that Kate was heading to a private appointment.

    • sparrow says:

      Private appt made me assume hospital. And I’m left wondering what her doctors and nurses will be thinking of her editing a photo when they damn well know what she looks like; it’s kind of making a mockery of their work and their other patients.

  4. Bad Janet says:

    Doesn’t matter now. Their credibility is trash now and everyone knows it.

    All they have left are excuses for them and their behavior, not explanations. And the only ones left excusing them are the people who are still, for mostly mystifying reasons, harboring anti-Republican sentiments.

    This is the nail in the coffin. They wanted all the attention and by God, they’ve got it. Meghan dealt with this shit for seven years, but oh poor Kate, they wanted to demand explanations of her for a couple weeks.

  5. Snuffles says:

    How can he be sure it was Kate when he had to check his photos to see what he captured? And he only captured the back of the woman’s head.

    It was clearly a set up that was palace approved. It could still be another woman or a body double.

    ETA: I just noticed he said A royal event but didn’t specify which one. It’s probably an older picture.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      I saw someone mention (but I didn’t confirm) that this car is blue, but the car that dropped William off at the event was black. He didn’t come on the front either, according to them.

      • blueberry says:

        OMG true! I was skeptical yesterday and checked the footage of him arriving at the CW Day service. I was too focused on checking that it was a Range Rover and I missed the color. I’m very doubtful now. This is the arrival video I watched. ( ) There’s not a clear shot of the car he got out of, but you can see what I believe is the car waiting in line after The Edinburghs’ car. The camera stays on them as they walk up but Will clearly is the next to arrive. I’m not sure if that’s the same car. The shape of the windows looks a little different too.

  6. Eurydice says:

    Even if this photo is real, it still doesn’t make sense that William would be taking Kate to a “private appointment” right before his attendance at a major royal event. I mean, with all the paparazzi around, have we ever seen him drive her to an appointment before? So maybe the photo is real, but the timing or the reason behind it isn’t.

    • Somebody Nobody says:

      These are not carpool people lol

      • Esquire says:

        Exactly; it’s ridiculous at this point. They have their own security detail too.

      • Seriously weird timing to be “taking her to an appointment “
        More realistic if he’d had all three kids in there dropping them off for the big “school run”.😂
        These people are so out of touch with how real people do things that their lies are becoming more evident in every cover up.

      • Becks1 says:

        And he had an ES event afterwards, so did Kate get her own ride home? Did she just go hang out at KP 1A for a few hours until he was done?

        My guess is he literally drove down the street so the photogs could get the picture and then dropped off whoever was in the car. Maybe Kate’s “private appointment” was two blocks away from WC.

  7. sevenblue says:

    I read that there were two photographers at the scene. How come there is only one photo? Are other photos not approved by the Palace, because now we know the pap photos not approved are not published in UK?

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Dontcha know, @sevenblue? The two photographer’s cameras were afflicted by the same technical flu as The Bee’s printer. One option.

  8. I believe it was Can’t and Peg but it’s an old photo and has been “touched up”. He can scream to whoever he wants but they are known liars. In the picture it looks like she has an up do and a hat. Why all the fancy for a supposed private appointment. Why does she have to drive with Peg who has been scheduled carefully to arrive at the commonwealth service at a certain time. I call malarkey.

  9. CatJ says:

    I saw a comparison photo of Kate with the same face/pose and her giant pearl earring edited out, so, no I don’t think this photo is real.

    • I saw that comparison too and it’s probably what they did. They just keep lying about it and it gets worse.

    • Mrs Which says:

      I agree-it’s the same angle and shading from that 2016 picture of her. This is not amateur hour, but something more nefarious. Like other agencies (with more specialized software than Photoshop) are involved to save The Crown. This is not divorce behavior, but coverup from DV.

    • Alice says:

      You can see where they edited out the earring and the cropping matches to what would be needed to remove Harry’s shoulder.

      They are hilariously inept.

    • T says:

      Agreed. I saw the comparison of the two pics side by side and that’s when I realized they were saying the shadowy person in the ‘new pic’ was kate going to a private appointment. Yeah in a hat, don’t buy it. She rarely even wears them at her normal events, only when it’s a royal gathering type event, she just up and wore one that day while not attending the commonwealth events. Something is very wrong in all this. Perhaps she wanted to go to the commonwealth events and wasn’t allowed? Like what on earth is happening with these people? As much as I disagree with many elements of their lives I still view Kate as a person and hope she has support around her for whatever is going on.

      • Shawna says:

        Had she been dressed & able to attend the Commonwealth service, heaven and earth would have been moved to make it happen.

  10. Relly says:

    “I Totally Took the Photo, And It’s Real,” Claims Man Paid Expressly To Take Photo And Claim It To Be Real.

    How surprising.

    • Interested Gawkef says:


    • molly says:

      Exactly. These paps are no fools. He’s in a much better position doing the bidding of the royal family on this to set him up for deals and exclusives in the future.

    • Alice says:

      It honestly does remind me of when Diana’s conversation was broadcast months after it took place and a hobbyist just happened to pick it up that night.

    • macduffer says:

      This is also coming from the Murdoch owned NY Post, a paper that can be trusted as much as the Daily Fail

    • ncboudicca says:

      I think it’s odd that he refers to her as “Catherine”…nobody does that except KP and derangers.

      Is this guy a legit photographer, or did he just pop up out of nowhere to take the pic?

    • rawiy says:

      I mean, I’d say I took the photo and saw her if the Palace wanted to pay me a 5-figure sum. I got bills to pay, after all!

  11. StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

    They are stupid and crazy enough to doctor another shot. There seems to be a Pippa pic at the same location and the bricks aligned. I belive it was them, but also it was for another location. Rage prince Huevo probably has a restraining order against him and cant see his wife and kids. That’s why she doesnt have a ring on and she doesnt care about being seen. It’s all going down the drain.

    • CC730 says:

      Nah William has nothing against him even if he is a rage monster because this is UK, his turf.
      I don’t think Kate spend a lot of times with her kids if ever lately because otherwise they would have genuine photos to show (and pretend they are taken now). It’s always stage photo with her or taken by paps approved by KP.
      It’s quite logical. I remember a video that no longer exist where we see K and W come down a plane with baby George. They took photos of their “adorable ” family, then Kan’t rapidly gave G to Maria and turned around like he was a bag and not her child.
      I personnally think everything about William is fake, no wonder he hates Harry….

  12. Becks1 says:

    So KP arranged for this photographer to get this picture (because no way did KP not authorize this), he just “happened” to get Kate in the pic but only got one or two pics with her face turned away? Nothing where she is looking at William or even straight ahead (so there would be a full profile shot)?

    Sure this all makes sense.

    I’m still up in the air on whether or not its Kate in that picture. But if it was, then it was still a poor move by KP because she refused to look at the camera. Like, what on earth did they think that photo was going to prove?

  13. Harper says:

    William thought he was landing a one-two punch to finally silence thos BBL rumors. Mother’s Day photoshop jab on Sunday, and the knockout punch of shadowy figure of Kate on Monday. So there! The Fail most likely had the photo ready to go the day before. MEANWHILE, the AP weighs in and ruins Burger King’s carefully planned victory telling the whole world they are faking it. Again, why only one photo? And what news agency commissions a car photo of Burger King leaving Windsor when you can easily get him at the Abbey thirty minutes later? FAIL.

    • Nerd says:

      Exactly this ☝️. Why would they plan for a pap photo of William in a car leaving Windsor at a specific location unless the goal was to get a presumed photo of him with Kate? And if your setting up a photo of him with Kate, why not let the photographer know that that is the obvious goal and why not get one with her looking forward so that there is a better view of her? If this is the actual location, which is feasible, why was she purposely facing a brick wall to avoid being photographed as proof of life? This only creates more questions and suspicion.

    • BeanieBean says:

      It is a real location. You can google that address & see the wall in front of the brick building. That’s the place–the photo was taken outside that address. When, who knows? Why on earth would they be carpooling at this point in their marriage? Who knows? Is that Kate? Eh.

  14. Jais says:

    Okaaay, but why is the BM publishing a pap photo of Kate when they wouldn’t publish the other pap photo of Kate with her mom??? Becky English, the head of the rota, who swore she saw William when she went to her doctor appt at the London Clinic is a joke. Now she’s telling us this was definitely Kate and she’s going to a personal appt. Her credibility is zero. Less than zero.

  15. KT says:

    I’m going to post this ***totally unedited video*** again bec it made me laugh so hard.

  16. Arhus says:

    I did find the bricks at the location the photographer gave! Does make sense as the lower part is a brick wall and the higher part is a brick house further away

    • Someonecerulean says:

      I was coming to say that same thing. It was handy that the photographer gave us the precise location.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        Someone on Celebitchy found the location via street view yesterday after reading the street name/village where the picture was taken. And it absolutely lines up with the shot where the bricks are going in two different directions (down to the drain pipes on the building behind the garden wall). So the image was taken there, it’s just a question of when it was taken, who is in the car (if anyone) with Will, etc.

  17. poppedbubble says:

    I wish the news agencies would ask him to send them the unedited photo so they could check it. Then I would believe it.

  18. QuiteContrary says:

    They are all so bad at this.

  19. Amy Bee says:

    I think the bigger issue here is that KP set up the pap drive and gave the press permission to publish the photo.

  20. SameSame says:

    Long time lurker.
    I saw the 2016 photo comparison and it is a near exact match.
    So they did it again and if caught they can blame the paparazzo who took the pic. If not caught, they (KP) get away with it.
    In this media savvy age, who do they think they’re fooling?!

    This definitely has seedy undertones.

    EDIT: Does anyone know how I can get a permanent handle for commenting? Thanks!

    • Becks1 says:


      no permanent handles, you have to enter it each time (mine autofills at this point lol.) The reaosn some of us have kind of wonky names is because people can use the same handle as someone else. Like I used to post just as Bex or Becks, but there are other people who pop in randomly who use those names (and dont check to make sure the name isn’t being used) so I started going by Becks1. Usually people figure it out though and its not an issue.

    • sparrow says:

      Hi, Samesame. Nice to meet you!

    • Teagirl says:

      Welcome. Many of us have lurked for years but then something is posted and we can’t help ourselves, we have to say something! It’s a great bunch of people, a family of commenters with the occasional interloper.

      • SAMESAME says:

        That’s right @TeaGirl, i finally couldn’t hold back with this topic. The dam broke, the kettle is on and my popcorn bucket is full.

  21. Jay says:

    Oh my word – this is worse than saying nothing at all. Let me make sure I understand: This photographer was hired to get a shot of Prince William heading to Westminster Abbey and a. Knew instinctively exactly where the car would be driving, even though they supposedly had to drop off Kate to her appointment first b. Carefully framed and took the shot with William but didn’t see if there was anyone else in the car until later, even though a photo of the princess would have majorly increased the photo’s value c. Only managed one shot, despite being hired to get this specific photo. Pros can take 10-20 frames a second – it is absurd to think that he just managed one, especially once he realized Kate was in it. And of course, d. He somehow got permission from the palace to publish it in the first place, despite the fact that last week we heard all about KP’s strict ban on unauthorized photos! It was the DM (the same outlet that refused to publish the pap shots of the car last week) who published the photos and added the detail of the Wails carpooling to Kate’s mystery appointment.

  22. Mslove says:

    As other commenters have said, he wouldn’t be dropping her off anywhere for any reason. That woman in the car isn’t Kate. Maybe tomorrow Peg can post a pic of Kate’s jazz hands and call it a day.

  23. mary Pester says:

    Yeah, to rephrase the song,
    “I didn’t see her face
    I’m not a believer,
    There’s a massive trace.
    Of doubt in my mind.
    That ain’t kate, and he was TO specific as liars often are.
    We were taught, that if a suspect, offers up more information that necessary during an interview, he’s lieing

  24. Nerd says:

    I believe the explanation of how the two different bricks and mortar happened in the photo because of the specific location conveniently given to him to go to take the photo. It however makes it obvious that this was a staged photo to get a photo of William with Kate. So why only one photo where she obviously isn’t looking forward or them even looking at each other? Why were they in the same vehicle, if her goal was not to be seen in public, if it would have made more sense for her to leave sometime after he had already left and in a car where the back windows were blacked out? Them going in the same car and them dropping her off before he went to an event that was a quick in and out event, doesn’t make any sense? So presumably they dropped her off by herself, a woman who is still recovering from a major surgery from two months ago and unable to work from home, without anyone like a spouse, parent or friend? How does any of that make any sense? It’s obvious through the photo that she was dressed as if she were going to a royal event and not a doctors appointment or any other personal appointment. Why dress up like you are going to a royal event unless 1) it wasn’t really Kate 2) it was a photo from a previous engagement with her image photoshopped in or 3) it was Kate but they are too stupid and incompetent to do things the right way by not lying or manipulating the public.

  25. LynnInTx says:

    What’s really interesting is the Fail, who apparently had the supposed photo first, credited (still credits?) the photo to BRUCE Bennett (a respected photog) and not JIM Bennett, who is now claiming the photos as his.

    So who actually took the pics? I don’t believe a word out of this randos mouth. And when were the pics actually taken, and who is the real woman in the car?

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      Jim Bennet has a website with these and other photos he took. There are several of the RF. Dude is a pap, and the Fail failed in crediting the photo most likely.

  26. Interested Gawker says:

    Two different names…? 🤔 Yeah, who was the photographer? Was this article quoting a different man or was the credit wrong?

    • Interested Gawker says:

      @FRANSTER in yesterday’s post said “Bruce” is a surname, not a first name. Credit went to Jim Bennet and a different person named Kelvin Bruce.

  27. Libra says:

    This picture was not Kate. I have a hunch she is not in the U.K. and the children are with her also Carole.

  28. bisynaptic says:

    They’re digging themselves in deeper, aren’t they.