As we discussed a few days ago, Getty Images added a disclaimer on the photo/screencap from the Princess of Wales’s cancer-announcement video. We don’t know when the editor’s note was added, but it was likely over the weekend and the story has been percolating this week. Kensington Palace is no longer a trusted or credible source for photo agencies or news agencies, not after the Mother’s Day frankenphoto fiasco. Several outlets are even doing reviews of previous KP-issued photos, double-checking them to see if they were edited or manipulated. Now Getty Images seems to be indicating that there’s something questionable about Kate’s video, which was released on March 22, but reportedly filmed in Windsor on the 20th (or at least that’s what KP claimed). There’s nothing new to the story – yet – but Vanity Fair did get Getty’s spokesperson on the record:
A picture is worth a thousand words, but if that picture was released by Kensington Palace, Getty Images may have a few more words to add. The news photo agency appended an editor’s note to last month’s video of Kate Middleton sharing her shock cancer diagnosis, warning audiences that it “may not adhere” to the group’s standards for work produced by their own photographers and videographers.
“EDITOR’S NOTE: This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy,” reads the disclaimer alongside the caption info, without elaborating specifically where the pre-recorded clip might deviate from Getty’s policies.
A spokesperson for Getty Images declined to elaborate further when contacted by Vanity Fair via email. “Getty Images includes a standard editors note to handout content provided by third party organizations,” the spokesperson said.
This doesn’t appear to be the case with all handout content, however. For example, a 2023 handout from Buckingham Palace from the coronation of King Charles III, a posed family portrait taken by royal photographer Hugo Bernand, does not bear the note, nor does the 2023 holiday portrait of the Wales family, a handout from Kensington Palace taken by Josh Shinner. Notably, when the Christmas photo was released, viewers speculated that it may have been manipulated, pointing especially to Princess Kate and Prince William’s youngest child, Prince Louis, appearing to be missing his middle finger on one hand.
Following the [Mother’s Day] incident, more images were identified as having been edited, including one shared by Buckingham Palace on what would have been the late Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday in 2023. The image, which is credited again to Kate, depicts the queen with several of her grandchildren at Balmoral. Getty Images added a note: “EDITORS NOTE: Image has been digitally enhanced at source.”
A spokesperson told VF then that the agency was “undertaking a review of handout images and in accordance with its editorial policy is placing an editor’s note on images where the source has suggested they could be digitally enhanced.” They declined to share the scope of the review.
In the case of the new messaging with Kate’s announcement video, Getty declined to specify when or why they had appended the note, nor why other handout materials from the royal family did not bear it.
“We are not commenting further than the statement,” the spokesperson said. “As the statement says, it is standard note that is now added to handouts provided by third party organisations.”
As VF points out, there’s nothing “standard” about the editor’s note – I searched for the exact wording (“This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy”) and basically, the note was only added to NASA handouts. My theory is that CNN, Getty and probably other outlets are still investigating the Kensington Palace handouts and they’ll release their findings months from now, when the cancer news isn’t so fresh. Meanwhile, Getty wanted to tip their hand that A) KP lacks credibility and B) that something in the milk ain’t clean.
Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace/BBC Studios, screencap courtesy of Getty Images.
Maybe the photographers provided the originals and the other photos came out with only allowable edits.
I came to say the same. If other photos coming from BP and KP were credited by a professional photographer and he provided the original, Getty didn’t add anything.
The note is present when no professional name of the photographer is attached. Did the Kate video have any name attached or not? I don’t remember… I’d bet BBC Studios didn’t provide the name of who filmed it, which is… weird.
That is a subtle warning shot from a news agency. It almost sounds as though there’s been some behind the scenes fighting between the agencies and the palace, and this is Getty’s way of saying publicly that they know KP issues fake photos and they are unwilling to play the same game the rota rats are expected to play. Because that has been the messaging from the briefings since this happened, and the palace clowns still don’t seem to understand how big a deal this is.
Hmm, if it’s a subtle warning shot, I hope there is follow-through. As in, Getty has a responsibility to tell the public when things have been altered. It’s also their reputation that’s on the line. I’m guessing that Getty is not staffed by royalists and that KP shouldn’t have publicly called the photo agencies hypocrites. I hope we hear more about this.
I’m thinking Getty doesn’t want to get into some stupid little p*ssing contest with KP & therefore won’t get into particulars; they’ll say KP handouts don’t meet their standards & ’nuff said. Their standards, I’m sure, are findable via google. Or even upon request, should KP care to inquire.
Wow. Wonder what the author of this piece got paid for writing such speculative drivel. It’s pretty obvious that major photo agencies have always been uncomfortable accepting “handouts” from third parties that are not news orgs. Too bad that K’s Frankenphoto has required them to apply stricter scrutiny to palace pix with unproven provenance. Why should Getty be stuck with higher staffing costs just to review the backlog of Kitty’s photos submitted by the palace? Also too bad that the palaces are on record as having demanded editorial control over all image content, even BBC’s.
If this is the subtle version, I wonder how Getty will react going forward….
IMHO, the authorities need to re-release the milk cartons. I’m really beginning to believe that Kate hasn’t been seen publicly since Xmas.
Kate really hasn’t been seen since Christmas. The cancer video is fake a.f. As Kaiser said, this is Getty letting everyone know that “something in the milk ain’t clean”. There will be more to come.—This is just the beginning. I think they don’t want to speak out against the video too much just yet and look like assholes going against a woman who supposedly has cancer. But more will come out about how the video is fake A.I. Something very rotten is going on.
As John Oliver might say, there is a non-zero chance that at some point in the future KP will announce that Kate has passed away from her cancer, which was, it will turn out, more serious than first announced, and its all very tragic. And we will never really know just wth happened.
I agree and wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an announcement of a ‘sad & sudden deterioration’ at some point
The two sets of bottom teeth and the weird wig exactly identical to an earlier pic of her wearing the same sweater made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. FrankenVideo!
To be precise, the hair-do is not exactly the same. In the new video, there is a side part whereas in the pictures of her wearing the same sweater last year, it was a middle part. The fawcett wings and length though are the exact same. Am I embarrassed that I’m looking so closely at a hair part? Yes, yes I am😂
@Jais I noticed that too. People were insisting the video was AI from that visit but the hair is different and the jeans are different.
I think that until recently, most agencies assumed the BP/KP were credible and trustworthy. Most of the photos listed in the articles without editors notes were credited to identifiable photographers, so no note needed as they could likely get the originals from them. The article points out Kate’s/KPs photos and the problems with them. I think the photo agencies are angry and embarrassed to have been made fools of bc their stellar reputations have taken a hit as well. Now they have to be extra vigilant with photos and videos submitted by the palaces, esp ones from KP.
This is what I think, too, Chantal1. Whoever dealt with the Frankenphoto mess at Getty feels that they unwittingly approved of KP’s approach and okayed questionable images. This organization has clearly felt misused, and they feel the need to correct that going forward. The work sets the standard, not the institution handing out the materials. That also is sending a message to news organizations…
As to not explaining why they have labeled the BBC cancer K stuff, it can be anything from they just need a name and signature to something being way off. Possibly they’re giving KP time to come forward and explain what’s going on themselves before they come out with their own findings.
What incentive would BBC Studios have to keep the name or signature of the photographer private? Royal photographs have names attached to them–Arthur Edwards, Chris Jackson, Alexi Lubomirski are just a few I can easily come up with. I am not convinced the cancer video is AI, but there can’t be a problem releasing the name if everything is on the up and up. No name makes it feel like it’s part of a game, again.
Maybe since BBC Studios handed the footage to KP before they posted it, nobody there wants to put their name to it. Or maybe it’s just KP again being offended that they’re being questioned and not wanting to collaborate with Getty.
The clear difference is the other photographs have a named photographer willing to vouch for their authenticity. All they have of the garden photograph is a screenshot of a compressed for upload video, taken by unnamed staffers at BBC Studios.
yeah, I think this plays a big part in this. A professional photographer can show the original, and even if there were some touchups or whatever, it may not be worth Getty issuing a warning (or it may not be a situation where they would.) If Getty asked for the original here and wasn’t able to get it from KP, that may have been what triggered the editor’s note.
This precisely. The Mother’s Day photo was allegedly taken by William. The QEII grands and greats photo was allegedly taken by Kate. Neither photographers who are willing to release their originals. I do hope they are going back through all the photos supposedly taken by Kate and putting them to the test.
I think this is going to be standard for KP handouts going forward. Getty doesn’t want to get caught releasing a doctored image again.
My guess is here, either the video was edited (background added in, multiple takes, whatever) and/or KP won’t provide the original so Getty can’t verify that the video was taken when and where they said it was.
It will be interesting if they continue to add this note going forward to palace handouts.
I think it’s excellent that Getty is making their standards crystal clear and adhering to them.
If it’s not something simple like needed a name and signature on this video, then whatever editing had to be fairly extreme. Or they used AI, which is what I now suspect.
I don’t understand why if it’s just edits from multiple takes, which is commonplace from the Studio arm, why they won’t produce the original.
Once again, while I’m not on the AI bandwagon yet, this makes no sense. They aren’t going to be published, so there’s no reason not to send them.
The fact that they won’t do this is more red flag than anything else so far.
I think it can be a red flag, but something I’ve been saying on here for a while now is – we just can’t underestimate the entitlement and stubbornness of KP (mainly William.) William may very well refuse to let anyone produce the original(s) just because he doesn’t think anyone should dare to ask him to produce them. He’s WILLIAM, he’s heir to the throne, he’s the PRINCE OF WALES, he’s HRH, etc. How DARE an organization like GETTY question HIM?!?!?!?!
And to clarify we don’t know that KP has been asked to produce the original and has refused to do so – that was just speculation on my part. But I can absolutely see a scenario where they are asked and William refuses because he finds the very idea of Getty questioning him to be insulting.
Yea couldn’t they give Getty the original take and the name of the photographer privately? It wouldn’t have to be publicly advertised and then Getty could just take the caption down.
Becks, I assume that Getty has asked for info on the video since it didn’t have a name attached and came directly from KP. While we don’t know this, it’s is their policy when something raises concerns, like this being third party instead of direct from BBC Studios.
But yeah, William could be refusing out of arrogance and stubbornness as you point out. The refusal does raise red flags professionally, though. And he doesn’t care because he’s entitled. That tracks. Let’s hope that’s what’s going on here. It certainly makes sense.
Jais, yes that’s exactly how it would have gone down with the mothers day photo and with the cancer video. Whatever they provide would be private, to help Getty etc verify it. So it becomes this huge hole and alarm bell when they won’t do it.
In the Mother’s Day photo, they didn’t provide it because they couldn’t.
With this video, they didn’t provide it because… we don’t know. This is my line of work and I have to say, this behavior is very odd and unprofessional. If, as I thought this whole time, it was merely editing to assist in her vocal stumbling, they’d provide that footage. It’s seriously no big deal. Everyone at a studio arm (not news) does this stuff.
KP won’t just produce the info/data because they CAN’T. It’s that simple. Not even KP/Prince William would just CHOOSE to let their reputation go down the drain & have the world call them untrustworthy fakers. And i don’t buy that it can be explained by William’s stubbornness & entitlement. Even he isn’t THAT stupid (to choose to just let his reputation go up in flames and have people all over the world speculating negatively about him) and he has people around him to talk sense into him, especially about important matters like this. He would stop all of the speculation about the video if he could. After all, he would LOVE to prove all of us who are questioning the video’s veracity, wrong. But he CAN’T.
I mean, it’s REALLY weird how NOBODY has attached their name to the video, or made any comments about what it was like filming it with the Princess of Wales, or ANYTHING. Then combine this with how FAKE the video seems (fake background, fake sounds added in, fake/unnatural-looking eyes & mouth movements, weird glitches, weird lighting, flyaway hairs that suddenly disappear, etc.)—especially when you consider how after getting caught for the previous fakery, KP would’ve definitely made a very straightforward beyond-reproach video with data provided and everything on the up & up if they COULD have—and there’s only one conclusion: the video is fake A.I.
@K-peace William doesn’t think like a normal person would about stuff like this. He didn’t think they needed to do the video at all because he doesn’t think he or Kate owe the public any kind of explanation for her absence. He doesn’t think his reputation is going down the drain. He thinks they put out a video with Kate and all the peons should shut up now because we’re stupid and he’s the smartest person in the room and no one should question him.
He really is THAT stupid because of his entitlement.
@WiththeAmerican its completely unprofessional and a red flag and it may be that the video is 100% AI (I don’t think it is, I think it was “just” edited) and that’s why they wont produce the original, but again, with William’s arrogance….I just don’t think we can overlook that here.
@becks I’ve never thought it was AI, so I’m open to any reason for this odd behavior! I just don’t understand why they wouldn’t provide original footage if it was just edited, which I tend to agree with you on as being the likely situation here.
The fake photo I understood why they didn’t provide the original, because there wasn’t one.
In this case, there is an original video if it was just edited. So, they could provide it.
So bizarre. In all fairness, though, I’m in film and TV, but don’t usually deal with post production, let alone AI. I did just last night finally look at professional AI of famous people speaking and was shocked by how good it was. Given how good it is, I’m seeing a lot of peoples jobs disappearing and famous people able to get paid for their likeness with zero work, it’s that good. So, it is possible much more so than I imagined when this started.
I just still can’t wrap my head around believing they would go to that length to deceive people, that’s what’s keeping me away from the AI train. Which brings me back to: Why not provide the unedited footage to Getty.
Becks & Withtheamerican— You also have to look at the recent past history here. KP has released several FAKE photos & videos of Kate recently. Nothing BUT FAKE photos & videos, since Christmas! That’s another checkmark in the “The video is likely A.I.” column, IMO. How likely is that KP released nothing but all fake photos/videos to try to stop the “Where’s Kate?” speculation, but then suddenly they release one that’s real?? I don’t think that makes sense/is likely at all. And then, when you factor in the fact that: Kate really hasn’t been seen since Christmas, the way that the video looks fake a.f. (I know I’m like a broken record on that topic!), the way that KP won’t release the data for it, the fact that NOBODY has attached their name to the video, the way that nobody has uttered a peep about the filming of it/no “behind the scenes” photos posted—NOTHING but deafening silence, William acting like he’s hiding out, and many other things…. And it points towards one conclusion: This video, like everything else released by KP since Christmas time, is FAKE.
” in accordance with its editorial policy is placing an editor’s note on images where **the source has suggested** they could be digitally enhanced.”
This statement shows that the note, added and since removed to the H&M’s photo with baby Archie and the left-overs, is added because KP informed them it was edited. They are never gonna stop throwing H&M under the bus. Now, maybe for the Kate’s video image, Getty asked for further info about the originals and possible edits and KP just said they edited it, so Getty had put the note without further discussion.
I’m not sure everyone realizes just how much photo processing is done to images of space, but they’re basically saying ‘if that was really Kate in that video, she’s under so many layers of filters and compositing that we can’t tell.’
Also, glad that Vanity Fair pointed out (on the record) that Buckingham Palace was passing off doctored photos of QEII as well, not just KP and Kate. Just another reminder that neither palace can be taken at their word because they’re known liars. And other than the words of known liars, all we have are a series of doctored photos, a dubious video where an alleged abdominal surgery-cancer-patient is speed walking in jeans and also somehow taller, and finally the video meant to shame all further questions that only created more.
I haven’t been on the AI board for the cancer video, but I went and studied a bunch of professional AI videos of real people fake speaking and then watched the Kate cancer video over and over and yeah, I can see the oddities now.
I had to turn my volume off, because what’s she saying is so emotional that it hijacks the brain into empathy and pain, and only then could I see how weird it is.
I’m still not saying AI, but I noticed that the light on her hair is “hot” on front strands but as her head moves, that light never touches her face. At first I thought that was careful edge /halo lighting but now I am side eying it. In a real shoot this isn’t possible, though maybe they added light sources in post, but why they’d do that doesn’t make sense.
Honestly this whole thing is upsetting, and I think their attempts to mark moments where she has been “seen” when she clearly wasn’t seen (like, there she is in helicopter going to Norfolk, but we can’t see anyone in the helicopter) is what makes it most disconcerting.
I’m hoping the video is real, but getting more and more unable to stand on that.
WiththeAmerican – 💯 agree
Yep, well said. I am right there with you. The actual words are so emotional, it’s human nature to give the entire package a massive benefit of the doubt. The fact that the Wails have lost all of that is stunning, and we are back to this woman not being seen since Christmas day.
Getty is known in LA and NY for not allowing heavily photoshopped pictures to be passed off as candids from events.
There’s only one possible answer, the royal family wants to get rid of Kate so much that they’ve launched her into space. She’s tumbling around the international space station right now. that’s why they had to use the green screen of a flower garden and why she looks and sounds so wavery.
You know some people on here believe that, lol.
OMG 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Shhh someone could actually believe that lol
And given that NASA also has the same editor’s notes, perhaps it implies a ‘partnership’ 🤣🤣
A competent organization would have issued a statement saying that official photos will no longer be taken by Kate or William and will adhere to international press standards but KP is incapable of that.
Exactly 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Getty is also currently in litigation against Stability AI, the company that created Stable Diffusion, a generative AI program which creates images. Getty is alleging that Stability AI infringed on copyright by scraping Getty images for the AI learning set. There’s also a huge amount of legislation being proposed everywhere regarding election deepfakes, guarding against them and prosecuting perpetrators. So Getty and the other agencies not only have a reputational stake in making their policy crystal clear, but a legal one.
I think they’re definitely sending a message to all potential third-parties which use the agencies to disseminate photos—that even a legitimate, generally respected (by the public, not CBers lol) governmental institution will be subject to this kind of scrutiny and editorial discretion.
One more thought—we’ve been calling this a frankenphoto, but I would argue that we can go a step further and call it a deepfake—and all the nefarious motivations that word implies. It clarifies that deepfakes don’t have to be just very convincing images—they can be deepfakes due to their source. KP relied on their reputation and status as a UK governmental institution (cause that’s really what they are) to pass off its legitimacy, which is why the photo agencies had compared KP to North Korea and other dictator states. Worse still, they leaned on the UK’s future king name by saying William took the photo. We, as royal watches, know KP is a clownshow, but the average person has no knowledge of this and therefore no reason to doubt the veracity of KP’s photos.
The Mother’s Day photo was a deep fake, that’s a great point. It was a fake photo of something that didn’t happen. It’s very weird that KP didn’t go to having a news agency cover Kate giving her message. If they wanted to Re establish credibility, they would have.
Also very weird that KP insisted on getting the footage before it was given to Getty etc, that isn’t normal for a news event, but is how it’s done when it’s a commercial type shoot.
I will just say that the follow up on the doctored photos is not going the way that I thought it was, but the point is that the photo agencies and American media aren’t letting it go, and that’s what matters.
They’ll never get the trust back, even here in the UK. I’m gullible to the core – I believed the frankenphoto, for heaven’s sake. But the prancing round the garden centre failed, even with me. I think this video is real, but I just don’t know. I want it to be real, because the alternative is, what, the BBC getting involved in BRF fakery? Or, she’s lying? Or, they’ve all gone bloody bonkers not to have learned their lesson.
Most of the other images weren’t of immediate (known at the time) historic significance or part of an ongoing controversy. Will-not’s bad PR instincts created a firestorm and the type of intense scrutiny no one seeks. The bench video was a combination of proof of life and a major announcement after a series of major snafus, including Frankenphoto and the weird KP/Murdoch-owned media collisions. Mainstream media is pushing back because everyone who has ever been unfortunately exposed to FauxNews in waitings rooms knows that Murdoch owned entities lie, lie, lie and KPs willingness to align with Murdoch is cringe-y and alarming. Will-not is creating his own downfall.
Gentlemen’s agreements and “benefit of the doubt” will be dangerous in this new landscape of visual disinformation. It will be outfits like these newswires as the last firewall for government entities, law enforcement and media bringing chaos into the news cycle and Getty understands the stakes while still telegraphing a wary civility to the BRF.
Images of Kate are not Kate.
Even if the video is genuine (and I am of the believe it is not) Kate and William need to be seen in a setting where they are in a position to speak and interact in real time in back and forth conversation with a vetted, proper hard news BBC/ITV presenter and the participation of international media colleagues with no ties to the Murdoch press.
Cancer is a difficult illness but it doesn’t remove people from life as its lived altogether. People work, live and parent while undergoing treatment to whatever degree they can. William is not said to be ill at all and they have staff to accommodate their every need. The Waleses are the direct heir to the throne and his wife, they have a duty to show themselves to the public with CIII undergoing his own cancer treatment for the sake of the stability of the crown.
People need to stop bickering over being “mean to poor Catherine” and these fake smoke screens and demand the Waleses face their subjects in a straightforward way, for Kate’s proof of life and William’s position as the next in line to rule.
Me! I think this is their polite way of saying, “the Windsor family are lieing bsds and we don’t trust a fking thing they send us
I said on another post that the video went through extensive post shoot editing. They chose lighting, changed the focus for the background and applied a grainy effect that makes the video look unnatural. It looks AI generated. Watch it again and just focus on her mouth; it’s been dubbed. Kate’s incapable of a one shot, and near perfect articulation statement especially given the stress she’s currently under. Whatever is happening behind the scenes, it’s more than William’s usual arrogance.
I don’t think it’s AI. I think it’s a hell of a lot of takes with her speech, very nicely edited. But there is something AI about her in general. It’s only since people have been talking about what AI looks like that I’ve worked out what’s been odd, to me, about her videos over the years – she always looks slightly behind glass or a vaseline covered lens. I think she does this because a filmy quality to the images obscures her sags and bags. Her video presentation at the Natural History museum a few years ago was crazy levels of slightly-out-of-focus. This looks no different from her other videos, to me, which goes to show how unreal she’s always looked in these productions. If it proves to be AI, she’s been AI to me for years!
It is SO obvious the video is AI generated. For anyone in doubt, research the latest real versus fake on YouTube (LipSynthesis) and you can see how advanced the technology is. It is extremely easy to make a DeepFake on celebrities and politicians (who can easily be targeted) because of the thousands of images, speech/voice, video available to input into the system to make it.
There are WAY to many discrepancies in the video for it NOT to be. The lighting for one was a huge indicator ie: it doesnt match her face multiple times where it hits her hair but not her face or where the lighting changes multiple times un the background but never on her. And when I saw her hands literally blend together and her thumb become giant I knew without a doubt it’s AI. Deepfakes often fail to fully represent the natural physics of lighting (or physics period sometimes…). And if the person that is creating the deepfake isn’t careful you can often see the hands blend together or w/ the background, see extra fingers & half fingers etc. I won’t keep going but I could.
And why after all the fake pictures did they not have the video done live? Why do you have a corporation that just literally bragged about using AI as late as February doing this important video and message? And why are they nameless? Nobody can come to the record this time and even say they filmed it??? I mean cmon. We even got that with the blatantly obvious fake Kate at the Famers market.
What concerns me is that KP has just progressed with their lies. They literally have double downed with their fraud. They are just going to become better at it. They have access to the best software and developments and have all the money and clout to continue with this charade. And the media is backing them for the most part. The latest “sighting” reported by them was William and Kate leaving in the helicopter together. The picture was just the helicopter in the air 🙄 They are clearly hiding something. Something is definitely rotten.
As @Underhill said above, I have a creeping suspicion that sometime in the near future we will hear that Kate has lost her fight with cancer and passed away. Whether she’s gone already or will be disappeared in the future we’ll never know. And then just as soon as I give in to my suspicion, another one comes to me that we may see her looking totally fine in the more distant future, and never really know the true story. What bothers me in all this is the mental health of the children. I hope for the their sake that they are not being gaslighted or required to to keep a horrible secret.
It’s upsetting to have proof of life for Kate not only denied month after month but no word on the children’s welfare either. Their paternal side, the BRF, had no qualms marching their father and uncle behind Diana’s coffin for the sole purpose of being human shields to deflect public displeasure with Charles. Their maternal side, the Middletons, will cling to the promise of Kate becoming queen consort with a white knuckle grip. Who is looking out for Prince George and his siblings?
“…we will hear that Kate has lost her fight with cancer and passed away”
If we are not in a position to see Kate in public properly, in an unambiguous manner, before such an announcement her demise could have been as early as the last week of December. We’ll have no way of verifying things at all save the intervention of a whistleblower.
I think they made a very strategic error when they went after two of H&M photographers. They hit back immediately and were more than able to ‘show their work’. I doubt that Getty was happy about that when they were used. I suspect that the other photo agencies took notice of that, too.
Well, if KP wanted to create more chaos, they succeeded.
I agree and the zeal with which the BM put that forth and then worm out of a formal apology/retraction in the correction in both cases was the same sort of shift to launder William’s misdeeds by using Harry as a smokescreen gives more weight to the idea that KP is trying to hide a larger sin in Kate’s absence from public life. Getty does not want to be conned when their whole apparatus is based on trust and providing verifiable source material for historical documentation.
My vote is that it’s real, but they had to edit it heavily. She probably didn’t say all that stuff in one go, for instance. Also, she’s probably wearing a wig, due to chemo, and she probably doesn’t look as young as she’s depicted in the video. She probably looks more like that picture someone took of her on that trip to the Netherlands (or was it Denmark?), where her bags and wrinkles weren’t hidden.
I think it’s real, and yes there will have been loads of stop starts to get the whole speech done. I’ve just watched some stuff about the video on a French programme, where they debunked a few of the AI claims. She does look slightly odd; then again, her videos are never clear for various reasons, mainly to do with obscuring her skin quality. I think she looks tired and ill in the video but will no doubt look much worse in real life, like you say.
One day we’ll get the whole story on what happened to the real Kate Middleton and what’s behind all these questionable images. Until then, may she recover, and staying out of the rest of it, because so tired of this weirdness.
As my Kentucky grandmother used to say, “It’ll all come out in the wash.”