A family photograph released by Kensington Palace for U.K. Mother’s Day in March 2024 was withdrawn by several news agencies after editors concluded it had been manipulated in ways that breached their publication standards. Catherine, Princess of Wales, apologized and said she sometimes experiments with editing. Public-relations specialist Mark Borkowski called the episode “pretty damning” for the palace’s communications and decision-making, while image analyst Hany Farid described the changes as minor and found no evidence that the picture was AI-generated.
Those findings describe different questions. An image can fail a news agency’s authenticity rules without being wholly fabricated or produced by artificial intelligence. The available reporting establishes manipulation and a serious loss of confidence, but not the precise editing workflow or every visible inconsistency.
What happened to the Mother’s Day photograph
Kensington Palace released a photograph of Catherine with her children for U.K. Mother’s Day in March 2024. The image was intended as a reassuring family picture during a period when public information about Catherine was limited. News organizations, including the Associated Press and Reuters, later withdrew it after concerns that parts of the image had been altered.
The withdrawals were editorial decisions under agency rules. They did not amount to a finding that the entire scene was invented, nor did they establish that artificial intelligence had generated the photograph. Reporting said Prince William took the picture, but it did not document who performed each edit, which software was used, or whether any in-camera compositing was involved.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
Catherine acknowledged the problem in a public apology. She said that, like many amateur photographers, she sometimes experiments with editing. The statement accepted responsibility for the published image without providing a frame-by-frame account of how it was made.
Why agencies withdrew the image
News photography has a stricter standard than ordinary family pictures
News agencies distribute images to thousands of clients that rely on them as documentary records. Their standards generally allow routine technical adjustments, such as modest exposure or color correction, but prohibit changes that could mislead viewers about what was present when the camera captured the scene. The agencies judged the Mother’s Day image unsuitable under those rules.
Withdrawal is therefore about fitness for publication, not a universal scientific verdict about an image’s origin. A family member can make a picture look cleaner for a personal album while the same alteration makes it unacceptable as a news photograph.
The unusual “kill notice”
Phil Chetwynd, AFP’s global news director, described the response as a rare “kill notice.” In comments reported by ABC News, he said the episode meant the palace was no longer a trusted source and that, after being let down, “the bar is raised” for validating its material. Those remarks describe AFP’s sourcing concern in this incident; they are not presented here as a formal, permanent AFP policy statement.
Recommended Free Tools
When an agency issues a withdrawal, clients are expected to stop using the file and remove copies where practical. That process protects the reliability of the agency’s archive and alerts editors who may have received the picture before the concern was public.
What “pretty damning” meant
Mark Borkowski, identified in the reporting as a London-based public-relations and crisis-communications expert, was assessing the palace’s handling of a communications crisis rather than measuring pixels in the photograph. His conclusion was tied to the timing and purpose of the release: the palace had offered an image to project normality while little information was available about Catherine, and the image was then regarded by agencies as fake or improperly altered.
“The difficulty now is because there is so little information about what’s happening to Kate, if they were going to project things are all normal in this way — with a photo that is now deemed to be fake — it is pretty damning about the floundering and the poor decision making that’s going on,” Borkowski said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In that formulation, “pretty damning” is a judgment about institutional communication: the release was supposed to reassure, but the withdrawal created a second story about credibility. It does not mean Borkowski concluded that every element of the picture was fabricated, or that he had independently established how the edits were made.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWhat image analysis found
Farid’s assessment
Hany Farid, a computer-science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told ABC News that his analysis indicated “minor manipulation.” He said he found no evidence that the image was AI-generated and characterized it as unlikely to be more than a relatively minor photo manipulation.
Farid offered imperfect Photoshop work or in-camera compositing as possible explanations. Those were possibilities, not a confirmed production history. His analysis addressed the apparent degree and method of alteration, not whether the palace’s release complied with a news agency’s rules.
Why the two conclusions are compatible
| Question | What the reporting supports |
|---|---|
| Was the image altered? | Yes. Multiple agencies withdrew it after identifying manipulation concerns, and Catherine apologized for editing the photograph. |
| Was it acceptable for agency distribution? | No. The agencies judged it in breach of their image standards. |
| Was it wholly fabricated? | That is not established by the available reporting. |
| Was it AI-generated? | Farid reported no evidence of AI generation. |
| What exact workflow produced it? | Not stated. The reporting does not establish the software, sequence of edits, or role of in-camera compositing. |
The distinction matters because “manipulated” and “AI-generated” are not synonyms. Conventional retouching, compositing, cloning, or an assembly made partly in the camera can create an image that violates documentary standards without involving generative AI.
A concise timeline
- March 2024: Kensington Palace released Catherine’s family photograph for U.K. Mother’s Day.
- After publication: News agencies, including the Associated Press and Reuters, withdrew the image over manipulation concerns.
- Public response: Catherine apologized and said she sometimes experiments with editing, comparing the practice to that of amateur photographers.
- Agency reaction: AFP global news director Phil Chetwynd described the action as a rare “kill notice” and said the palace would face a higher bar for verification.
- Expert analysis: Hany Farid described the alteration as minor and found no evidence of AI generation.
- Communications assessment: Mark Borkowski said the episode was “pretty damning” for the palace’s decision-making and crisis communications.
Why the episode damaged trust
The photograph carried more weight than a routine social post
Royal family images are often treated by broadcasters, newspapers, and agencies as authoritative visual material. A picture released through an official channel can be reproduced quickly because editors assume the source has checked its accuracy. That reliance makes an undisclosed alteration more consequential than a private person’s casual retouching.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The image also arrived when audiences were seeking information about Catherine. A carefully selected family scene could have supplied a limited, visual sign of normality. Once agencies withdrew it, the intended reassurance was replaced by questions about what had been changed and why the palace had not disclosed the editing.
A correction cannot erase the distribution chain
Agencies moved quickly because their clients may have copied the file, published it, or incorporated it into broadcasts. A later apology does not automatically reach every downstream use. The withdrawal notice is designed to stop further circulation while editors reassess material already distributed.
Source trust is cumulative
Chetwynd’s comments, as reported by ABC News, illustrate how a sourcing failure changes future verification. Editors may ask for original files, additional photographs, metadata, or independent confirmation before accepting another image from the same source. His statement that “the bar is raised” describes that practical consequence: later material must carry more evidence than it might have needed before the incident.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known—and what remains unproven
Established by the reporting
- The photograph was released by Kensington Palace for U.K. Mother’s Day in March 2024.
- Several major news agencies withdrew it after concerns that it had been manipulated.
- Catherine apologized and said she experiments with editing.
- Farid’s reported analysis found minor manipulation and no evidence of AI generation.
- Borkowski’s “pretty damning” assessment concerned palace communications and decision-making during a period of limited information.
- Chetwynd said the incident affected AFP’s trust in the palace as a source and would raise the verification threshold.
Not established by the reporting
- The exact number of edits or a definitive catalog of every visual inconsistency.
- The identity of every person who edited the image.
- The software, camera settings, or file history used to produce it.
- Whether any specific alteration was deliberate deception rather than an editing mistake.
- That artificial intelligence generated the image.
- That the photograph was entirely fabricated or that no original family scene existed.
Keeping those boundaries clear prevents two opposite errors: treating a standards violation as proof of an invented scene, or treating Farid’s “minor” description as proof that the image met journalistic requirements.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteHow newsrooms should read the controversy
Separate authenticity checks from technical forensics
Editors first need to decide whether an image is suitable for the intended use. A file can fail that editorial test even when forensic analysis cannot identify a dramatic alteration. Technical examination is useful for locating inconsistencies, but publication standards also consider disclosure, context, and whether the image gives viewers a misleading impression.
Verify the source and the original file
For official photographs, a newsroom may seek the original camera file, an uncompressed version, a contemporaneous second angle, or confirmation from an independent photographer. Metadata can help establish a file’s history, but missing or rewritten metadata is not by itself proof of wrongdoing. Verification should combine file evidence with source explanations and visual review.
Label uncertainty precisely
Accurate wording would say that agencies withdrew the photograph over manipulation concerns and that an expert found minor manipulation with no evidence of AI generation. Calling it “AI fake,” “wholly fabricated,” or “proven fraud” goes beyond the reported evidence.
What readers should take from the story
The controversy is best understood as a credibility failure amplified by a technical dispute. The palace released an edited image at a sensitive moment; agencies decided that the editing crossed their publication line; Catherine apologized; and analysts disagreed only in emphasis, not on the central fact that the picture had been altered. Farid’s assessment limits what can responsibly be inferred about the technology, while Borkowski’s assessment explains why the communications consequences were severe.
For readers evaluating similar claims, ask three separate questions: Was the image changed? Did the change violate the rules of the outlet showing it? What evidence exists about the method, including whether AI was involved? In this case, the first two answers are supported by the reporting, while the third is answered negatively by Farid’s analysis and remains limited by the absence of a documented production workflow.
Sources and attribution
ABC News reported the agency’s loss of confidence, Chetwynd’s “kill notice” comments, and Farid’s analysis. The Los Angeles Times reported Borkowski’s assessment of the palace’s communications and decision-making. Yahoo Entertainment republished PEOPLE reporting on the agency withdrawals and expert reactions. These reports concern the March 2024 episode; they do not establish current palace practices or current agency policies.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
