This week, social media erupted after users began circulating claims that a newly shared image of Princess Lilibet appeared to be “digitally altered,” with armchair analysts zeroing in on one dramatic question: “Where are Lili’s legs?” Within hours, screenshots, zoom-ins and speculative annotations flooded platforms, with critics branding the image a “Photoshop disaster.”
Some online commentators went further, alleging that celebrated photographer Misan Harriman had been hired to manipulate the photo’s arc, angle or composition — claims that have not been supported by any verified evidence.
No credible source has confirmed that the image was altered, nor that any part of the photograph was digitally manipulated.
Yet, as has become increasingly common in the Meghan Markle media ecosystem, perception quickly began to outweigh proof.
Royal watchers note that the photo’s unusual framing — combined with soft lighting, shallow depth of field and an artistic crop — may have contributed to the confusion. Photography experts were quick to point out that children seated on laps, partially obscured by fabric or shot at certain angles can easily appear “unfinished” to an untrained eye.
“This looks like composition, not manipulation,” one professional photographer commented online. “Perspective can play tricks, especially in candid-style images.”
Still, that hasn’t stopped critics from reviving long-running accusations that Meghan carefully curates her public image — a charge her supporters argue is both unfair and steeped in bad faith. They point out that countless celebrity family photos employ artistic framing without attracting similar scrutiny.
Notably, neither Meghan nor Harriman has responded to the claims, a silence that has only fueled speculation on both sides. Supporters say the lack of response reflects a refusal to dignify conspiracy theories. Critics argue it invites more questions.
What’s clear is that the controversy says as much about the digital age as it does about the Duchess of Sussex. In an era where every pixel is examined and every shadow questioned, even innocent family photos can become battlegrounds.
There is, at present, no factual basis to assert that the image was manipulated — and no proof that any part of Lilibet’s body was digitally removed or altered. What remains is conjecture, magnified by algorithms and appetite for scandal.
For Meghan, it is another reminder that nothing she shares escapes scrutiny. For the public, it is a cautionary tale: sometimes a “missing” detail is not a mystery — just a camera angle.
And in the royal rumor mill, angles can be everything.
