EXIF data of photo of Prince Harry-Meghan Markle’s baby christening say it was taken 2 months prior

On May 6, 2019, nearly a year after their wedding, Britain’s Prince Harry (PH), 34, and his American wife, the former minor Hollywood actress Meghan Markle (MM), 37, announced on Instagram that their son was born that “early morning,” weighing 7 lb. 3 oz. Other details of the baby’s birth are kept “private”.

Two days later, on May 8, in a press conference, PH and MM, aka the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, introduced their baby to the world — Archie Harrison, 7th in line to the throne, who had been overdue by at least a week. By some calculations, the baby’s due date should have been in March or April. (Town&Country)

Prince Harry & Meghan Markle introduce baby Archie to the world, May 8, 2019

On the morning of July 6, 2019, 2-month-old Archie was christened (baptized) in a private ceremony (no reporters) in the private chapel at Windsor Castle. (Town&Country)

Reporter Roya Nikkah wrote in the Sunday Times that Archie’s private christening “is in contrast to the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge  [Prince William and Kate] to let cameras capture their children at their christenings, together with the arrivals of family members and godparents, before holding private services.”

PH and MM did release two photos taken by photographer Chris Allerton a few hours after the christening ceremony — a black-and-white photo of PH, MM, and Archie; and a color group photo (see below), in which Archie’s anonymous godparents are missing.

Photo published on Town&Country

Front row, from left to right: Camilla (wife of Prince Charles), Prince Harry, Meghan Markle holding Archie, Kate (wife of Prince William).

Back row, from left to right: Prince Charles, Princess Diana’s two sisters, Prince William.

Many noted how inappropriate Harry‘s scruffy brown suede shoes were. Notice that he wore the same shoes and same light-grey suit, but a different tie, to both the May 8 press conference and the July 6 christening.

Digital photos are embedded with EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data, such as ISO speed, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, camera model and make, date and time when the photo was taken, lens type, focal length and much more.

PhotographyLife explains:

Being able to read such data can be of great importance not only for beginners, but also for other photographers who want to find out what settings and tools were used to create a particular photograph…. [S]pecific tools that are capable of reading this information must be used to view it. For example, some image viewers and post-processing tools like Lightroom are capable of viewing and extracting such information…while some operating systems are capable of reading this data to display relevant data.

To find out how you can view EXIF data on the Mozilla Firefox and Chrome browsers, go here.

Below is an example of the EXIF data of a photo. I painted a red box around “original date and time”, i.e., when the photo was originally taken.

Using the “File info” feature in Photoshop, a tumblr poster called gofakeyourselfmeghan found the following EXIF data of the baby christening group photo, showing the original date and time of the photo to be May 8, 2019, 10:56 PM (22:56:06) — the same day when PH and MM “introduced” Archie to the world.

I verified this by downloading the EXIF viewer add-on for Mozilla Firefox browser, then I right-clicked on the christening group pic on meghansmirror.com. (I used the christening pic published on the Meghan’s Mirror blog because the same pic published on Town&Country and other news sites is stripped of EXIF data, which is curious to say the least.) This is the EXIF data I got:

A UK tweeter enlarged Prince William’s watch, which shows the time 10:56, consistent with the EXIF data’s 10:56PM original time:

Don’t be fooled by claims of the photo’s “creation date” of July 6, 2019. That date refers to when the photo was published, not when the photo was originally taken. You can see that for yourself by going to Town&Country:

  • Right-click the group pic
  • On the drop-down menu, click “View image info”
  • A new page called “Page Info” will pop up
  • Click “General”

I took this screenshot of the pic’s “Page Info”, showing July 6, 2019 as the date when the pic was published, not the date when the photo was taken.

The question that must be asked is why the deception? Why are UK taxpayers told that baby Archie was christened on July 6, when the EXIF data say the christening took place two months prior, on May 8, 2019?

See also:


Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

10 Comment authors
PearlAlmaKaren mcgauleyDr. Eowynwilliamofberkshire Recent comment authors
Notify of

The woman of color standing beside Chuck is not identified. And yes, why all the deception? Archie is probably a rent-a-baby, or CGI, or something. Nothing is real except Harry’s scruffy shoes. Maybe they are his only pair. What a piker. At least he’s not holding a cigarette like Dubya did in one of the Bush family photos

Marcia Walsh

that baby is at least 6 months old.


The whole thing is weird. They have been hyping the leftist gender nonsense too. Maybe this is supposed to be the royal version of the New Odor or something.

When one considers that the whole role of the royals in public society is protocol, why Harry and crew so often breach it is a mystery. The Queen is a stickler for it.

I can’t even imagine the conversation when “Harry met Meghan”. All I can say is that this is as phony as everything associated with The Odor.


Could it have been security concerns?


Some were also questioning why she still looked pregnant when presenting Archie. Many praised her for “keeping it real” yet do women really still have that big of a belly after giving birth?
comment image?r=1557376062855
comment image?crop=0.910xw:0.759xh;0.0374xw,0.234xh&resize=480:*


I saw that right away, she still looks preggers… With her black background, that child would not look that white… Not racism, just realism….


Spot on Dr. Eowyn, good “inspector” report! Since the beginning all about Harry and Pagan Markle have been shrouded in mystery, and Harry’s father himself is a mystery, is he or isn’t he? The latest pic of Archie at the charity polo games show a robust baby, somehow Pagan Markle always shielding him from the curious camera. I don’t see any interaction between the women (Meghan & Kate) and a distance from the children, there’s coolness in the air. Archie’s features, are starting to be defined (mestizo), the nose and mouth show like Pagan Markle, his little head show lots… Read more »


Someone should compare the first picture of the baby to the one taken at the Christening. If they are the same size / appearance, then at least there is really a baby in existence that is being raised by this couple. But if the child had two months growth between photo shoots, then the whole charade is staged as some incomprehensible gaming of the public. Didn’t I read something about the British people wanting to stop supporting them financially?