The Sussex pregnancy photo was supposed to be a joyous occasion… until it came out that the tree in background was inserted later. However, did Misan Harriman, the photographer who took the photo via his iPad from England, lie about the metadata?
I am not a photographer, but I understand enough about metadata that Misan Harriman might have made a lie up to protect his reputation. This is just speculation, as I cannot say for sure. Now, Tom Bower wrote his book, Revenge, that the photo of the Sussexes’ pregnancy announcement with Lilibet was altered. Before I continue, I do not hate Misan. Not in the slightest. I don’t care if he’s Nigerian. Race does not matter to me. I’m white and I’m not going to deny that. For anyone who feels I am talking about him due to his skin colour, get off my site.
Did Misan Harriman Lie About The Metadata?
There is one thing I want to point out. The metadata screenshot that Misan Harriman provided as “proof,” did not have a date attached.
For all we know, the picture could have been for the original second pregnancy that Meghan allegedly lost. We just don’t know.
A Cute Example
The metadata might not be for that specific photo but for another on stored on the iPad. It’s entirely possible. Here’s an example of how the metadata is supposed to look on an unedited photo:
This is a screenshot of the metadata on a photo I took on my phone of my dogs. Cute, right? Anyway, as you can see, I have included the date the picture was taken and the file name.
If Misan Harriman did lie, was it to protect his rep or the Sussexes? Also, he did not sue Tom Bower, as you cannot sue over the truth.
Where The Misan Harriman Lie Allegedly Started
There was an episode from the Private Passions podcast that Misan was on in 2022 where he admitted to the tree being added as he did not correct the interviewer when he was asked about it. It was said that the tree was a willow tree. However, in his little rant on Instagram, he said it was a Jacaranda tree.
If he wanted a retraction, he should have sent the full metadata to the Daily Mail. Demanding an apology on social media isn’t going to work.
So, is the pregnancy photo of the Sussexes’ second announcement altered? Still unproven. I believe Misan might have taken the metadata from another photo that was unedited and pretended it was from the intended picture. No file name and date showing is very telling.
Metadata Can Be Edited
I did a little Googling and found something interesting from ArcGIS Pro on photo metadata. It turns out that metadata can be edited if you have permission. Also, it looks like the metadata screenshot that Misan shows as his alleged “proof” was taken before the black-and-white filter. We don’t know whether the filter was added on the device or in photoshop because I played around with the settings on the photo I showed above of mine in my phone and the edit didn’t show in the metadata.
Even if the photo shows heavy editing, evidence of the edit could have been erased. Finally, I have no proof that Misan Harriman lied. But given his connections to Harry and Meghan and their love of Photoshopping, anything is possible.
