“He’s been caught with his hands in the cookie jar,” is the unsympathetic verdict of paparazzi photographer George Bamby, after Meghan Markle’s father was caught apparently colluding with a photo agency to stage pictures of himself preparing for the royal wedding. “He knew exactly what he was doing. We stage stuff every day!”

Thomas Markle has been publicly humiliated – and may yet miss his daughter’s wedding – after it was revealed the 73-year-old had worked with an LA-based paparazzo to stage photographs of him looking at pictures of his daughter in an internet cafe and being measured for a suit.

But the story also shines a light on the extent to which many of the apparently natural photographs of celebrities that fill newspapers, gossip magazines and sidebars-of-shame around the world are in reality the result of financial deals between the subject and the photographer.

Thomas Markle is the latest victim of the abusive relationship between press and palace Read more

Talk to anyone in the industry and one thing quickly becomes apparent: very little in the world of celebrity photography happens by chance. “We’re in a landscape where staged photos are the norm,” says Danny Hayward, who runs a leading picture agency in the UK. He says increasingly strict privacy rulings in UK courts mean publishers are reluctant to take the risk of using a traditional, “snatched” paparazzi shot. “They [staged photos] are safer and there’s no legal comeback or repercussions.”

Hayward takes the credit for pioneering staged paparazzi photos during the early 2000s, saying the catalyst was the growth in the number of reality TV stars – such as Jade Goody in the UK – who were famous for simply being themselves, rather than having a TV or new album to promote.

“This was the catalyst that motivated the style of photography where the subject would get paid for a set of pictures that – this is critical – looked candid but were actually staged.”

In an ideal world, according to Hayward, such an arrangement gives the celebrity control over how they look, allows them to control their PR, and also provides a handy revenue stream by giving them a percentage of any sale.

The initial set of photographs featuring Thomas Markle – shot in the Mexican town where he now lives by the British photographer Jeff Rayner – initially aroused little suspicion. But doubts were raised when the same photographer was able to provide another candid set of pictures featuring Prince Harry’s future father-in-law, prompting the Mail on Sunday revelation that the pictures had been staged.

Industry insiders cast doubt on press speculation that Rayner, who is originally from Canterbury but now runs the LA-based Coleman-Rayner business (“the news agency that prides itself on its reputation for integrity, accuracy and dependability”), could have sold the photos for £100,000. Some suggested the real figure could be around half that amount.

It is unknown whether Markle was paid for participating in the shoot, but someone in his position could negotiate around a 50% cut, given the interest in the story. Perversely, earnings from syndication rights to the pictures could now increase, as news outlets license the pictures in order to appear alongside stories questioning their veracity.

Bamby, who agreed to discuss the industry on the proviso that he was described as “the UK’s number one paparazzi”, is unashamed about staging photos, having previously admitting sending the TV presenter Judy Finnigan a bottle of wine in order to capture a picture implying that she had a drinking problem.



“You get some soap star, take them on holiday, then the first day they’re ours,” he said, describing a typical setup. “You get them in as many different outfits and bikinis as possible; hair up, hair down. Then you release a set [of photos] after four weeks saying they’re in Dubai, another set after six weeks saying they’re in Tenerife. You can sell a set every month for a year.”

While the royals have always officially maintained their distance from the media, there’s nothing new about tipoffs to friendly photographers. Even Princess Diana, who was killed in 1997 while trying to escape paparazzi on motorbikes in Paris, was known for telling photographers when she would be on holiday. “I was always nearby, ready to capture these historic images, and that suited us both,” said one celebrity photographer of the era.



The trend for staged celebrity pictures shows no sign of going away. Picture agency owner Hayward said that in the last 12 months celebrities had begun offering to pay him to take their apparently candid photo and then distribute them to news outlets, in a bid to gain publicity rather than income. In the process, the paparazzi agency is slowly being subsumed into the wider celebrity-industrial PR complex.

“The narcissism of these stars is at a level we can’t comprehend,” he said. “All they want to do is see themselves at the top of Google News.”

Diana’s death led the Daily Mail’s publisher to issue a front-page declaration that the newspaper would never again use paparazzi pictures. Two decades later the organisation’s MailOnline is one of the largest outlets for celebrity photographs in the world and carried the staged Thomas Markle photographs until its sister publication exposed the apparent fraud.

Jonathan Hartley, a media consultant who regularly deals with tabloid newspapers, said there was nothing inherently wrong with staged photographs, so long as they did not overstep the mark. “Just because a photo is staged, doesn’t mean it’s untrue or disingenuous,” he said. “In this case is was disingenuous because they were presenting something as fact which wasn’t true. Staged photos aren’t in themselves inherently bad as long as they’re not deliberately misrepresenting a situation. That’s where he’s gone wrong.”



He suggested there should have been more support for Meghan Markle’s relatives from the royal press team. “The Markle family really have been thrown to the wolves. When you’ve got people following you after stories, it’s very difficult to make the right decisions without any advice. Whether they wouldn’t accept the advice or not, I don’t know. It just felt like it was always going to happen.”

