Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Time cover mocked for being ‘heavily airbrushed’

Meghan and Harry fronted the cover for Time’s most influential people, but attention has swiftly turned to the “heavily airbrushed” portraits.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s new Time 100 cover has been roasted by internet users who believe the photo was heavily airbrushed.

The magazine released the cover picture of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on Thursday, in which they appear with eerily glowing smooth skin, creepy bright eyes and, in Harry’s case, suspiciously fuller hair.

People flocked to Twitter to share their thoughts on the alleged retouching.

“The airbrush is doing some heavy lifting there,” one person tweeted on Wednesday. “The cover looks so fake … oh wait it’s because they are,” someone else wrote.

Some thought the mag did a number on Harry’s infamously receding hairline: “Is Harry wearing a rug? Or just overdone the airbrushing?” said one user.

Another thought the duo looked like royals in an animated Disney flick, writing, “Terrible retouching job. They look CGI.”

“Jesus I thought this was a parody account with a clearly photoshopped creepy cover. Then I noticed the blue tick. Wow has @TIME fallen. Hard,” someone else tweeted.

One troll wrote that the couple looked “so plastic” that they could not tell whether the image was “real or photoshopped”.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle appear on the cover of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people issue. Picture: TIME/TIME100/Pari Dukovic for TIME

Others, meanwhile, criticised Time for the way they positioned Meghan in front of Harry for the photo opp.

“Who approved this shot?! Is he standing? Is he sitting? Is he holding on to her shoulder so he doesn’t fall? Why would you make such lovely looking people look like this?” one Twitter user asked.

“Its like he’s cowering behind her,” someone else quipped.

Another compared the picture to the Step Brothers movie poster, while many questioned why Harry, who is much taller than Meghan, was positioned at an equal height.

This cover is giving me... pic.twitter.com/gV1lDTYaf0

— Belle (@RoyallyBelle_) September 15, 2021

This looks like Harry is her hairdresser and he’s looking into the mirror explaining what he did to her layers. pic.twitter.com/pLA9Ox034r

— Gráinne Maguire (@GrainneMaguire) September 15, 2021

I honestly cannot. The live emasculation of Prince Harry continues.
I would never want my husband to be embarrassed like this in front of the world.
Just so pathetic. https://t.co/vbY3GhUwme

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) September 15, 2021

Harry crouching behind his wife while grabbing onto her shoulder is the perfect representative of the modern beta male. The man has just been absolutely neutered. A sad display. The media loves it. pic.twitter.com/CRePHxSou6

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 15, 2021

It is fair to say that plenty of users also showed overwhelming support toward the Sussexes.

“Amazing cover! Love all the good work they are doing despite the vicious attacks coming at them by The Firm,” wrote a fan. “Keep up the good work #HarryAndMeghan! Your humanitarian work speaks for itself.”

“It’s the glow for me … This is what peace and happiness does,” tweeted another.

The former Suits star, 40, and her Prince husband, 37, made the Time 100 list for their charity work with their Archewell Foundation.

“They turn compassion into boots on the ground through their Archewell Foundation. They give voice to the voiceless through media production,” chef José Andrés wrote in a short essay about the pair.

“Hand-in-hand with non-profit partners, they take risks to help communities in need – offering mental-health support to black women and girls in the US and feeding those affected by natural disasters in India and the Caribbean.”

Meghan and Harry, who resigned from their royal duties in early 2020, topped the “Icons” section of the list, which also includes pop star Britney Spears, country superstar Dolly Parton, tennis pro Naomi Osaka and Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

This story originally appeared on the New York Post and has been reproduced here with permission