The palace denied that weird story about Duchess Meghan & gender fluidity

Sussex Morocco reception

People are so touchy these days whenever there’s a story about a parent who does not give a crap about gender stereotypes. Kate Hudson got a mountain of sh-t for trying to explain (poorly explain) her thoughts on how to raise her daughter in a “genderless” way. And people climbed all over the Duchess of Sussex (what else is new) last week because Katie Nicholl at Vanity Fair claimed that Meghan and Harry will raise their Polo Baby with a “fluid approach to gender.” Nicholl’s article was pretty loosey-goosey and I interpreted it the same way I interpreted the Kate Hudson kerfuffle, which is that Meghan and Harry simply weren’t going to force their kid to adhere to whatever gender stereotypes. In any case, Kensington Palace made a rare move of denying the story on the record. The palace spokesperson told media outlets: “This story is totally false.” So there you go. I always wonder why the palace denies certain stories and stays silent on others, but whatever. Meanwhile, the Sun/Daily Mail have a story about how Meghan has low-key visited her mom:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been making secret visits to her mother Doria Ragland’s home in Los Angeles, an insider has claimed. Revealing the news this week, an unnamed neighbour told of their surprise at seeing the royal couple making a low-key visit to Doria’s bungalow. The source also admitted that Meghan, 37, who is expecting her first child next month, would always see the house as her home, despite living in the grounds of Kensington Palace with Harry, 34. It is unclear when the visits may have happened, but it is rumoured Harry may have joined Meghan during a stopover visit during their tour of Australasia last October.

‘Meghan is a mommy’s girl — their special mother-daughter bond hasn’t disappeared just because she’s moved to England,’ a neighbour told The Sun. They said, ‘Meghan will always come back to Doria, this will always be her home. They are forever in touch, and Meghan has been here to stay on more than one occasion since going public with Harry. I even saw him here once, but it’s not my place to say any more.’

The Duchess, who is reportedly due in April, was in her early stages of pregnancy at the time of the visit.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah, it’s not shocking. While it wasn’t confirmed last year, there were steady rumors and reports that Meghan flew to see her mom a handful of times last year. It’s not surprising in the least. I would imagine that Doria will be around a lot for the final weeks of Meghan’s pregnancy too.

What else? I’m not going to even bother discussing Samantha Grant’s latest – you can see her crap here, if you care, but I would suggest just ignoring that a–hole. It was also confirmed that Meghan will be doing a big panel discussion on March 8th for International Women’s Day. The panel will be made up of “female thought-leaders and activists.”

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex visit the Moroccan Royal Federation of Equestrian Sports

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

114 Responses to “The palace denied that weird story about Duchess Meghan & gender fluidity”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Weaver says:

    I wish the palace would be as active in denying the other lies about Meghan.

    • Nikki says:

      Yes, because they haven’t defended her one iota against charges of being a demanding workaholic boss, an uncaring daughter (!), and an extravagant social climber, but they felt the need to uphold gender rigidity!

    • MA says:

      I think they’re drawing a line because it’s their child. The tabloids are already trying to “other” a baby that isn’t even here yet and setting it up as the foil against the perfect, well-behaved Cambridge’s. So far media publications have already labeled Baby Sussex “manipulative” and a “rebel.” Now they’re inciting right wing hatred against a biracial woman via her own baby. Katie Nicholl knew exactly what she was doing and what words to use to trigger them.

    • ohno! says:

      They have tended never to respond to stories generated by the gutter press – it isn’t anything restricted to Meghan.

      • MA says:

        They refuted the one story that painted Kate in a bad light–the story that she “slapped down” Meghan for berating her staff. Also years ago when a story alleged that Kate wear hair extensions. You know, the important stuff.

      • Deedee says:

        I’d forgotten about the hair extension shaped scar. Like we can’t figure out that it’s possible she had a scar AND she wears hair extensions. Because she does.

  2. Cidy says:

    FINALLY the palace came out for her. Odd that they chose this to come out for but hopefully we see more of it.

    • Mia says:

      maybe because the Firm think of the baby as family (being Royal Blood) and Meghan not so much. When the Baby is born, I’m interested in how this plays out. Like it or not, Baby Sussex is Prince Charles grandchild and Queen Elizabeth’s great grandchild.

  3. Silas Marner says:

    Maybe it is about discrediting Katie Nicholls. I think Emily Andrews was set up with a source she thought was genuine. Maybe they are making a list of approved reporters and reporters in disfavor.

    Emily Andrews repeatedly downplayed the security risk that made Meghan need to leave that marketplace when on tour. It was a small controversy. Has Katie Nicholls done anything?

    • Rae says:

      @Silas I think it has to do with it being a Katie N story as well, otherwise it is an odd story to debunk (comparing it to others which are much more troubling).

      Katie self touted herself about being “in the know” about the royals in years passed, perhaps they’re just reminding her that she knows jack all?

      • Silas Marner says:

        Or as someone said below, maybe because it is about the baby? The press is shameless and will criticize the child while pretending to be nice.

    • Eliza says:

      I assumed it was because it was about the baby too. Baby Sussex is born royal, so they’ll protect his/her “reputation” but Meghan only gets denials once in a blue moon. Those grey men are the cattiest creatures you’ll ever find.

  4. Rae says:

    Has Katie Nicholl said anything since being outed as a liar?

    • Weaver says:

      Was Katie the one who had detailed accounts of the baby shower before it was even thrown?

      • Becks1 says:

        No that was Emily Andrews, who I thought had a decent-ish reputation? So that made up baby shower thing was super weird to me.

      • Rae says:

        As already posted, that was Andrews. She hasn’t said anything, but I give her a massive side eye.

        Andrews is very into playing the victim. She’ll throw both blunt and subtle shade at Meghan, but then complains when she gets called out on it.

        I think the U.K. press REALLY underestimated how much people would stand up for Meghan.

    • Lily says:

      She insists Harry had a crush on Meghan for two years, prior to their meeting and when Harry said he’s never watched suits…she said he was lying.

      She’s also the woman writing the vanity fair articles about how Meghan MUST BOW to Kate, she is just the supporting character Catherine will always be the star, Harry is an attention seeker and it worries his brother, the royal family are disgusted by Meghan’s family’s actions….very coded.

      And now, a story about an unborn child that stirs up conversation, when it isn’t even true…
      I think the palace chose to deny this story because they won’t allow this kid to be a target, now or ever. Stopping the narrative before it has a chance to grow.

    • Jegede says:

      Katie Nicholl has always been a know nothing. A phony.

      Never forget how ‘insiders’ exclusively told her Harry and Meghan were going to wait to start a family.

      Chill for after the tour and settle down more.
      A week later, Meghan announces her pregnancy.😆😆

      You don’t need much to be a royal reporter.

      I went to school with girls who casually dated Will & Harry. A good friend of mine was actually with Alex Loudon, before he went off with Pippa.

      I could use these tenuous connections, leverage it into something more and hey presto I’m a ‘royal reporter’.💪
      Esp handy, as royals almost never sue.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not always. The Middletons used KN for leaks for years prior to the engagement. They turned against her, like Tanna, it appears because of William.

        Wasn’t KN the one who wrote the tongue-in-cheek article about Kate Middleton being wonderful, after William leaned on her after a negative article?

      • Jegede says:

        I stand by my comments.

        As Max Hastings said
        ‘If you can’t find a job as a pianist in a brothel; you become a royal reporter’

        People who ascribe the worst to the Middletons will always find a way to fault them for all.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Just as the Middletons used to call Tanna for certain instances, Kate Middleton used to call Nicholl from vacations with William. Nicholl used to think herself an insider because of that, and because she would socially be in the same nightclubs and places with William and Harry. She thought herself part of the set, but learned she could be put out to pasture like Tanna whenever they felt like it. Her piece about KM was a masterclass in shade, all because William made her write it.

        I think she and Andrews have been chosen to be singled out and discredited for reasons, as others on here have written. And they deserve what they’ve earned, make no mistake.

      • Serpentinefire says:

        Will made KN write a shady article about the women he would marry one day? How F up is that WOW.

  5. Desolee says:

    Why deny this one? Is it that bad to not force stereotypes?! Is the queen kind of sexist like that?

    • Brittanie says:

      I think because it opened their child to being bullied. Who wants that?

      • MissyS. says:

        You are correct. It’s about protecting an innocent child from gossip and abuse. A lot of right-wing sites picked up this story and used it as an excuse to make racist, misogynistic, and homophobic comments about Meghan, Harry, and the baby. Some people have lost their minds!

    • Maum says:

      I guess you could say the Queen is sexist like that.

      The RF family (and Britsh aristos) are uber traditionalist and there is clear gender-bias, probably due to their inheritance system. Boy=family name, so younger brother trumps older sister.

      Not forcing stereotypes is not quite the same as gender fluid- there have been a lot of stories in the press recently about parents chosing not to reveal the sex of their baby and giving them neutral names and pronouns.
      To an older generation it sounds like utter nonsense.

      I’m really not surprised they would jump on, and deny this particular story.

    • Anitas says:

      I think it’s a step too far for the royal family. Racism and stuff = whatever, their own family is rife with it, but to have people think they could allow for a ‘gender fluid’ parenting of a royal = better shut that down.

  6. Mego says:

    I must confess that while I thought the article was entirely the product of Katie Nicholl’s imagination, my eye brows raised over the fact that KP issued an emphatic denial of this story. Why was this article in a slew of much worse racist and sexist articles, one that KP rushed to refute? KP should get their priorities straight.

  7. Becks1 says:

    This is such a weird thing for the palace to deny, since I imagine it is actually true to the extent that “gender fluidity” means to them what Kaiser describes. A boy can wear pink
    And play with dolls, a girl can play with trucks and refuse to wear dresses.

    But all the other crap that gets published about Meghan and THIS is what they deny? I mean…..like someone said up thread, this likely has more to do with discrediting KN in general than this specific story.

    • Brittanie says:

      The fact that these morons are writing stories about an unborn baby is scary. I’ve seen baby Sussex be referred to as a rebel, troublemaker and now this story. People need to chill because I saw some really terrible statements due to this fluid story. Katie knew what she was doing when she wrote that story and it’s malicious. Even if true, I would have no issue with it but with the far right commenters and racists online and the British press , her writing that story was unnecessary.

      • Becks1 says:

        True. They’ve written stories about the baby before, but maybe KP thinks this particular one opened the baby up for bullying before it’s even born, so they are trying to put a stop to it.

      • BellicoseBelle says:

        The story was about the parents, not the baby. And really, gender fluid royalty would not go over with at least 1/2 the British. It is kind of a Hollywood-style, political thing to say. My bet is Meghan did say this, a “friend” leaked it, and the royals are pushing back hard.

    • Eliza says:

      Is it about the baby? I thought it was about parenting style, therefore about Harry and Meghan?

    • MA says:

      @BellicoseBelle There have never been any leaks from Harry and Meghan’s circle yet, ever. Their circle is tight. None of the tabloid writers’ stories have been true. They don’t know the name of their new dog, they don’t know when they go out on public dates until after the fact, just basic silly stuff like that, and they certainly are not privvy to conversations about extremely personal and private matters such as raising one’s child.

      And the story was most certainly about using an unborn baby as a cudgel to criticize the biracial woman and further “othering” the only non-lily white baby in line for the throne.

      • BellicoseBelle says:

        If you believe that Meghan’s friends don’t leak, did you miss the People story about how wonderful she is? Or maybe that wasn’t a leak – that was Meghan telling them what to do.
        Also, Omid Scobie seems to be Meghan’s go-to guy for leaking.

      • wisdomheaven says:

        Except Omid is constantly wrong.

      • MA says:

        @BellicoseBelle – That wasn’t a “leak.” That was a coordinated strategy (whether directed by the KP new PR guy, CH, or H&M’s friends themselves with H&M’s permission is up for debate). The fact remains that there have never been any “leaks” as in unauthorized gossiping from friends. We can see this from the fact that not one publication has gotten anything about the Sussexes correct. Not honeymoon location, dog name, theater date nights, secret projects, patronages, cookbook, etc. Nothing.

      • Salvation says:

        @Bellicosebelle, Katie Nichols has no Meghan friends that leaks anything to her about Meghan or anything Sussex. You can argue till you blue in the face but that is a fact. I know insisting that Meghan’s friends leak to the tabloids is what pushes yr narrative but it simply not accurate. The People article was NOT a leak, it was authorized by not only Meghan but also by her husband. What Omid reports is not leaks from Meghan friends as he has been inaccurate on numerous occasions. He was among those that first reported Doria invitation for Christmas which really never was. He also reported about Diria being in the UK visiting the Sussexes and just hours later, Doria was seen picking up her mail in LA. So again, Katie Nichols is not getting any inside leaks from Meghan’s friends. That’s why KP refuted her lies.

  8. Brittanie says:

    This only proves that Katie Nicholl and most of those RR’s know nothing about the Sussexes. One by One, all of them are embarrassing themselves and I don’t think think they like the palace fighting back. The fact that she tried to double down on the fluid story after getting dragged online and was denied by the palace must be embarrassing. Vanity Fair should know better than that.

    • MA says:

      Vanity Fair needs to fire her racist, shit-stirring ass. They’re facilitating her stoking of right wing outrage and lowering themselves to the like of Fox News, Breitbart, & co I didn’t believe this story at all because it’s KN but regardless, “gender fluidity” isn’t a bad word. I bet most of the regular VF staff agree and I can’t see them happy about being associated with this.

  9. tempest prognosticator says:

    I’m glad she’s been able to visit her Doris under the radar. Doris is her touchstone.

    “Thought-leaders” sounds weird.

    • Peg says:

      Not sure this story is true, like the one of Doria visiting Thomas and taking money for him, implying she is trying to buy his silence.
      I know we should ignore Scammy, but this is funny, a few weeks ago she invoke their grandmother’s name saying she would be shocked at how Meghan is treating the family, the caretaker at where Mrs Markle lived, said she was there for 7 yrs. and Scammy never visited her.
      She went on to say that Doria and Meghan visited weekly, although Doria was in school and working.

      • MA says:

        I read a touching post Meghan wrote as a tribute to her mother and she talked about how Doria used to take care of her grandmothers. It just makes TM’s actions even more disgraceful. Attacking and letting your other daughter attack your ex-wife, who took care of your own mother? Disgraceful.

      • Mia says:

        I saw that I twitter. I believe none of the Markles visited her grandmother

    • Himmiefan says:

      The DM made it sound like Meghan was acting like a child, always running back to mommy. Someone in the comments noted that this is no one’s business, which is true. I’ve posted that too on many of their articles. It’s just not unusual for someone to see their family, like Kate does all the time. The DM just tries to make it sound bad.

      • MA says:

        She doesn’t see her family and she’s a neglectful, terrible child. She sees them too much and she’s clingy, weak. As with everything in regards to Meghan, she can never win.

  10. Sam says:

    The fued and negative articles about them can be ignored but when someone starts telling lies about their unborn baby,why shouldn’t they deny it especially when some tweets and comments were slamming her and wishing death on her and the baby cos of the story

  11. Peg says:

    Finally Kensington Palace and Clarence House put out a statement, asker posters to be polite to one another, stop posting gibberish, racism and the whole nine yards, otherwise they will report it to the authorities, a little late for this.

    • Chloe says:

      I was so happy to see this but I fear it’s mostly to get ahead of the poo-storm that’s going to happen amongst the trolls when the baby’s born.

  12. Nanea says:

    That KP denial, even if I don’t get it in this particular case regarding gender fluidity/avoiding stereotyping, ties in with something the BBC just reported, that KP/the RF are going to block and/or report social media trolls.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47438855

    • BellicoseBelle says:

      Who are they going to report them to? I can see blocking, but this all smacks of royal entitlements and again, it is terrible PR. Imagine the outrage if Trump said this on his twitter feed. The royals are public figures, the entire bunch of them are supported by tax dollars, but those supporting them can’t criticize them??
      This will go over well. /snark

      • Lady D says:

        There is a difference between criticism and death threats.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        There’s a huge difference between criticism and racism. There’s a huge difference between disliking what someone does and being nasty for nasty’s sake. All they are asking for is civility and they are going to enforce it. Good! It’s been past time for them to moderate their social media accounts.

      • MA says:

        @BellicoseBelle Judging by your prior comments, I understand perfectly why you dismiss as mere “criticism” the death threats, conspiracy theories, and coordinated racist attacks launched against Meghan daily. I get it, because black women are commonly dehumanized in our western society and not afforded the same protections as their white counterparts.

      • Mia says:

        tweeting you want to have a go fund page so you can go to UK and yell at her, grabbing her belly because you think it’s fake, those comments shouldn’t be on the site. Some are so butthurt over this. I don’t understand why would you follow someone you don’t like.

      • BellicoseBelle says:

        I said “criticize.” No where did I ever suggest any threats are OK, nor any racis comments, so put your outrage away. And MA, I want black women dehumanized? You can tell that from my prior comments? You don’t even know my race, and you say that? You have definitely lost the plot.

      • MA says:

        @BellicoseBelle – Nice try, but the new KP denial and social media guidelines don’t ban any sort of criticism, but racist, sexist, xenophobic, and other discriminatory attacks. Anyone who takes the racist/etc. comments against Meghan and her unborn baby seriously should have no problem with this new action. It’s a no-brainer to anyone who truly has zero tolerance for these abhorrent, potentially life-threatening attacks. It’s really telling how some are more up in arms about this new policy than any of the death threats or conspiracy theories.

  13. Piper says:

    Katie’s story felt like fake news, especially this bit. Like it was planted to get picked up. The whole shower we knew who was given insights, never detailing gender and a week after Katie outlines her inside story and it’s considered false. Think that says enough. Many of her stories lately have proven bad intel. As for Emily, I don’t see her as malicious but she does over-exaggerate but she works for the Sun lol what does anyone expect. There are much worse out there than Emily.

    • Peg says:

      Lying is lying.
      Since she was getting dragged on Twitter for her lying, she turned herself into the victim.

  14. Lisa says:

    The non stop lies about Harry and Meghan are one thing but dragging their child into it is another matter entirely. Meghan is already attacked for breathing that false article only gives fuel to not only attack Meghan but her child as well.

  15. W says:

    If I remember correctly I think the specific problem is that Katie instead of using the typical “my palace source” claimed her source to be one of the guests of the baby shower didn’t she? I don’t want to give it another click, but that would be a blatant lie because there is no way any actual guest at the shower is speaking with Katie. These aren’t people she can follow around at night clubs.

  16. Whatabout says:

    I don’t think I believe the story about secret visits to LA. It’s a story from The Sun. They’re a trashy tabloid.

    • claire says:

      Same. Unless she came and went with a bag over her head the whole time there’s no way she’d go completely undetected. I thought this bs story was another one from the Daily Mail though.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Especially not LAX. She’d have to fly into a much smaller airport and drive for a long time, but she’d probably still be recognized like when she recently flew to NY.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The new private terminal at LAX has to help with this.

      • Whatabout says:

        @notasugarhere the paps stake out the car entrance regularly. So they can see who’s coming and going.

        Also Doria has paps in front of her house 24-7. Which must be awful.
        When Meghan was last in LA during the engagement, paps were well aware but weren’t able to get a photo of her.

      • jan90067 says:

        Whatabout, there is a new VIP terminal at LAX that is *completely* private, and it includes cars that drive you from the private “waiting suites” to the tarmac. Check it out: https://magazine.luxuryretreats.com/vip-celebrity-terminal-lax/

      • Whatabout says:

        @jan Yeap. That’s what I was referring too. They stake out the entrance.

  17. Anitas says:

    That story always felts like dog whistle to haters, like hmmm what could possibly work up the trolls, oh I know, how about a story about genderless hippy dippy parenting of a royal baby?

    I did see somewhere that she supposedly plans to breastfeed in public and have Harry wear the baby in the sling and whilst I know it’s all rubbish I still hope against hope they’ll go ahead with it.

  18. ArmchairStylist says:

    The reason for the denial is because this opens the door for people to target a baby an unborn baby at that. It’s one thing to say things about a adult but a baby that hasn’t been born yet it’s creepy and gross.
    It’s strange some of you don’t see the difference between stopping people from bully a grown woman vs a baby.

    • BellicoseBelle says:

      No, the reason they stopped this rumor is cause gender fluidity is a progressive idea, rather political and Hollywood, and the royals seem to have had enough of Hollywood from MM for a while. This will be mocked and criticized by a lot of Brits. Think of the ones who voted for #Brexit. And the royals are non-political

      • Salvation says:

        Bellicosebelle, how do you know for a fact the reason for stopping this rumor was Hollywood related? And how is it that they’ve had enough of Hollywood from Meghan? Isn’t Duke of Cambridge and his wife heavily involved in the BAFTA?

      • BellicoseBelle says:

        Cause I live in the US, and we average, middle class, typical Americans never discuss our kids being gender fluid. Kate Hudson and Company do, however.

      • Mia says:

        @bellicosebelle, royals had enough of Hollywood? Okay, that’s why the Cambridges meeting JayZ, Beyonce, JLo. Prince Charles dancing with his favorite group The Three Degrees. The entire royal family meeting The Supremes. this list goes on and on.

      • Perplexed says:

        @bellicosebelle

        You really should stop while you’re ahead. Royals tired of Hollywood? KP Twitter blocking/reporting people for racist, threatening and horrifying statements the same as avoiding “criticism”? I’m not sure what you mean about being a “typical” American but unfortunately I can guess… I hope you’re trolling, I really do.

  19. Anna says:

    Katie Nicholl is she’s the one who looks like Teri Hatcher-ish and keeps going on all those E! shows on the royals?

    • Himmiefan says:

      I think so. When William and Kate got married, she said that Kate was “very British.” I remember thinking what else would she be, Chinese?

  20. Jessica says:

    I wish they would just deny false articles even if they seem ridiculous. The made Kate cry should have been called out as embellished or false.

    • Peg says:

      They did deny that one.

    • Becks1 says:

      No, they didn’t deny that one. They denied the one about Kate slapping back at Meghan and telling her she couldn’t speak to Kate’s staff a certain way. Or something like that.

      I think at any rate. It’s all starting to blur together to be honest.

  21. aquarius64 says:

    The Doria visits I believe. Doria visited Harry and Meghan in England last summer without being seen. I think the visit story is to counter Sam’s dockumentary garbage: the message Harry and Meghan see Doria because she keeps her mouth shut and doesn’t trash Meghan for cash; the Markles are ghosted for the opposite reason.

  22. Hashtagwhat says:

    Kaiser, this is slightly off topic, but…

    I often comment on here about keeping it real when we talk about the royals and that goes for me too, so…I read this weekend from a pretty interesting source that Meg actually did have quite a bit of family at the wedding, but they were just dignified and not seeking press like the Markles. For a long time, it’s been reported—in various outlets by many sources—that only her mother was there. And this has always really bothered me about her. Not that one shouldn’t cut out toxic family, but it seemed strange bc she appeared to have closeness with lots of relatives on Doria’s Side, but we didn’t hear from them. Apparently, there are lots of pictures that are being saved for a later time. If this is true—to say nothing of Meghan’s boss media strategy—then I want to be the first to say I was wrong to drag her on that point. I took it as confirmed. And maybe I shouldn’t have. So I’m looking at her with a more open-mind now. That’s all.

    • jan90067 says:

      I’ve heard that, too. I think her niece said something at the time.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m a big Meghan fan, but that reporting always kind of bugged me too – where was the rest of her family? Well I guess the simplest theory is sometimes true – they were there, but chose to celebrate the event more privately, and didn’t want their pictures splashed everywhere (so no sitting with Doria, etc.)

    • Peg says:

      There are pictures on Twitter of Doria half-brother and his mom, niece Ashley and others.
      Doria’s other half-brother and half-sister spoke to the press, nothing negative but were not invited.
      The media was looking for celebrities, had no interest in Meghan’s family until they needed new ammo.
      I don’t think Doria’s family is huge, parents and her aunt passed, she was an only child until her dad remarried and fathered three more kids.
      You guys really think Doria didn’t have input about who in the family was invited?

      • Vanessa says:

        I do believe that Meghan had other relatives beside her mother at the wedding but that doesn’t get reported on because it’ doesn’t fit the narrative of Meghan being the social climber or user that her haters and British media make her out to be . I don’t know if it’s just played ignorance on some people part but not everyone has a large family with tons of cousins and aunt and uncles some families are small because family members passed or have falling out.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh I thought Doria had a say, and Meghan had a say, and there just wasn’t any other family there (I think I knew one niece was there?) To be honest its not something I really dwelled on – but when I did it struck me as odd, but I also assumed that part of it was because Meghan didn’t have a large family to begin with. Shrug. Like I said I didn’t overthink it too much.

    • MA says:

      @Hashtagwhat It’s big of you to admit you might’ve been wrong about something. However, just wanted to offer my two cents: Families are complicated, which is why I never shaded Meghan for her guest list, regardless of what the actual truth is. Just one example: close friend of mine, who is an amazing and good person, has almost no contact with extended family because of complicated family dynamics including a divorce and various shady/greedy /terrible behaviors exhibited over the years. My friend had a ton of friends at their wedding, but the only family present were their own parents. If they’d had a royal wedding, they’d probably get the criticisms that Meghan did.

      All that said…we don’t actually know much about celebrities’/royals’ lives or motivations. We don’t know if Doria is estranged from her family, simply isn’t close to them, or if they just didn’t want the media pressure. We know that Meghan is close to her niece but we don’t know for certain if she was there or if she wanted to avoid the cameras due to the crazy Other Daughter. I think most of us missed that Meghan’s close friend Genevieve was actually sitting right above Doria but at a bad angle so that the pew hid her. We only found out about her at the baby shower. So maybe Meghan/Doria did have other family there. But either way, I don’t judge them.

      • Mia says:

        @Ma same here. If was marrying into the Royal family It would only be two family members. Some had passed and others are messy as F, I wouldn’t want them at my funeral let alone a wedding.

  23. Ira says:

    If it is true that Nichols is Middleton’s mouth piece, then The Cambridge is probably behind the gender fluid story. They probably don’t want Meghan and Harry’s kid to have the same status as Prince and Princess like the Cambridge’s kids. By putting this story, they attempt to make The Sussex look ridiculous if the decide to accept The Queen’s offer.

    • jan90067 says:

      As the Sussex kid(s) are the children of the spare, and the Cambridge kids are in direct line of the heir, they will NEVER have the same “status”, even if TQ gives them HRH status (doubtful she will, and doubtful H & M would want it). Sussex kid(s) will always have to “bow” to George, Charlotte, and Louis, *always*.

      • noway says:

        I kind of wonder if Harry and Meghan would want to give up their position in the royal family. I mean it seems a lot more hassle than it’s worth.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        The Sussex kids will be HRH once Charles becomes king because they, like the Cambridge kids, will be the grandchildren of the monarch. The Wessexes decided they didn’t want HRH status for their kids, even when Edward gets a dukedom after Phillip’s death. So, no…the Sussex kids won’t be bowing to the Cambridge kids.

    • Jegede says:

      So wait, this is now the Cambridges’ fault too? *smdh*

  24. Heather says:

    The press’s attitude toward an unborn baby is disturbing and disgusting. If the duke and duchess of Sussex don’t parade the newborn in front of every single royal reporter and their brother within 48 hours of birth, watch…they’ll start speculating that Baby Sussex is deformed, or has Down Syndrome or was born with horns and a tail or some such nonsense. Whatever anyone’s opinion on the duke and duchess of Sussex, or the Royal Family, or monarchy vs republic in general, the baby doesn’t deserve that. No baby does.

    • Jegede says:

      You’re correct; but they crappily do it for royal babies.

      It was rumoured widely about Margaret Rose, once Queen Elizabeth did not parade her new baby with the umbilical chord still attached.

      They 100% hinted it about Prince Andrew, especially with the almost 10 year Princess Anne age gap.

      The whispers’ll almost certainly happen here too.🙄

      • Heather says:

        And it’s sad. Especially today with social media and 24 hour news/gossip. The Cambridge kids and Sussex kid(s) shouldn’t have to deal with it, but you’re right. They’ll sadly have to.

  25. noway says:

    You forgot the big one Kensington Palace issued new social media guidelines on their websites as a lot of comments for both Duchesses are sexist. In Meghan’s case also racist. This is the first time they have issued any guidelines on social media at all. They specifically stated the Duchesses too, and stated comments will be deleted, blocked and the commenters may be referred to the police if needed. This is a great thing!!!

    • Fluffy Princess says:

      Finally!! This toxicity was getting out of control!

      • Vanessa says:

        It really is about time the awful racist disgusting things people were saying about Meghan on the official Kensington media account were horrible. The palace always needs to be monitored that Meghan twitter hate group one of the woman went to New York where Meghan was staying during her baby’s shower and was proudly shouting nasty words at her and this woman was also being encourage by other members of that group to try to ripoff Meghan supposed fake belly. The palace should have step in a lot sooner to protect Meghan And her unborn child

  26. Shannon says:

    Thank you for not repeating/giving a platform to Samantha Grant. She’s a grade-A narcissist and her own mother and daughter have restraining orders against her. 3 of her kids no longer speak to her. I say this because I *just* found out – the press never seems to look into how many people in her family don’t speak to her because she’s a terrible person, which I think is a dereliction of its duty. Her obsession with Meghan is nothing but a bitter, jealous woman grasping at relevance and I’m sick of hearing from that nobody. Apparently so is her immediate family!

    • Rae says:

      Hear Hear.

    • Catrìona says:

      There is a saying : ‘A lie can travel round the world whilst the truth is still putting on her shoes’.

      What I find shocking is how many individuals who have shown themselves to be liars continue to be deemed credible.

  27. A says:

    I don’t think this is about the palace trying to protect the baby because they’ll be a royal and “one of them.” I think it’s because the RF, by default, has to adhere to the strictest of gender roles in order to function as an institution. Word about how any royal child is going to be raised in a gender neutral way is going to alarm the grey suits purely because it’s going to invite some incredibly unwanted questions and veer right into the whole “how are these people relevant to our society again?” territory, and that is the LAST thing they want.

    Also, Katie Nicholl is joining the legions of royal reporters who are low key shading Meghan in every possible way and stoking the fires of right wing disdain. The damage is completely done here. All the tabloids are going to run with this and have a field day, and every troglodyte in Britain who hates foreigners and immigrants and anything remotely related to LGBTQ+ movement is going to combust with pure hatred in the Fail comments section. Good going, KN. I bet she knew what she was doing.