The Sussexes hired a new nanny for baby Archie: ‘The new nanny is a godsend’

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle watch the Red Sox vs Yankees game

Did I completely ignore the stories about “fired nannies” in the Sussex household? I’m looking through our archives and I can’t find anything, and I have no memory of the “fired nanny” narrative. I want to say that I probably ignored it because the British press continues to be trash, but it’s also possible that I did make some kind of reference to a “fired nanny” and just forgot about it because I can’t keep up with the daily smears lodged against the Duchess of Sussex. I do remember that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quietly hired a “night nanny,” which I just interpreted as a night nurse, as someone who will be with Baby Archie for two months or so. There was apparently another nanny who got fired after a few weeks for “unprofessional” behavior. And so now the Sussexes have a new nanny, and the nanny was on holiday with them in France:

Meghan and Harry have hired another nanny for baby Archie — their third since he was born three months ago. The new worker, described by Meghan, 38, as a “godsend”, accompanied the family on their two private jet holidays this month. She was seen boarding one of the gas-guzzling planes in Nice, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their tot had been staying at Elton John’s £15million pad.

A source said: “Meghan is a very hands-on mum but the new nanny is a godsend. She is extremely professional, with a number of nannying years under her belt, and has fitted into the family really well. She’s great with little Archie and just adores him. Harry and Meghan are very happy with her.”

The couple’s first nanny was sacked for being “unprofessional” while the second was nights only. The third, who is not live-in, will join the Sussexes for their royal tour next month. Mum and baby and nanny are staying in South Africa while Harry, 34, will also visit Botswana, Angola and Malawi. Their new staff member is the latest addition to Team Meghan, after the couple also hired a housekeeper to look after them at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor.

[From The Sun]

One, the Sun (and other British papers) are doing the most to talk about the Sussexes’ staffing like… the Cambridges didn’t have the exact same arrangement. There was always talk about how the Cambridges got by with minimal staff, especially in the early days of their marriage, but we learned later that they had a housekeeper/cook who came in every day when they lived in Wales. The Cambridges also had William’s old nanny looking after George, and then they hired Nanny Maria when George was a few months old.

As for this new Sussex nanny… the Sun has some blurry photos. She’s a woman of color. I honestly have a pit in the bottom of my stomach because I know we’re about to get days and weeks full of reporting and editorializing about why Meghan is awful/unroyal/breaking protocol for hiring a black woman as a nanny.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle watch the Red Sox vs Yankees game

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and Avalon Red.

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

77 Responses to “The Sussexes hired a new nanny for baby Archie: ‘The new nanny is a godsend’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Vivienne says:

    LOL at Daily Mail asking in their article ” Do you know who Harry and Meghan’s new nanny is? Email” LMAO

    • Kittycat says:

      The daily fail is so desperate for access.

    • Mia4s says:

      What if she’s…*Gasp*…AMERICAN?!? She won’t know that the Lord High Blah Blah can’t sit next to the Countess Flimer Flamer if the room is painted any colour but light blue! ENGLAND WILL FALL!!!

    • anon says:

      she was suri cruise ‘s nanny

    • bamaborn says:

      Vivienne…thanks for your report, don’t have the guts to go there. Lol!!

    • PrincessK says:

      Well it is actually no laughing matter. Quite aside from the lies about sacked nannie, DM placed two email addresses asking members of the public to identify the nanny. This is total harassment and malicious behaviour. I have sent emails to both of those email addresses giving DM a piece of my mind.

      I would urge everyone to respond to those two emails and tell DM that its behaviour is a total disgrace.

    • Sandy says:

      YES, time for some troll “information” to be sent to the daily fail. I have 10 minutes that I’m wasting on this 😁

  2. Kittycat says:

    I really pray the Sussexes and the people around them have good security.

    There are too many crazy people.

    • Syd says:

      Yeah. Like, realistically, I know that all royals are a security nightmare because of that, but it really scares me when it comes to Meghan and her husband and baby. The abuse is so dangerous. I know she and Harry take every precaution to protect themselves and their baby, but still… like you said, too many crazy people :/

      • Molly says:

        It’s totally crazy, which is why I have no issue with them and private planes. No way in hell I’d take my newborn baby on a plane in this world, if I’m Meghan.

  3. OriginalLala says:

    I have no children so I’m not in the loop, but what would the responsibilities of a night nanny be? would she be the one waking up with the baby for feeding and changings, that kind of thing?

    • Arizona says:

      I think so? I’m not from a family that would be able to afford nannies, but I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re there for.

    • IlsaLund says:

      Yes. My daughter-in-law works as a night nurse. She told me she is there to help the new mother adjust. She essentially takes care of the newborn during the night so the mother can sleep.

    • Mia4s says:

      It can vary, but basically yes. They can 100% handle that so the parents can sleep. They can bring the baby to the breastfeeding mother and then settle them after. Or they can take the second feeding after mom does the first of the baby is able to mix bottle and breast. It’s really up to the parents.

    • Duch says:

      We had one for put first baby (now a senior in high school). Yes, they essentially have the night shift, so you can get some blessed sleep. When Baby cries they pick her up and soothe her, change diaper and bring the bundle to Mom for breast feeding (or if a bottle i guess the nurse handles it?). We had one for first week. In our case, as new parents, also taught us some soothing techniques and feeding/latching tips that were so helpful. Very grateful to have had one.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        We had one with the twins. Mostly so we could get some sleep and assistance because two babies was tough.

    • Becks1 says:

      I didn’t have one, but yeah, they handle the nights (minus feeding, if the mom is BFing or wants to do the night feedings) so the parents can get some sleep. I know a few people who have had one, and they didn’t have them very long – first month or two? I can see one being really nice, especially bc lack of sleep has been linked to PPD. I had a C-section and getting out of bed was really hard, so for the first month or so my husband would get up, change the diaper, bring the baby to me to nurse, and then put him back to sleep. Even that helped a lot.

      • Some chick says:

        This is how it used to work, when people lived more communally. Someone cared for the baby while the parents slept. It’s just that now you have to pay for it (unless you have a live-in rellie).

    • minx says:

      Having interrupted sleep made me feel desperate as a new mother. I would have loved to have a night nurse.

  4. IlsaLund says:

    Again, fan fiction from the British tabloids cause they have no clue and no sources in the Sussex camp to feed them information. All they can do is make stuff up to rile up their rabid base. If a legit source like Omid Scobie reports it, then I’ll believe it. And the attacks in that article are ridiculous: ‘gas guzzling”, “two private jet holidays”. Just awful.

  5. marjorie says:

    Did Meghan actually confirm the woman in question is the nanny or is this just typical tabloid speculation?

    • Deb says:

      What – you don’t believe esteemed “journalist” Emily Andrews ?

      • Wishingitwas says:

        It could easily just be a friend or something. If the nanny is American, people are going to lose their minds. Tbh I hope she’s a british Nanny because they don’t need to give the press and public any further ammunition

      • PrincessK says:

        There was a rumour that the nanny has both American and British ties.

      • Nahema says:

        @PrincessK lol that will really confuse things.

  6. Mumbles says:

    Agreed that this is a similar arrangement as the Cambridges, but that was reported back in the time. I remember it well because William hired his own childhood nanny, which I thought was so upper-class-twit of him in a way. (Images of MP Jacob Rees Mott campaigning for Parliament with his nanny.). Of course, it was sold as “she’s not acting as a nanny, she’s just going to show Kate the ropes.” Kate, of course, got Nanny Maria to handle the ropes.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      MP Jacob “Rees-Mogg” campaigning for Parliament with his nanny. This Rees-Mogg person is such a British Twit.

      I thought Cathy Cambridge lived with Ma & Pa Middleton for 5 months after George’s birth but I could be wrong.

      • Mumbles says:

        Thanks for the correction. Autocorrect got me.

        I think you may be right about Cathy heading out to Buckleberry Manor for a few months. And LOL how the Fail, People etc made a big deal about Pippa ordering a fresh juice delivery service for Cathy because she was just so darn busy with the baby that she needed help taking care of herself. Please. She had a lot of help.

    • Nic919 says:

      William’s own nanny was already too old to be dealing with a newborn when George was born and so they also had a night nurse initially as well. They always do when the kids are first born. The media doesn’t seem to report on the multiple nannies very much because it ruins the “Kate is the most hands on mother eva” narrative they try to push.

  7. RoyalBlue says:

    The daily mail is straight up cray cray now. Requesting any information on who she is and pretty much putting them on notice that they will stalk them and every single person associated with them just because. Can anyone explain why the press has targeted this couple. Is it because they do press their own way. Why aren’t they doing this for Louis or any other child. So Kensington can’t send a plea for privacy for the couple and their child and only release statements when the news is Kate has Botox. I 👀 you William.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      Interesting. I don’t have social media accounts, but it seems these DM threats/naked pleas for information could be used against the them. People could point out that if they don’t know, their royal sources must not be that good after all. This in turn could further be extended to cast doubt on every. royal. story. they publish. Might help reign them in.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @RoyalBlue, the Daily Fail and other tabloids are stalking the Sussexes because the Sussexes sell newspapers and generate online click$ for dollar$, euro$ and pound$. This is all about $$$$ and nothing el$e.

      • Elisa says:

        spot on.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I kept responding to comments like this yesterday, then I went back and noticed they all came from you! I’m sorry, but what you’re saying isn’t accurate. The tabloid media is definitely pushing a certain narrative, and it is *not* about money and clicks. Proof is in how the comment sections are moderated, with pro-Meghan comments being deleted (as so many here have attested), and the unanimous, lockstep narrative. If it were only about clicks there would be a balance of positive and negative pieces and positive comments would not be deleted.

        The reporters in question are racist. End of.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        PS- Something nice: I loved your passion for investigation in the turnip toff affair. Maybe it *was* nothing, but I don’t think so, I agree there was something there.

        How deep do you think the Andrew investigation will get?

      • RoyalBlue says:

        No Bay. It’s not just about clicks with the Sussexes. The Kardashian’s are for clicks. Lisa Rinna in her bikini is for clicks. The Sussexes are to spew hate and rile up the public to tarnish their name and prevent them from being successful in their fund raising efforts. To prevent them from being more popular than their future king and queen. This is done to protect the status quo of the current monarchy.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Jane’sWastedTalent & RoyalBlue, I could be wrong and 100% off-base. I got this information from a friend of mine who is in US publishing both online and hard-copy. She said the reason for so many UK tabloid stories on the Sussexes is because they attract both clicks and comments. My friend said the rule of thumb was to the take the number of comments and multiply by 10 for the number of clicks on a given story.

        The more clicks, the more a publication can charge for advertising dollars.

        “How deep do you think the Andrew investigation will get?” I think there will be minimal journalistic investigation published until the criminal investigation is completed both in the USA and UK due to the possibility of gag orders and law suits. IMHO, Andrew has a better chance of being indited in the USA than the UK but it may be impossible to make him stand trial in the USA. I know nothing about extradition law.

        FYI: No need to ever apologize to me as we are all buddies at Celebitchy and I get it wrong more than most LOL! LOL!

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        Oh that makes sense, your friend probably isn’t following all the ins and outs of this vile saga. As a general rule no doubt she’s right. In this case the RRs’ oversteps are ultimately hurting their bottom line, as they find themselves with no access and likely legal issues if this continues. Even by US standards I think it’s getting close to provable malice (which of course is notoriously almost impossible). Just finished making my way through the Mulroney post and it was excellent- I love the talented, witty and passionate community here.

        I don’t see much happening to Andrew either until Charles takes over, and then nothing directly public. Certainly not an Act of Parliament, sadly. :-/

    • Nic919 says:

      Interesting isn’t it? We know someone helped Nanny Maria when Louis was born because she was at the wedding watching George and Charlotte. Why didn’t the DM make requests to find out who was watching Louis?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The readers of the Daily Fail are not interested in who is watching Prince Louis. The readers of the Daily Fail are interested in who is watching/raising Master Archie.

        IMHO, no one really cares about the Cambridges (other than turnip pulling and Rose bush pruning) because the Cambridges are boring! boring! boring!

  8. Becks1 says:

    I’m glad they found a nanny that fits in well for their family and needs.

    • Deb says:

      Assuming this woman is in fact a nanny or an employee…

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, true, but I don’t think the tabloids would lie, do you?

        (in all seriousness, I am sure they have a nanny or are trying to find one, whether or not this woman is actually their nanny.)

  9. Cidy says:

    Having a nanny is not a bad thing and I’m not going to shame Meg or Kate at all for it. I was a night nurse for a little bit and lived with my sister who had a newborn, so I was around babies 24/7 and it’s hard work. Even with just one baby a woman needs help, especially if the child’s other parent is busy, or they themselves are still working. There is no shame in getting childcare help.

    I’ve seen women get shamed for having babysitters at this point, this is a non-issue for me, I’m sure they did a lot of screening and interviewing and hired someone professional.

    • Wishingitwas says:

      I don’t think it’s a bad thing either. It makes me feel very jealous though. As a mother of three, I was in an abusive relationship and left alone with no help at all to raise my kids. Nobody doing the night shift and nobody giving me a break. Meghan is extremely fortunate to have a husband who probably helps and a nanny and she’s still only on baby number one. I can’t even imagine what that must feel like.

      Saying that though, I understand why people do become angry. Most people can’t afford that support and I know I’m far from alone in having to do it myself. People confuse their envy for anger.

      The Cambridge’s were exactly the same and the matter is made worse when they start to talk about their experiences as a parent and how they understand how hard it is. There’s hard and then there is HARD. We can’t expect the royals to be perfect, down to earth and relatable. The very nature of them prevents that

      • Becks1 says:

        @wishing – I’m sorry for your experience. That sounds like it was incredibly rough. I hope things are better now.

        I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. For me personally, I do not begrudge Kate or Meghan a nanny, housekeeper, etc. What gets me is the narrative that Kate is a mom “just like us”! No, no she’s not. And that’s fine, she has the means to have more help and it is what it is. I do think she is involved and “hands on” (I hate that term OMG) but she has significant help and I don’t get why people try to downplay that. Meghan will/does have help too. Its the nature of their lifestyles and roles.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        We had a nanny when the twinspawn were teensy, then I had one after my first husband passed away when Sean and Siobhan were toddlers. I’m lucky I could afford it. I don’t know that I would have made it without that help.

    • Your Cousin Vinny says:

      @paranormal girl, you lost your husband and your twins lost their father all when they were just toddlers? I’m so sorry, that must have been so hard on all of you. I hope life has gotten better and you found love and peace again.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        It was 14 years ago when my Sean passed. Life was tough for awhile, but I am now remarried and very secure, settled, and happy. Thank you.

  10. Lisa says:

    I am glad they found someone they can trust.

  11. GR says:

    I don’t have kids, but it sounds to me like every parent of a newborn should have a night nurse. That getting up every 1-2 hours sounds exhausting. As for the new nanny being being a woc – good for H&M. Archie shouldn’t grow up just around white people.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Agreed. I don’t have kids either but if/when I do I will definitely get a night nurse if I can. Giving birth to a whole human and then having to get up every couple of hours and breastfeeding on top of that. It’s so much. And I think it’s why so many women struggle in the beginning. Sleep-deprivation is no joke.

      • Millenial says:

        Thank you for that. Especially after spending a day in labor, then 1-2 days in the hospital getting literally zero sleep. I counted and in 1 24-hour period in the hospital, 35 different hospital staff (nurses, food, housekeeping, audiologist, etc…) came into my room. For a completely normal birth. Even during the supposed “quiet hours.” By the time I got home I hadn’t slept more than an hour in 3 days. And I was dealing with a baby waking every 1-2 hours to eat. It was horrible.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Millenial no worries. I think it’s ridiculous how new mothers are expected to be superheroes right after childbirth. It’s an unfair expectation. You need the most help at that time. I know in some countries the govt provides new mothers with help for up to a year. I think it should be that way everywhere. I think PPD cases would drop dramatically and new mother would have an overall more positive and healthy experience.

  12. Sof says:

    I remember the stories and they were ridiculous, they have every right to be picky when it comes to the person who is going to take care of their baby when they are not around.

  13. Cat says:

    I’m glad they’ve found a nanny they can trust and feel comfortable with! Privileges notwithstanding, Meghan is a first time mom in a fishbowl, which is hard enough as it is, and I’m sure Doria is visiting regularly, having a nanny is essential for their newly established family.

  14. kerwood says:

    They’re not even trying to hide the lunacy any more. Asking the public to assist them in stalking a working woman is absolutely insane. I know BP is too busy covering up for a pedophile to address this security issue but isn’t ANYBODY concerned about this?

    I find it interesting that the people who work for the Sussex family are called ‘Team Meghan’. It’s clear that they’re trying to separate Meghan (and Archie) from Harry in the public’s mind in order to make their attacks more palatable. Going after an uppity, BLACK American it’s more acceptable than going after the wife of the son of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Haters commenting in the worst tabloids have been trying to separate Meghan (and now her son too) from Harry since DAY 1.

  15. Lowrider says:

    They are going to smear this woman who may or may not be their nanny.
    They will smear her and her family, run her off then blame Meghan for losing staff.

    • Becks1 says:

      And they wonder why the Sussexes wont release the names of the godparents.

    • bamaborn says:

      Lowrider…just hope the lady has a strong backbone. Around those crazies, she’s going need some fortitude.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Lowrider they will smear the nanny until she can’t take it anymore and resign because of the stress. And the press will blame Meghan for that.

  16. TheOriginalMia says:

    They don’t know a thing. They wouldn’t be asking for information on the woman if they actually knew who she was.

  17. ojulia123 says:

    “[...] was seen boarding one of the gas-guzzling planes in Nice”

    Was that part necessary? Really?

    • summertime says:

      I read that and immediately thought that approximately 87 eye roll emojis might be enough to explain how ridiculous that statement was.

  18. LuLu says:

    Having a night nanny can save marriages and minds. We could not afford one so had to make do and my family could only stay the first week. My husband could not take paternity leave, and as soon as my mom and dad left all hell broke loose. I almost divorced my husband because he was so selfish about the fact that I was getting no sleep. He felt that because he was working everyday I should’ve been cleaning the house and running errands while baby slept. A week after being home from the hospital! I was still wearing a diaper at that point and getting no sleep.
    Bless the women that help new moms because it is truly a trying time.

    Also, why do they always insinuate that Kate and Meg are the ones in control of nannies and assistants? If there was any firing done I am 100% sure the men make those decisions. I believe without a doubt that Will and Harry are both spoiled princes who found really down-to-earth women to put up with them, as both ladies gained more from the marriage than an aristo would have. These stories the DF put out continue to confirm that those brothers are uptight moody tyrants, in my opinion. I do not think either Meg or Kate have as much power and sway with the BRF as people would like to believe.

  19. Lily says:

    I think we should all spam the DM’s email addresses with guesses about who the nanny is. I’ve heard she took care of the Monaco kids! Also, she might be a twice-divorced American extra from the set of Suits (name unknown). Also, she might be Meghan’s secret half sister from her father’s just-uncovered affair with a woman of color 45 years ago, who was his first wife, whom he did not divorce prior to marrying Meghan’s mother. The woman threatened to go public, so they hired her on as a nanny for exorbitant sums (public funds, obvi, how dare they) to keep her quiet. SCANDAL! [This should keep the Fail occupied for weeks...]

  20. blunt talker says:

    I just read before coming to this site that this nanny was also a nanny for Suri Cruise. I don’t know if this is true.

  21. Rae says:

    I don’t want the give the DF clicks; can anyone tell me if the “unprofessional” description is expanded? Any ideas as to why the first full time nanny was fired?

    Leaking to the press?

  22. Some chick says:

    OK, but what about Pedo Andy? What about all the other private jet trips all the other royals take?

    Hell, Pedo Andy used to be called “Air Miles Andy” because of his extensive travels. But nevermind that (and while you’re at it, nevermind the whole sex trafficking of girls thing). We’ve got a beautiful, successful, beloved duchess of color to kick around now!

    The thing that has them all the most pressed is how good she is at her role. Chumps.

  23. Exhausted says:

    How is that her fault?

  24. notasugarhere says:

    Another person complaining about fair and balanced Meghan coverage while claiming to be a supporter. Yawn.