The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 11: 7 May - 31 Dec 2025

[Somebody]

In the interview with Hassan Minhaj warned parents against putting their children on social media because of all the risks involved - although he stressed it is something the parents must decide for themselves. I guess the two of them have decided that it is ok for them to put them on social media as long as their faces aren't visible but it seems a bit of a double standard.

 

[Marengo]

He partied last week with several owners of these social media platforms so perhaps he has revisited his objections since the Minhaj interview.

 

[Curryong]

Surely it would be more accurate to say that Harry (and Meghan) attended the same star’s 60th birthday party as these men? They didn’t invite them, ask for them to be invited, arrive or depart with any of those moguls and Harry doesn’t appear to have had any conversations with them at the event, apart perhaps from an ‘Hello, how are you?’

 

[TLLK]

The Duchess of Sussex shared a photo on social media to mark Thanksgiving and promote the Archewell Foundation.
The duke and duchess were joined by their 2 children at a community kitchen in Los Angeles to help serve Thanksgiving meals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/li...hie-lilibet-meghan-markle-harry-b2873944.html
WATCH: Princess Lilibet, 4, sports fiery Rapunzel hair in new Thanksgiving photos with Prince Archie

Most Los Angeles City and County shelters that have commercial kitchens have strict age limits for young people who want to help. (I'm a LACo. resident and both of my own children were participating in these types of activities when they were going through their Confirmation preparation.) Typically the age range with parent permission is 16 years of age if you prepare food and 14 if you are simply packing food. Also there's strict County Health codes that require that hair be restrained, so hopefully Meghan had a hair tie in her pocket for when the photos were finished being taken.

The Sussexes must have found one that was open to having younger children in the kitchen or the children were present for a few photos and then were taken out of the food preparation area.

 

[yukari]

In the photos of Archie, he is wearing a shirt that identifies a specific local soccer school. Given their security concerns, I'm surprised the Sussexes don't see that as risky. It also turns him into a walking billboard for the school.

Lots of kids wear stuff like that, of course, but he's not "lots of kids" -- especially when he's in Hello and on his mother's Instagram.

They're in America, not the UK. His safety concerns is only in the UK, you know the most dangerous place on Earth. Whoever people endangering them somehow can't leave the UK, so his children will be safe anywhere else.

In other news, there this stealing a dress saga involving Meghan and now their aides is threatening lawsuit.

Meghan Markle aide threatens defamation suit over stolen dress stories

Meghan Markle's spokesperson shoots down "categorically false, but also highly defamatory" allegations.

www.newsweek.com

So this saga started with PageSix reporting that she stole the dress she's wearing on the Variety photoshot, then few days later her spokesperson sent statement to People mags denying it.

Meghan Markle's Spokesperson Reacts to Claims She Took $1,700 Dress from Photo Shoot (Exclusive)

After Meghan Markle appeared in a dress she had previously worn in 2022 photo shoot, reports claimed that she took the outfit from the set without permission. Here's what her spokesperson said on the claims.

people.com

 

[Toledo]

If I recall some basic rules on these photoshoots are worded out in a contract that may include the celebrity to keep the items worn as a form of free publicity for the designer. Many of these outfits are one of a kind, or duplicated for one use or session only, go back to storage and then rented or borrowed away. They end up brought back to the representative of the designer or the magazine. A famous one was JLOs green dress that bounced around for years and many dresses made by Bob Mackie (Cher, Ann Margret, Tina Turner, Carol Burnet, etc.) go all over the place and end up in auctions unless the agreement says the celebrity can keep one of the copies made.

I don't think Meghan took home anything without the knowledge of the people involved in the photoshoot. The celebrity arrives to the venue, she's put on a dress and made up by stylists from head to toe for the picture and changes to go home. If they gave her the dress to keep it had to be with their agreement or someone at the venue would have stopped her.
This situation happened with another celebrity, a nasty one, Sharon Stone when a jeweler allowed to wear a necklace valued in millions and she decided to take it home and claim it was a gift. They took her to court for stealing it.

I don't think Meghan took anything in 2022 and now it was discovered in 2025 by Page Six. They needed content on a slow news week.

 

[TLLK]

IMO 2025 has been quite the year for the couple with some notable disappointments ie: Harry's security case ruling, the Netflix multi-year deal not being renewed and some real positives ie: Meghan's online business "As Ever" was finally launched.
Curious to see what is in store for the couple in 2026.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In other news, there this stealing a dress saga involving Meghan and now their aides is threatening lawsuit.

Meghan Markle aide threatens defamation suit over stolen dress stories

Meghan Markle's spokesperson shoots down "categorically false, but also highly defamatory" allegations.

www.newsweek.com

So this saga started with PageSix reporting that she stole the dress she's wearing on the Variety photoshot, then few days later her spokesperson sent statement to People mags denying it.

Meghan Markle's Spokesperson Reacts to Claims She Took $1,700 Dress from Photo Shoot (Exclusive)

After Meghan Markle appeared in a dress she had previously worn in 2022 photo shoot, reports claimed that she took the outfit from the set without permission. Here's what her spokesperson said on the claims.

people.com

Jack Royston’s article in Newsweek actually seems to blame the accusation of stealing clothes on this report by Paula Froelich in NewsNation.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/entertainment-news/meghan-markle-stealing-allegations-fashion/

However, Ms. Froelich’s article merely quotes allegations made last year by journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis, podcaster Andrew Gold, and author Tom Bower in his book “Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors”.

Ms. Froelich’s article also includes a denial from a “source close to Meghan” and ultimately concludes (albeit in a snarky manner) that the accusations are probably unwarranted.

“In Tom Bower’s book “Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors,” he claims Meghan left the set of a 2016 ad shoot for Reitmans with wardrobe items — specifically mentioning she “forgot to leave behind the Aquazzura shoes” used for the campaign, shoes that later showed up on the official photo of her engagement announcement to Harry a year later.

[...]

“Sticky fingers at the end of a photoshoot is not unheard of,” [Vanessa] Grigoriadis said before alleging Meghan had committed the same sin again.

“Recently, that’s happening again. And I think that’s what might be most surprising to people because she’s now somebody who’s now, I mean, I can’t remember the exact figures, but what was it? $100 million for the Netflix documentary, $20 million for Spotify, despite having done pretty much no work, being called effing grifters for the work that they did in that,” [Andrew] Gold said.

“You would think that this is somebody who now has a reputation to uphold and doesn’t need the money, but she’s been stealing stuff,” Gold continued.

Meghan’s rep didn’t return emails about the Galvan gown — and whether or not Meghan took it (unpaid) from the Variety shoot.

However, a source close to Meghan said she didn’t take the dresses and that retaining select items worn by the Duchess is standard practice.

[...]

While Meghan is on the cover of the December issue of Harper’s Bazaar, we’re sure everything was returned … under the eagle eye of the stylists on set.”​

I am no fan of news stories that repeat thinly substantiated allegations and bury the denial at the end, but I would have thought the planned legal letters would be directed at the persons who actually made the accusations in 2024 and earlier.

It is interesting that the Duchess of Sussex originally issued her denial to NewsNation through an anonymous “source close to Meghan” (while having her official representative not return calls), but then had her official spokesperson issue the same denial to Newsweek, on the record.

The official denial statement also confirms that the Duchess (legally) accepts freebies from photoshoots.

 

[Hallo girl]

IMO 2025 has been quite the year for the couple with some notable disappointments ie: Harry's security case ruling, the Netflix multi-year deal not being renewed and some real positives ie: Meghan's online business "As Ever" was finally launched.
Curious to see what is in store for the couple in 2026.

Yes a year of mixed fortunes, it will be interesting to see the direction 'As Ever' takes, I am sure there are new products in the horizon, I would like to see them a bit more relatable with regards price, it could possibly extend to an even bigger customer base.

 

[Toledo]

Jack Royston’s article in Newsweek actually seems to blame the accusation of stealing clothes on this report by Paula Froelich in NewsNation.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/entertainment-news/meghan-markle-stealing-allegations-fashion/

However, Ms. Froelich’s article merely quotes allegations made last year by journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis, podcaster Andrew Gold, and author Tom Bower in his book “Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors”.

Ms. Froelich’s article also includes a denial from a “source close to Meghan” and ultimately concludes (albeit in a snarky manner) that the accusations are probably unwarranted.

“In Tom Bower’s book “Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors,” he claims Meghan left the set of a 2016 ad shoot for Reitmans with wardrobe items — specifically mentioning she “forgot to leave behind the Aquazzura shoes” used for the campaign, shoes that later showed up on the official photo of her engagement announcement to Harry a year later.​

​

[...]​

​

“Sticky fingers at the end of a photoshoot is not unheard of,” [Vanessa] Grigoriadis said before alleging Meghan had committed the same sin again.​

​

“Recently, that’s happening again. And I think that’s what might be most surprising to people because she’s now somebody who’s now, I mean, I can’t remember the exact figures, but what was it? $100 million for the Netflix documentary, $20 million for Spotify, despite having done pretty much no work, being called effing grifters for the work that they did in that,” [Andrew] Gold said.​

​

“You would think that this is somebody who now has a reputation to uphold and doesn’t need the money, but she’s been stealing stuff,” Gold continued.​

​

Meghan’s rep didn’t return emails about the Galvan gown — and whether or not Meghan took it (unpaid) from the Variety shoot. ​

​

However, a source close to Meghan said she didn’t take the dresses and that retaining select items worn by the Duchess is standard practice.​

​

[...]​

​

While Meghan is on the cover of the December issue of Harper’s Bazaar, we’re sure everything was returned … under the eagle eye of the stylists on set.”​

I am no fan of news stories that repeat thinly substantiated allegations and bury the denial at the end, but I would have thought the planned legal letters would be directed at the persons who actually made the accusations in 2024 and earlier.

It is interesting that the Duchess of Sussex originally issued her denial to NewsNation through an anonymous “source close to Meghan” (while having her official representative not return calls), but then had her official spokesperson issue the same denial to Newsweek, on the record.

The official denial statement also confirms that the Duchess (legally) accepts freebies from photoshoots.

If I could give advice to Meghan, and trust me I'm not a fan of her antics but here I'm on the defense team, I would have her wear that damn dress and shoes at a high profile event and get on a microphone to say:
"NO, I didn't steal this outfit, but call a fashion police cop and get me on Page Six again for the free publicity!"

And laugh it off.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't know, this isn't the first time Meghan has considered clothes to be "gifts" that she is entitled to keep.
Remember the Rene & Russo engagement dress?

But at least now designers must realize that they won't see their creations again, and consider the loss the cost of publicity.

 

[kalnel]

If there were a real issue here, the fashion houses would make sure it’s spelled out in the contract. They don’t leave this stuff to chance.

This feels like one of those evergreen Meghan stories they keep for a slow news week: “It’s Tuesday — release the Dress Rumor.”

 

[Somebody]

Why would it need to be spelled out in the contract that clothing that you borrow for a photoshoot (i.e., is provided to you to wear at that particular moment) cannot be taken home? I'd say it is normal that you don't take home what isn't yours...

Actors and actresses for example cannot take their costumes home either just because they wear it on set. I doubt it is spelled out in their contract that they cannot take things home from set just because they used it on set. That's normal practice: you don't take what is yours. It should be spelled out if you are allowed (I doubt that happens) or you should officially be given permission to take a particular item home (it seems not uncommon that some minor tokens are kept by the lead characters in a movie or series).

For reference: this of course also applies to office supplies for those working in an office; it's not yours to keep - although some people might take some things home occasionally, that doesn't make it right; and it's not the company's fault if that isn't spelled out in your contract. There is no need to do so.

 

[kalnel]

I’m speaking specifically about how fashion houses handle this. On editorial shoots and brand jobs, the terms for what must be returned — and what, if anything, can be kept — are in the contract.

And it goes both ways. Sometimes designers want the celebrity to keep an outfit because it guarantees more attention for the piece once the photos circulate; other times everything has to be returned item-by-item. It all depends on what the brand wants.

That’s why these recurring “sticky fingers” stories don’t really add up for me. If there were an actual pattern, the brands would have tightened the paperwork long before it turned into a tabloid evergreen.

 

[Toledo]

I’m speaking specifically about how fashion houses handle this. On editorial shoots and brand jobs, the terms for what must be returned — and what, if anything, can be kept — are in the contract.
And it goes both ways. Sometimes designers want the celebrity to keep an outfit because it guarantees more attention for the piece once the photos circulate; other times everything has to be returned item-by-item. It all depends on what the brand wants.
That’s why these recurring “sticky fingers” stories don’t really add up for me. If there were an actual pattern, the brands would have tightened the paperwork long before it turned into a tabloid evergreen.

If there were a real issue here, the fashion houses would make sure it’s spelled out in the contract. They don’t leave this stuff to chance.
This feels like one of those evergreen Meghan stories they keep for a slow news week: “It’s Tuesday — release the Dress Rumor.”

From what I've seen in videos about photoshoots, everything is worded out in a contract and if celebrities agree to be 'models' they can add a clause to keep what clothing they wore. This is an advantage for the designer since having his expensive dress, or shoes, be seen, photographed and identified in public is less expensive than the costume's price compared to placing an ad.

If the designer agrees to give away expensive merchandise to a celebrity, in this case let's say its Meghan, the designer's accountant takes care or that as a business expense. It's a win win.

There has to be more than one dress available for the session that can last for hours, in case it get's stained or damaged. I mentioned above the famous JLO green dress that she claimed was lost and to recreate it recently they had to reprint the fabric. A few years back we were watching an episode of Rupaul's Drag Race USA and a drag queen came down the runaway claiming it was the JLO dress he got at an auction. The part not shared is there were multiple copies that ended all over but to keep the JLO myth (just like her fake singing) it was said there was only one dress.

If Meghan wants to include in her contract to keep one of the copies of the clothing she modeled, she's smart and it benefits the designer. But let's hope she didn't keep that princess Leia monstrosity she wore in Paris. We don't want to see that pajama dress again.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Christmas Holiday special of With Love, Meghan drops this week

 

[Toledo]

The Christmas Holiday special of With Love, Meghan drops this week

Can't wait to see the back of the heads of the kids again.

 

[MissByrd]

Can't wait to see the back of the heads of the kids again.

Always a thrill.

 

[Curryong]

Plenty of people in the public eye, including some members of Harry’s family, don’t show their kids’ faces on their IG. Meghan has every right not to show either of her children’s faces on her videos etc if she doesn’t want to. And nobody has any obligation at all to watch any of it if they don’t wish to.

 

[Toledo]

Plenty of people in the public eye, including some members of Harry’s family, don’t show their kids’ faces on their IG. Meghan has every right not to show either of her children’s faces on her videos etc. if she doesn’t want to. And nobody has any obligation at all to watch any of it if they don’t wish to.

I'll still watch, maybe this time Meghan will allow them to speak instead of speaking for them which is really she editing the narrative on what the kids never said.

The big question is, will Harry be allowed to participate in his family's holiday celebration, as in talking about how Christmas was celebrated by his royal ancestors. You know, the UK royals that are the reason Harry has a title for Mrs. Princess Harry Windsor-Mountbatten to market on a bottle of jam.

Oops, I made a typo, according to Meghan's statement on TV they all changed names to Sussex. Another reason to watch the show and catch if anyone brings that surname change up again.

 

[kalnel]

Plenty of people in the public eye, including some members of Harry’s family, don’t show their kids’ faces on their IG. Meghan has every right not to show either of her children’s faces on her videos etc if she doesn’t want to. And nobody has any obligation at all to watch any of it if they don’t wish to.

Fair enough — but if Meghan and Harry are that committed to privacy, why show any part of the children at all? That inconsistency — like last week’s identifiable t-shirt — undercuts the sincerity of their stated concerns.

I’d respect either approach: fully shielding the kids or including them more openly. But the ‘half-in, half-out’ pattern keeps resurfacing, even in things like this. Not a good plan.

 

[Toledo]

Fair enough — but if Meghan and Harry are that committed to privacy, why show any part of the children at all? That inconsistency — like last week’s identifiable t-shirt — undercuts the sincerity of their stated concerns.

I’d respect either approach: fully shielding the kids or including them more openly. But the ‘half-in, half-out’ pattern keeps resurfacing, even in things like this. Not a good plan.

Now that you mention plans, I won't be surprised if teenage clothing becomes another Meghan business thing at some point with the As Ever logo printed on the pockets.

 

[TLLK]

Here's a few reviews of the Holiday Special from "With Love Meghan." Apparently, Guy the beagle who passed away in 2025. is seen in the footage. So this program must have been filmed in 2024 or very early 2025.

Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration, Netflix review: This special overc…

archived 3 Dec 2025 10:11:19 UTC

archive.ph

Meghan Markle’s insipid Christmas special isn’t fun, enjoyable or aspirational

None of us mere mortals will ever have a Christmas like this, but we can endure Meghan’s Netflix special as numbing content in the background of our holiday season

www.the-independent.com

The 12 Most Revealing Moments from Meghan Markle’s Netflix Holiday Special — Yes, Prince Harry Pops In

Meghan Markle's new Netflix holiday special offers a personal look yet at the traditions she’s building with Prince Harry and their children

people.com

 

[Blog Real]

Thomas Markle, the Duchess of Sussex's father, is in intensive care after emergency surgery.

Meghan Markle's father Thomas is in intensive care in hospital

Thomas Markle, 81, who has been estranged from his daughter since her 2018 marriage to Prince Harry, was rushed to hospital on Tuesday after being taken gravely ill at home.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Diarist]

Before Meghan's marriage, I remember that she collaborated with a Canadian Fashion company. She asked for -and was given - a pair of expensive designer shoes to accessorise the clothes, which she was modelling. Later apparently the expensive designer shoes disappeared and were never returned or seen again. Was this true? I don't know but it was widely reported in a number of papers, tabloid or otherwise. I just don't think this kind of thing helps Meghan....

 

[Curryong]

That story comes from 2017, nearly nine years ago. We don’t known whether the shoes were given to her, whether they were regarded as perks, or had anything to do with Meghan. The other story, of the green dress, comes from 2022, over three years ago.

One might ask why these sort of stories are circulating now, at the end of 2025. Slow news month? Can’t get anybody from their staff to speak ill about the Sussexes at this time? Journalists raking round very old and probably untrue anti-Meghan media tales. Or what?

 

[Hallo girl]

Was that guy in the Christmas programme or is it a new dog. I thought Guy died some time ago, that is why I thought it is a new addition to the family.

 

[Somebody]

According to various sources the program was taped last year but only now released.

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

I don't know if it's a fault per se, but Meghan seems to try too hard in the videos. For me it's an authenticity thing. She always tries to be 'on' and for me it doesn't work.

 

[Hallo girl]

According to various sources the program was taped last year but only now released.

I did wonder , but unsure. So were series 1 and 2 and the Xmas special all more or less around the same time. So series 2 and the Xmas special were nothing to do with the success or otherwise of series 1