That’s been buzzing across the internet—a topic that’s left many of us scratching our heads, raising eyebrows, and asking some very serious questions. Let me tell you, this isn’t your ordinary Royal gossip. No, this is about a so-called Royal who has made it her life’s mission to manipulate and exploit every single opportunity. I’m talking about none other than the Z-lister, self-proclaimed Royal herself, Meghan Markle.

We’re going to dissect what can only be described as one of her most shameless, calculated, and downright bizarre PR stunts.

Meghan, the woman who has built her entire brand on victimhood, performative activism, and a desperate need for attention, has done it yet again. This time, she’s allegedly using her own child—yes, a child—as a prop. Meghan’s new brand, American Riviera Orchard, has been caught red-handed in what many are calling a blatant PR plot.

Now, of course, our beloved Prince William, Catherine, King Charles, and Camilla—you’re going to want to hear this. And if you’re someone who, like me, sees through the charade of Harry and Meghan’s never-ending drama, you’re going to want to grab a cup of tea and sit back.

On Meghan’s website, there’s an image of a child—a little girl. At first glance, you might think, How sweet! But hold on just a second. Let’s not jump to conclusions here because, when you take a closer look, something doesn’t quite add up. In fact, there are three glaring red flags that suggest this child might not be Lilibet at all.

First, let’s talk about the height of the child in the picture. Meghan is 5’5” (about 1.68 meters). The average height of a 3-year-old is between 37 and 40 inches. Lilibet, who is 4 years old, is on the taller end of the spectrum. Now, if Lilibet is indeed 3 feet 3 inches tall, she should be coming up to about Meghan’s hip, right? But in the picture, the child is significantly shorter.

I’m not a mathematician, but something about those numbers just doesn’t add up. If this child is supposed to be Lilibet, why is she so much shorter than she should be? It’s almost as if the child in the picture is… not Lilibet.

So, why the sudden concern about showing Lilibet’s face? Could it be because this child isn’t Lilibet at all? Or could it be because they’re using a random child as a prop? Now, I know some of you might be thinking, Come on, this is just speculation. We don’t have proof. And you’re right—of course, I don’t have proof. But let’s not forget who we’re dealing with here.

This is Meghan we’re talking about—a woman who has built her brand on curated images and calculated moves. This is the same woman who claimed she didn’t know who Prince Harry was before they met, despite the fact that she had been photographed at Buckingham Palace years before. She claimed she was unaware of Royal Family protocols, despite the fact that she had been coached and prepped for months before her wedding. This is the same woman who reportedly used her children’s portraits in a never-ending quest for relevance.

So, is it really that far-fetched to believe she’s using a child as a prop?Let’s not forget the bigger picture here. Meghan and Harry have been on a mission to rebrand themselves as philanthropists, activists, and entrepreneurs. But let’s be real—their so-called work has been nothing more than a series of PR stunts designed to keep them in the headlines. From their ridiculous Spotify deal to their laughable Netflix documentary, they’ve done nothing but exploit their Royal connections for profit.

And now, with this new brand, it seems like they’re at it again—using a child, whether it’s Lilibet or not, as a prop to sell jam and home goods. That’s a new low, even for them.

So, friends, let’s not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of Meghan and Harry’s never-ending drama. Let’s not fall for their carefully crafted PR stunts. And let’s not forget who the real villains of this story are. Because, at the end of the day, it’s not about jam, home goods, or even children. It’s about integrity, honesty, and the truth—and that’s something that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry seem to have forgotten.