The question of who Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s daughter, Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, resembles has sparked intense speculation,...
The question of who Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s daughter, Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, resembles has sparked intense speculation, fueled by a toxic blend of public fascination, media sensationalism, and outright conspiracy theories. Born on June 4, 2021, in Santa Barbara, California, Lilibet—affectionately called Lili—has been largely shielded from the public eye, with only rare glimpses shared by her parents. This intentional privacy has not quelled the relentless scrutiny of her appearance or the baseless conspiracies surrounding her very existence. The discourse around Lilibet’s resemblance and the conspiracy theories targeting her reveal a disturbing undercurrent of racism, misogyny, and obsession with the Sussexes, perpetuated by a media machine and online trolls who thrive on division and defamation.
Lilibet’s physical appearance, as seen in the few images released, has prompted royal watchers and fans to draw comparisons to both her parents and extended family. A 2022 photo from her first birthday, captured by photographer Misan Harriman, shows a toddler with red hair, a trait strongly associated with Prince Harry and his late mother, Princess Diana. Some fans, as noted in a 2024 Romper article, point to Lilibet’s resemblance to a young Meghan Markle, citing similarities in facial structure, while others see echoes of Harry’s baby photos, particularly in her fair complexion and red locks. Posts on X further amplify this, with users like
@raosnaps
claiming Lilibet “resembles her Grandma Princess Diana and her Dad Prince Harry,” a sentiment echoed by others who see the “Spencer gene” dominating her features. Yet, these discussions are rarely innocent. The fixation on Lilibet’s appearance often carries a sinister undertone, with critics dissecting her features to question her legitimacy or to fuel narratives about Meghan’s heritage. The implication that a biracial woman could not produce a child with Lilibet’s fair skin and red hair betrays a deep-seated racial bias, as highlighted by an X post from
@MrReynolds52
, which condemns such speculation as rooted in racism.
The conspiracy theories surrounding Lilibet are far more egregious, revealing a vicious campaign to discredit Meghan and Harry. One of the most outrageous claims, propagated by online “pregnancy truthers” and amplified by Meghan’s estranged half-sister, Samantha Markle, asserts that Lilibet (and her brother Archie) were not born to Meghan but via surrogate, or worse, that they do not exist at all. A 2022 BuzzFeed News report exposed how Samantha’s Twitter account allegedly pushed these theories, including demands for “proof of delivery from my sister’s womb” to validate the children’s royal titles. Such claims, which Samantha later attributed to hacking, are not only baseless but maliciously designed to undermine Meghan’s credibility as a mother. The notion that Meghan faked her pregnancies—supported by no credible evidence beyond doctored videos and speculative social media posts—has been debunked by reputable sources like PolitiFact, which confirmed Lilibet’s birth certificate, listing her birth at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Yet, these conspiracies persist, fueled by a segment of the public and media who revel in portraying Meghan as deceitful.
Another conspiracy centers on Lilibet’s name, which Meghan and Harry chose to honor Queen Elizabeth II’s childhood nickname. Reports from Robert Hardman’s book Charles III: New King, New Court allege that the Queen was “furious” at the Sussexes’ claim that she had given her blessing for the name, with one aide recalling her as “as angry as I’d ever seen her.” Royal biographer Angela Levin escalated this narrative, accusing Meghan of “copyrighting” the name before Lilibet’s birth, an act described as “appalling” and disrespectful to the Queen’s legacy. The Sussexes’ legal team countered that Harry sought his grandmother’s approval, stating they would not have used the name without her support. This controversy, while less fantastical than the surrogate claims, paints Meghan as manipulative, exploiting a revered royal nickname for personal gain. The accusation conveniently ignores the couple’s stated intent to honor both the Queen and Princess Diana, whose middle name Lilibet also carries.
These conspiracies are not mere gossip; they are a calculated assault on Meghan’s character, rooted in a broader pattern of vilification. The “pregnancy truther” movement, as detailed by BuzzFeed, fixates on archaic British laws about royal heirs being born “of the body,” questioning Lilibet’s and Archie’s legitimacy in the line of succession. This obsession reflects a deeper discomfort with Meghan’s biracial identity and her disruption of the royal status quo. Similarly, the name controversy amplifies a narrative of Meghan as an outsider who disrespects royal tradition, despite her and Harry’s clear efforts to maintain familial ties through their daughter’s name. The media’s role in perpetuating these theories is reprehensible, with outlets like the Daily Mail and Hindustan Times amplifying unverified claims while framing Meghan as the antagonist. Such reporting thrives on clicks, not truth, exploiting public curiosity to sow discord.
The condemnation here lies not only with the conspiracy theorists but with the media and public figures who give them a platform. Samantha Markle’s relentless attacks, cloaked in the guise of “family concern,” are a shameful bid for relevance, leveraging Meghan’s fame to fuel her own narrative. The royal establishment, too, bears responsibility for failing to unequivocally denounce these falsehoods, allowing them to fester in the public domain. The fixation on Lilibet’s appearance—whether she “looks white” or resembles Diana—exposes a broader societal failure to confront racial biases head-on. Meghan and Harry’s decision to shield their children from the spotlight is a direct response to this toxic environment, yet it is twisted into further “proof” of deception by those who thrive on outrage.
In conclusion, the question of Lilibet’s resemblance is overshadowed by a far uglier reality: a campaign of conspiracies designed to dehumanize and delegitimize Meghan Markle. Lilibet, a four-year-old child, is collateral damage in a war waged by trolls, tabloids, and estranged relatives. Whether she resembles Harry, Meghan, or Diana is irrelevant when her very existence is questioned by those who refuse to accept a biracial woman’s place in the royal narrative. The media’s complicity in amplifying these falsehoods, from surrogate rumors to name controversies, is a damning indictment of an industry that prioritizes profit over truth. As Lilibet grows, one can only hope she is spared the vitriol directed at her mother, but the current trajectory of public discourse offers little optimism. The real scandal is not Lilibet’s appearance or her name—it’s the unchecked malice that seeks to tear her family apart.
