Prince Philip’s brutal nickname for Meghan Markle revealed

According to a royal expert, the late Prince Philip had a rather pointed nickname for the Duchess of Sussex, and it wasn’t so kind.

The nickname suggested a comparison to Wallis Simpson, the controversial wife of the former King Edward VIII, drawing parallels between Meghan Markle and Wallis, both American and divorced when they married into the royal family.

Prince Philip supposedly referred to Meghan with a name that made reference to this connection.

Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII

Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée who became the Duchess of Windsor, was one of the most controversial royal figures in recent history after King Edward VIII decided to abdicate the throne in December 1936 (after less than a year as a monarch) to be able to marry her.

Credit: Getty.

At the time, royals were prohibited from entering into a marriage with a divorced person – a rule that did not change until 2002, just three years before the then-Prince Charles married Camilla, per the Royal Observer.

Following King Edward and Wallis Simpson’s marriage, they were not allowed to return home without the permission of his brother, the new King George VI, as there were fears it could potentially cause public unrest, Vogue detailed.

During their years of exile, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor constantly attracted headlines – with one of their most shocking incidents occurring in 1937 when they visited Nazi Germany and were photographed giving the notorious Nazi salute upon meeting Adolf Hitler.

In October 1937, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor visited Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. Credit: Universal History Archive / Universal Images Group / Getty.

Prince Philip’s brutal nickname

Royal biographer Ingrid Seward shed light on Prince Philip’s perspective during an interview with GB News, suggesting that he thought Meghan and Wallis Simpson had many similarities, leading to the adoption of a discreet nickname for the Duchess of Sussex.

Allegedly Prince Philip, who Seward says was known for his astute judgment of character, couldn’t overlook the resemblances between Meghan and Prince Harry and Edward and Mrs. Simpson.

Credit: Matt Dunham – WPA Pool / Getty.

“I think that Prince Philip was very canny about people and he didn’t always see bad in people, he often tried to see the good in them,” Seward said.

“He just could not get away from the similarities between Meghan and Harry and Edward and Ms Simpson, which his why he used to call her the Duchess of Windsor. Not to her face though, he used to call her DOW,” she added.

In her book ‘My Mother and I‘, Seward delved further into Prince Philip’s reservations about Meghan, describing him as “wary” of the former Suits actress and her potential impact on the royal family.

While Prince Philip saw Meghan as potentially disruptive, Queen Elizabeth II held “high hopes” for her, indicating differing perspectives within the royal family regarding Meghan’s role and influence.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left royal life

Since stepping back from their royal duties in 2020 and relocating to California, Meghan and Harry have maintained a relatively low profile within the royal sphere.

While Harry is set to visit the UK for the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, with a service to be held at St. Paul’s Cathedral on May 8, according to the Daily Express. Meghan is expected to remain in the US, citing safety concerns and a desire to avoid stirring up controversy.

Despite occasional returns to the UK for significant events like Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral in 2022, Meghan has opted out of attending others, such as King Charles III’s coronation, which Harry attended alone last year.

It’s clear that Meghan is choosing to prioritizing her safety and peace amidst constant scrutiny and public interest in her relationship with the royal family.

What did you think of this story? Be sure to let us know in the comments!

My Ex Left Me with His Son from a Previous Marriage 10 Years Ago — Yesterday, He Showed Up in My Yard with a Lawyer

Ten years after vanishing, Sara’s ex-fiancé, Daniel, reappears on her doorstep with a lawyer, demanding custody of the son he’d abandoned. Secrets unravel as Sara fights to protect the life she built with Adam, and the true reason behind Daniel’s sudden return threatens everything.

Yesterday, while Adam got ready for school upstairs, I savored my last sip of coffee when the doorbell rang. I assumed it was a neighbor or the mailman.

But when I opened the door, my heart lurched.

Daniel.

I hadn’t thought about him in years, except in fleeting moments when Adam asked about his father. But this was not how I imagined seeing him again.

He stood there, ten years older but unchanged. Next to him was a man in an expensive suit, clutching a folder.

“Why are you here?” I croaked.

Daniel cut to the chase. “I’m here to take back my son.”

My heart stopped. After a decade of silence, he thought he could waltz back and take Adam away?

“You’re not taking him,” I whispered. “You have no right.”

Daniel’s lawyer stepped forward, handing me the folder. “Ma’am, you’ve been served.”

My hands shook as I read the legal jargon: custody, contest, court. My life with Adam, built over ten years, was about to unravel.

Ten years ago

Daniel had swept into my life, bringing his three-year-old son, Adam, from his previous marriage. He was charming but broken, and I thought I could fix him. Adam was the best part, and I became his stepmom, feeling like I belonged.

Then one morning, I woke up to an empty bed. I thought he might’ve gone for a run, but hours passed with no sign of him. Panic set in when I found the note: “I’m sorry, but I have to go.”

I was left to explain to Adam that his daddy was gone. He didn’t cry but said, “Daddy said he’d come back one day.” Weeks turned into months, and Adam stopped asking.

After Daniel left, I faced a nightmare. Child Protective Services got involved, and as a stepmom, I had no legal rights. They didn’t care that I was the only mother Adam knew. I fought tirelessly, enduring sleepless nights and endless court dates, and in the end, I won. I adopted Adam legally and vowed no one would take him from me again.

The present day

Staring at the legal papers, rage and fear washed over me.

“Mom?” Adam’s hesitant voice broke through my thoughts. I realized he had overheard everything.

“It’s nothing,” I lied, forcing a smile. But it wasn’t fine.

I hired a lawyer, determined to protect Adam. As the case unfolded, we discovered Daniel’s true motive: Adam’s grandfather had recently passed down a large inheritance, and Daniel wanted custody to get his hands on Adam’s money.

The court hearing came quickly. My lawyer, Judith, prepped me for the questions, but nothing prepared me for seeing Daniel again. His lawyer argued that Daniel, as Adam’s biological father, had the right to custody, painting him as a man ready to step up.

But Judith laid out the truth: Daniel hadn’t been a part of Adam’s life for ten years. Then she revealed the inheritance, stating Daniel was motivated by greed, not love.

The judge turned to Adam. “You’re thirteen now; I want to hear from you.”

Adam stood, surprising everyone. “Sara has been my mom for ten years. I don’t know the man sitting there. I want to stay with the only person who has ever cared for me.”

The courtroom fell silent.

The judge nodded, her expression softening. “Your decision is clear.” With that, the gavel came down. Adam would stay with me.

Daniel left the courtroom, a defeated shadow of the man I once loved.

Outside, Adam turned to me, smiling. “I’m glad it’s over, Mom.”

“Me too,” I whispered, pulling him into a tight embrace.

As we walked down the courthouse steps, Adam asked, “What do we do with the inheritance now?”

I smiled softly. “That money is yours, Adam. I’ll never take a cent of it. It’s for your future.”

He looked up, his eyes full of warmth. “My future is with you, Mom.”

This work is inspired by real events but has been fictionalized for creative purposes. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or events is purely coincidental. The author and publisher make no claims to the accuracy of events or character portrayals and are not liable for any misinterpretation.

Related Posts

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*