Did Charles and Di have a secret daughter?
That’s the outlandish story that’s gripped America — claiming Wills and Harry have an IVF sister living in hiding. So is there a single scrap of evidence?
insisted that Kate ‘ nervously waited’ in her suite at New York’s Carlyle Hotel ‘ for the arrival of the mystery woman, known as Sarah, who believes she is William’s older sister’.
‘Sources say Sarah was smuggled into Kate’s sitting room by aides under the guise of being part of the royal party’s domestic staff. And an informed insider [yet another one!] has revealed exclusively to Globe that Kate was left almost speechless at her first sight of Sarah.
‘ “She’s tall, elegant and the spitting image of Princess Diana,” declares the source. “They spent exactly 44 minutes together while Sarah answered Kate’s questions a bout her upbringing wi t h apparent honesty.”’
Even if any of this story were true, can anyone believe that William — whose protective attitude towards Kate was so manifest on the day of their engagement — would allow his pregnant wife to deal alone with such a woman?
Globe magazine is also deeply unconvincing in its attempts to suggest the ‘ Sarah’ saga has profound constitutional significance.
‘Sources say’, it maintains [still more of t hose ‘ sources’] ‘ t he existence of a secret Diana daughter won’t sit well in the corridors of power. With historic changes in the constitution imminent, the oldest child — male or female — inherits the Crown. And that would be Sarah, if DNA tests confirm she really is a royal.’
Wrong. Globe is a bit out of step over this. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which amended t he l ong- e s t abli s hed r ul e s of s uccession, allowing the eldest child to succeed regardless of gender, received the Royal Assent in April 2013.
But the Act only applies retrospectively to people born after October 28, 2011, the year in which it was first tabled.
It would not apply therefore to the mythical ‘Sarah’, supposedly born in October 1981, even if she did exist. The Duke of Cambridge’s position as the f uture King William V would not be threatened in any way. And even if ‘Sarah’ were genuine, it is highly debatable legally whether a biological child of Charles and Diana, born from the womb of a surrogate mother, would have any right of succession to the throne.
But Globe is not about to surrender its prized myth. This month, it has returned to the saga yet again, claiming that ‘ Sarah’ has now travelled to Britain for a showdown with the Prince of Wales.
With yet more shrieking frontcover headlines, it insists: Di’s Secret Daughter Confronts Charles: You Killed My Mother! The Most Shocking Royal Story Ever.
And in another highly dubiouslooking photograph, a gesticulating Charles i s shown apparently i n conversation with a young woman with long blonde hair who has her back to the camera.
According to Globe, there is ‘surveillance camera footage’ of this encounter that ‘ caught the entire confrontation on tape’. We await its release with bated breath.
And the story has been taken up in Spain, too, where a magazine called Pronto — another supermarket tabloid — has re-told the tale. One result is that an entirely sensible and well-read friend of mine called from Spain to ask if it might be true.
It’s almost comic. But this tastel ess nonsense — part of a l ong history of ghoulish exploitation of William and Harry’s adored mother — seems particularly tawdry at a time when Kate is about to give birth to Diana’s second grand- child. Surely the time is more than overdue for the late Princess of Wales to be allowed to rest in the peace she deserves.
The nation has taken William and Kate, and Prince George, to its collective heart.
The birth of their second child should be an occasion for rejoicing and celebration, not for inventions and falsehoods that might overshadow the new young life that is about to begin.