The necklace story was a key element in Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview. Meghan claimed she shared her suicidal thoughts with Harry, who allegedly responded indifferently, saying the institution wouldn’t help her because she wasn’t a paid employee.

Sources close to Chelsy Davy, now a 36-year-old entrepreneur from Zimbabwe, reveal that she recently came forward to correct the record.

ChelsyDavy’s Shocking Claims: Prince Harry’s Alleged Theft and the Truth About Archie and Lilibet’s Birth

The necklace story was a key element in Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview. Meghan claimed she shared her suicidal thoughts with Harry, who allegedly responded indifferently, saying the institution wouldn’t help her because she wasn’t a paid employee.  Sources close to Chelsy Davy, now a 36-year-old entrepreneur from Zimbabwe, reveal that she recently came forward to correct the record.

Chelsy and Harry had an on-and-off relationship during their early 20s, which ended in 2011 due to the pressures and scrutiny of being linked to a senior royal. Despite the breakup, they remained friends. According to Chelsy, in late 2018, while she was in London for the holidays, she arranged to meet Harry for lunch at Kensington Palace. During their catch-up, Harry mentioned a recent argument with Meghan over an expensive gold necklace he had given her for Christmas. He described how Meghan had become upset, accusing him of being too flashy and expressing concern about being perceived as a gold digger.

Chelsy clearly remembers the lunch date as December 22, 2018, because it was her mother’s birthday. However, when Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview aired in March 2021, Meghan claimed the argument occurred in January 2019, when she was five months pregnant with Archie. Given that Archie was born on May 6, 2019, this timeline doesn’t align with Chelsy’s account.

Chelsy’s account suggests that the necklace incident could not have happened in January 2019, as she had already heard about it from Harry in December 2018. Moreover, Meghan would not have been pregnant at that time, further undermining the timeline presented in the Oprah interview.

When I reached out to sources close to Chelsy for more details, they explained that she felt it was crucial to reveal the truth, especially after Harry’s portrayal of his family and the institution in the Oprah interview. Chelsy believed Harry was spreading lies and half-truths, and she wanted to correct the record with concrete evidence.

Chelsy also suggested that if Meghan was already exhibiting erratic behavior and having public arguments in late 2018, it might provide context for the struggles that led to Harry’s decision to leave his royal duties. The public dissemination of untruths without a chance for the royal family to correct them due to their policy of privacy was also damaging.

In a twist, Chelsy privately theorized to friends that Meghan might have fabricated her story about being suicidal while pregnant to gain sympathy and paint herself as a victim after public backlash. According to Chelsy’s timeline, Meghan would not have been pregnant or suicidal during the period she described.

This revelation raises questions about the validity of Meghan’s claims and casts doubt on the authenticity of her narrative. Despite this, Gail King, who spoke to Harry and Meghan, stated that they stand by their version of events. She suggested that Meghan might have mixed up some details due to the stress she was under but maintained that the core of her experience was true.

Critics argue that dismissing Meghan’s account as mere misremembering is an unethical way to disregard valid evidence. If Meghan was so distressed that her memory was unclear, it calls into question her ability to recall other details accurately. The timing of significant events is crucial, especially when making serious accusations.

Overall, Chelsy’s firsthand testimony challenges the accuracy of Meghan’s story and suggests that the narrative presented in the Oprah interview may have been embellished or fabricated. This revelation undermines the credibility of the entire interview, raising concerns about what else may have been exaggerated or falsified.