When Netflix bosses unveiled the trailer for the Duchess of Sussex’s latest venture – the jolly-sounding With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration – they can hardly have anticipated the storm it would unleash. There was Meghan, all smiles and seasonal sparkle, arranging a festive table in a sunlit Montecito kitchen, her children Archie and Lilibet giggling in the background, and Prince Harry looking every inch the doting dad. It was meant to be the ultimate Christmas card from California’s golden couple – a vision of domestic bliss designed to lure viewers to the streaming giant’s yuletide offering.

But eagle-eyed royal watchers spotted something amiss. In one fleeting clip, as Meghan lit candles on her impeccably styled table, she was wearing a striking emerald-green, one-shouldered satin gown by British label Galvan London. The ‘Ushuaia’ dress, retailing at a cool £1,300 (or $1,695 across the pond), looked familiar. Too familiar. Fashion sleuths quickly cross-referenced it with images from Meghan’s 2022 Variety magazine cover shoot – the one billed as ‘The Meghan Moment’, where she posed pensively in a Los Angeles studio, just weeks after Queen Elizabeth’s death. It was the exact same dress. Not a copycat, not a tribute – the identical frock, down to the asymmetric neckline and subtle pleating.

Cue the online frenzy. Within hours, social media was ablaze with accusations that the Duchess had simply walked off with the gown after the shoot, without so much as a thank-you note to the stylist. ‘Sticky fingers strikes again!’ crowed one Twitter user, while another quipped: ‘From Suits to scrounging – what a plot twist.’ The hashtag #Frockgate trended worldwide, with memes superimposing Meghan’s face on cartoon burglars and captions like: ‘When your Netflix special doubles as a fashion heist.’

For Meghan’s team, the backlash was swift and furious. In a rare on-the-record statement that smacked of legal sabre-rattling, her UK and Europe communications director, Liam Maguire, blasted the claims as ‘categorically false’ and – tellingly – ‘highly defamatory’. Speaking exclusively to me, Maguire insisted: ‘The insinuation that the Duchess of Sussex took any items from a photoshoot without the full knowledge and agreement of the on-set stylists or their respective teams is not only categorically false, but also highly defamatory. Any items kept were done so in total transparency and in accordance with contractual arrangements.’

He went further, revealing a bizarre rationale for why the dress might have been retained: to prevent it from ending up in an ‘unauthorised auction’ or being flogged by unscrupulous insiders. ‘It is sometimes common practice for high-profile figures to keep items from photoshoots to avoid potential resale or unauthorised auctions in the future,’ Maguire explained. In other words, Meghan – worth an estimated £48 million with her husband – was doing the fashion world a favour by archiving the gown in her own ‘royal archive’, lest it fetch a king’s ransom on eBay.

Legal eagles I spoke to were quick to note the nuclear tone of the response. ‘Using “highly defamatory” is not accidental,’ one Fleet Street solicitor told me. ‘It’s code for: we’re watching you, and the lawyers are warming up their keyboards. Meghan rarely goes public like this; it shows she’s livid and sees this as a character assassination.’ Indeed, sources whisper that cease-and-desist letters could be winging their way to podcast hosts and gossip columnists as early as next week. After all, this isn’t the first time the Sussexes have reached for the litigation gavel – Harry’s £1.3 million phone-hacking win against Mirror Group Newspapers is still fresh in the mind.

But here’s the rub: for all the Duchess’s protestations, the ‘scrounging’ whispers refuse to die down. If anything, they’ve grown louder, fed by a drip-drip of anecdotes from insiders who paint a picture of a couple pathologically allergic to footing their own bill. Respected royal biographer Tom Bower, whose explosive tome Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors laid bare the Sussexes’ alleged grievances, has waded into the fray with gusto. In a recent interview, the investigative author – whose past subjects include F1 tycoon Bernie Ecclestone and the Beckhams – didn’t mince words. ‘They are scroungers, the Sussexes,’ he declared bluntly. ‘Constantly looking for freebies.’

Bower recounted an ‘extraordinary’ tale he’d heard from a well-placed source about the couple’s post-Megxit jet-setting. Apparently, Harry and Meghan were invited to a ‘sun-kissed place by the beach’ – a luxurious villa owned by a billionaire benefactor – for a low-key getaway. Sounds idyllic, right? But according to Bower, the Duchess wasn’t content with the offer. ‘Meghan wonders whether we could have it,’ she allegedly enquired the next day, pushing for an upgrade to the entire property. And when that wasn’t enough? ‘Harry calls again and says, “Meghan also asks: can we get there in your private jet?”‘ Bower scoffed. ‘And that is exactly what the grift is all about – it’s about scrounging.’

The story, if true, chimes with a litany of similar gripes that have bubbled up over the years. Remember the 2019 claims that Meghan ‘pilfered’ a pair of £600 Aquazzura heels from a Canadian department store shoot while filming Suits? The strappy suede pumps – the ‘Very Matilde’ style – mysteriously ended up on her feet during the 2017 engagement photocall with Harry, and she’s been snapped in them countless times since. Wardrobe staff were said to be ‘gobsmacked’ when they realised the shoes had vanished.

Then there was the 2022 furore over a black-and-white Chanel midi dress, which Meghan wore to a New York nightclub bash with Harry last month – the very same frock she’d donned for a The Cut magazine photoshoot earlier that year. Coincidence? Or another case of ‘archival retention’? Fashion insiders I consulted rolled their eyes at the Sussexes’ protestations of innocence. ‘Standard practice? Please,’ one veteran stylist who has worked with A-listers from Beyoncé to the late Princess Diana told me. ‘Celebrities borrow, they don’t keep unless it’s gifted – and even then, it’s documented. Meghan’s team is spinning this like it’s philanthropy, but it reeks of entitlement. If you’re worth £50 million, buy the damn dress.’

Vanity Fair’s Vanessa Grigoriadis, no stranger to Hollywood’s underbelly, piled on during a March 2024 appearance on Andrew Gold’s Heretics podcast. ‘I have since heard, in a more recent photoshoot of Meghan’s, there was also a lot of stuff that was not returned after Meghan wore it in a very high-profile photo shoot,’ she revealed, clearly alluding to the Variety session. ‘Sticky fingers at the end of a photoshoot is not unheard of. It does happen from time to time.’ Grigoriadis noted the irony: with the Sussexes’ Netflix fortune, why risk the optics? ‘They could easily afford expensive clothes,’ she shrugged.

And it’s not just frocks and footwear. Whispers abound of the couple’s alleged freeloading on a grander scale. Sources close to their inner circle – those who once footed the bill for Archewell Foundation jaunts – claim Harry and Meghan have a knack for ‘forgetting’ their wallets when it comes to private jets and five-star boltholes. One former associate, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalled a 2023 African safari where the duo reportedly expected complimentary upgrades at a luxury lodge, only to huff when billed for extras. ‘They arrive like royalty, but leave like opportunists,’ the source sighed. ‘It’s the little things – the unpaid minibar tabs, the “borrowed” golf clubs – that add up.’

Tom Bower’s beachside yarn isn’t isolated. In his book, he details how the Sussexes allegedly angled for freebies during their 2019 New York City ‘babymoon’, charming hosts into covering everything from helicopter rides to Michelin-starred meals. And let’s not forget the 2021 fury from Courteney Cox – yes, Friends star Monica herself – who was left fuming after Meghan borrowed her Los Angeles mansion for a photoshoot without so much as a follow-up thank-you. ‘She just used it and ghosted,’ a friend of Cox’s told me. ‘No invite to the premiere, nothing.’

These tales, whether apocryphal or spot-on, tap into a deeper narrative that’s dogged the Duchess since her Windsor wedding: the Yale-educated actress turned HRH who, critics say, never quite shook off her ‘social climber’ tag. For every defender hailing her as a savvy recycler (à la Stella McCartney’s eco-mantra), there’s a detractor branding her a magpie in Manolos. Social media hasn’t helped; X (formerly Twitter) is rife with viral threads dissecting every ‘repeat wear’ as evidence of parsimony. One post from last week racked up 50,000 likes: ‘Meghan’s wardrobe: 90% borrowed, 10% bought with Harry’s trust fund. #ScroungingSussexes.’

Meghan’s camp, of course, dismisses it all as ‘tabloid fiction’ designed to undermine her empowerment brand. But the timing couldn’t be worse. Her Netflix special – panned by critics as ‘not fun, enjoyable or even aspirational’ – dropped amid a torrent of personal woes. Her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 81, is recovering from a leg amputation in a Philippines hospital, sparking fresh headlines about their frosty relations. A Mail on Sunday interview saw Thomas plead for reconciliation: ‘I don’t want to die without seeing my daughter.’ Meghan’s team insists she sent a heartfelt letter, but struggled to locate him amid his nomadic life. Now, she’s accused the Daily Mail of ‘breaching clear ethical boundaries’ by reporting from his bedside – a claim our parent company, DMG Media, vehemently denies, calling it ‘demonstrably false’.

Adding fuel to the fire, royal experts are buzzing about Meghan’s iron grip on her Duchess title. Despite quitting royal duties in 2020, she had a staffer formally announce her as ‘The Duchess of Sussex’ before a recent Harper’s Bazaar cover interview. ‘It’s desperate,’ one commentator snorted. ‘She’s clinging to the prestige she once railed against.’ Whispers suggest she’s even consulting lawyers over fears Prince William might strip the titles when he ascends the throne – a move that could leave her plain old Meghan Markle of Montecito.

And that’s before we touch the green-eyed monster reportedly gnawing at her over Kate Middleton. Insiders claim Meghan is ‘tearing out her hair’ watching the Princess of Wales effortlessly charm Hollywood heavyweights like Schitt’s Creek star Eugene Levy, who joined Kate’s Christmas carol concert after a cosy Windsor Castle day out. ‘Kate connects organically; Meghan has to negotiate for B-listers,’ one source dished. ‘It’s envy on steroids.’

As With Love, Meghan streams into living rooms this festive season, one thing’s clear: the Duchess’s bid for lifestyle guru status is being overshadowed by a saga of satin and suspicion. Is it a storm in a silk cup? Or the latest chapter in the Sussexes’ endless entitlement epic? Her people swear blind it’s the former – but with biographers like Bower circling and social media sharpening its knives, those ‘scrounging’ claims show no sign of fading.

In the end, perhaps the real mystery isn’t the dress at all. It’s why, five years after Megxit, Meghan Markle can’t escape the shadow of the crown she fled – or the bargains she allegedly hunts. God rest ye merry gentlemen… and ladies who lunch on loaned couture.