What evidence has been presented linking Meghan Markle to Joe Giuliano?

1. What the Rumors Actually Claim—and Who Is Named in Them

Coverage of the allegation frames it as a set of interlocking claims: that Meghan Markle had a secret first husband named Joseph Goldberg-Giuliano (often shortened to Joe Giuliano) and that the relationship produced a child, sometimes speculated to be a niece or another family member. Reporting dating back to December 2022 and continuing through mid- and late-2025 documents iterations of the story, including suggestions that a Boston-based lawyer was involved and that a figure named Noelle Rasmussen has been speculated as connected to the claim. The coverage consistently describes these elements as rumor construction rather than established fact, noting how the same basic narrative has morphed with new speculative details over time ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

2. What Evidence Has Been Presented — The Short Answer: None

Across the articles compiled, journalists and commentators report no primary documents, marriage certificates, photographs, or reliable witness testimony that verifies the existence of a legal marriage between Markle and Joseph Goldberg-Giuliano, or that confirms a child resulting from such a relationship. Multiple write-ups that retell the rumor explicitly state there is no proof and that public records and known biographical timelines list only two marriages for Meghan Markle—to Trevor Engelson and Prince Harry. The absence of documentary evidence, combined with journalistic framing that treats the story as speculative, is the central factual point in every summary of the claim ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

3. How Major Outlets and Timeline Covered the Story — A Uniform Tone of Skepticism

Coverage from December 2022 through September 2025 shows sustained interest but a consistent editorial approach: reporters catalog the allegations, note the named individuals, and then emphasize a lack of corroboration. Articles published in June and August 2025 revisit the rumor cycle and explicitly state that none of the claims have been proven. A September 2025 piece reiterates the pattern, acknowledging that even critics of Meghan Markle describe the rumor as implausible. This timeline demonstrates recurring circulation of the story without the emergence of verifiable new evidence, reinforcing the conclusion that the narrative persists as rumor rather than settled fact ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Meghan Markle’s Public Response and Documentary Records — What Remains Verifiable

At least one article from August 2025 records Meghan Markle addressing the “secret child” rumors, including a public comment that highlighted the impracticality of keeping such a life-changing fact secret and reinforcing that public records and her known marital history do not support the allegations. Reporters emphasize the presence of documentary records for Markle’s known marriages and the lack of any additional marriage certificate or legal filing that would corroborate a prior, undisclosed union. The reporting treats Markle’s engagement with the topic as part of public clarification rather than the emergence of new factual evidence ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Why the Rumor Persists and What Is Missing — Gaps That Matter

The coverage identifies mechanisms that keep the story alive: social media amplification, recycling of speculative details, and opportunistic linking of unrelated names to create a plausible narrative. Crucially, no article in the reviewed set points to independent confirmation from archival records, court filings, credible eyewitnesses, or authenticated documents that would convert allegation into verifiable history. The absence of such evidence is decisive: without it, the claims remain unsupported assertions, vulnerable to the agendas of outlets or social actors seeking clicks, controversy, or reputational damage ^{[1] [7]}.

6. Bottom Line: What a Fact-Checker Can Conclude Today

Given the collected reporting through September 2025, the only defensible factual conclusion is that no verifiable evidence links Meghan Markle to Joe (Joseph Goldberg-) Giuliano as a spouse or parent; reputable coverage repeatedly notes the lack of proof and treats the story as rumor. Any future change in that conclusion would require production of primary-source documentation—marriage records, authenticated photographs, legal filings, or credible first-hand testimony—that is absent from the current public record summarized in these articles ^{[1] [4]}.