Where did the claim that Meghan Markle had her uterus removed originate?
Executive summary
The claim that Meghan Markle had a hysterectomy appears in persistent online rumours and social posts but has no identifiable original, credible source in the provided material; reporting and commentary repeatedly call the story baseless and note there is “no credible evidence” to substantiate it [1] [2]. Available sources trace the allegation to social media circulation rather than a named medical record or reputable news report, and commentators suggest appearance-based speculation — for example about her figure — helped spread the rumour [3] [4].
1. How the hysterectomy claim shows up: social chatter, not a medical record
The items gathered about this story all describe the hysterectomy claim as circulating on social platforms and in tabloids rather than rooted in a verifiable medical disclosure. A 2025 fact-focused article frames the allegations as resurfaced online rumours that suggest she cannot have biological children, and it explicitly says no credible evidence has supported claims of medical procedures related to fertility [2]. Other pages similarly recount the rumour as something seen “on X and the Internet in general” rather than citing a primary document or named insider [3] [4].
2. Where people say it started — and where that explanation comes from
None of the provided sources locate a single originating post, outlet, or named whistleblower for the claim. Commentary pieces note it is “unclear where the hysterectomy rumors started” and offer hypotheses instead: some authors suggest appearance-based speculation about Markle’s physique or weight as the catalyst for comparison-driven rumours [3] [4]. Those hypotheses are presented as opinion or interpretation in the sources, not as proven provenance for the falsehood [3].
3. Rebuttals in reporting: “no credible evidence” is the recurrent verdict
Multiple items explicitly rebut the hysterectomy claim. A 2023 online summary and a Geo News piece both state there is no credible evidence to substantiate the allegation and frame the stories as invasive conspiracy theories circulating among detractors [1] [2]. The reporting highlights that Meghan has two children, which critics use to challenge the hysterectomy narrative; the sources emphasize that the rumours lack documentary or medical confirmation [1] [2].
4. How appearance and gendered scrutiny fuel reproductive rumours
Analysts cited in the supplied pieces point to a pattern: public figures — especially women in the royal spotlight — routinely face conspiracies about fertility that are amplified by comparisons and sexist commentary. One source specifically links circulation of hysterectomy rumours to commentary about Markle’s body and media treatment during pregnancy and public duty, situating the claim within a broader culture of invasive speculation [3] [4]. Those explanations are presented as context for spread, not as evidence the procedure occurred.
5. Limits of the available reporting and open questions
Available sources do not identify a first post, an author of a false medical claim, or a leaked medical record that would constitute an originating source; they state only that rumours have circulated and that no credible evidence supports them [3] [4] [1]. Because the materials gathered are secondary summaries and opinion pieces, they cannot definitively map the earliest appearance of the allegation on social media or in fringe outlets; those specifics are “not found in current reporting” provided here [3] [4].
6. Competing perspectives and why they matter
Two competing strands appear across the coverage: one, detractors recycle the hysterectomy assertion as a way to question Markle’s private life; two, reporters and commentators condemn the claim as baseless and invasive, urging readers to treat it as conspiracy rather than fact [2] [1]. Sources that offer speculative origins (appearance, online gossip) are transparent that they lack documentary proof, which matters because speculation about medical history can be both defamatory and deeply personal [3] [4].
7. Takeaway for readers: evidence matters, and provenance is missing
The documentation supplied shows the hysterectomy claim lives in social-media circulation and commentary, not in confirmed medical records or responsible journalism; multiple sources explicitly conclude no credible evidence exists to substantiate it [1] [2]. If your interest is provenance, the current reporting does not locate an original authoritative source for the allegation and instead traces its persistence to online rumour and appearance-driven speculation [3] [4].