She then appeared on stage to take about the need to protect children online. Due to the nature of the talk, Meghan has now been ridiculed for posting a picture of her four-year-old daughter just hours before the event.
Shared to Instagram just hours before her appearance on May 17, Meghan uploaded a mirror selfie of Princess Lilibet sitting by her feet surrounded by clothes in what appeared to be a walk-in wardrobe.
Journalist Tom Sykes, who was present to watch the Duchess of Sussex’s speech at the weekend, now claims that Meghan is a hypocrite for “exposing” Lilibet just hours before her appearance in Geneva.
Writing on Substack, Mr Sykes said: “Yes, a woman who is about to stand alongside the world’s most senior public health official and talk about the measurable and preventable harms of exposing children to social media has just – voluntarily, for no apparent reason other than self-promotion – exposed her own child to social media.”
The image showed what appears to be, according to the journalist, “billion dollars’ worth” of clothes.
He added: “A Giorgio Armani blazer hangs prominently on a rail to the right — the label clearly visible. Several pairs of high-end black pumps are scattered on the floor.
“In the mirror’s reflection, dozens upon dozens of garments are visible, packed tightly on rails. It is, to put it mildly, quite a lot of stuff. I would estimate there is close to a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of clothing visible in this single frame.”
He added that the image is not only “boastful”, but also “staggeringly tone-deaf” given the nature of where she was set to appear on the following day.
He also said that Lilibet, who will turn five next month, is unable to consent to the picture being shared onine, adding: “Meghan is exposing HER CHILD to that technology without adequate safeguards.”
Hosted by Archewell Philanthropies and the World Health Organization, the former working royal joined the WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, global health leaders, ministers and families affected by online harm.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.express.co.uk ’
