Facts emerge after claims Meghan 'sent jam to King Charles as an olive branch' (2025)

The Duchess of Sussex has responded to claims she sent a box of treats from her lifestyle brand, As Ever, to Clarence House in an attempt to mend her rift with the King

Meghan Markle reportedly sent a box of goodies to estranged father-in-law King Charles in an attempt to fix their strained relationship – yet this has now been denied.

The Duchess of Sussex, 43, launched her lifestyle brand, As Ever, last month, featuring items like a £22 jar of honey. Royal expert Neil Sean claimed that " sample box of delights" from the brand, which featured in her hit Netflix show, With Love, Meghan, was delivered to Clarence House with a note.

In addition, Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News that the gift was the mum-of-two's way of "building bridges", with the Firm, after she and Harry stepped down as senior working royals in 2020.

"I understand how she may not feel respected still, but tiny gestures like this are her way of showing compassion for what the king is going through and helping to rebuild bridges between Prince William, Prince Harry and the king", the expert said.

However, a source close to the Sussexes has since shut down the claims, saying: "This did not happen." Before their fall-out, Meghan often spoke in glowing terms about her father-in-law, but their once-close relationship is in a very different state today.

A source claims that the pair have absolutely no contact now, and that a bone of contention in Charles's relationship with Meghan and his youngest son Prince Harry has been the Duke of Sussex's decision to launch legal action against the UK Government for removing his official police security, which is taxpayer funded.

"Harry's decision to sue the King's government in the King's courts is the sticking point, I am told," wrote Kate Mansey for The Times.

This is a far cry from the warm relationship Charles and Meghan once shared, which Harry detailed extensively in his bombshell memoir Spare. According to Harry, when Meghan and Charles first met they got on well, and his father was "impressed" by Meghan.

"We talked about acting and the arts generally. What a struggle it could be to make your way in such a trade, Pa said. He had a lot of questions about Meg's career, and he looked impressed by the way she answered. Her confidence, her intelligence, I thought, caught him unawares.

"And then our time was up. Pa and Camilla had another engagement. Royal life. Heavily regimented, overscheduled, so forth. I made a note to explain all this later to Meg. We all stood. Meg leaned towards Pa. I flinched; like Willy, Pa wasn't a hugger. Thankfully, she gave him a standard British cheek-to-cheek, which he actually seemed to enjoy. I walked Meg out of Clarence House, into those lush, fragrant gardens, feeling exultant. Well, that's that then, I thought. Welcome to the family."

And according to the book, after Harry and his wife took a trip to Scotland to spend time with his father shortly after their 2018 wedding in Windsor, the pair grew even closer.

"The bond between Meg and Pa, always strong, grew even stronger," Harry wrote, explaining that when Charles found out Meghan shared a birthday with the late Queen Mother - with whom Charles was exceptionally close, he became "buoyant".

"At the memory of Gan-Gan, and the link between her and my bride, he suddenly became buoyant, telling stories I'd never heard, essentially performing, showing off for Meg," Harry wrote.

In 2023, reports emerged that Meghan had written to King Charles expressing concerns about "unconscious bias" within the Royal Family, following her and Harry’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021. According to those reports, Meghan was dissatisfied with the responses she received from Charles, and The Telegraph suggested this played a role in her decision not to attend his coronation.

However, Meghan’s representatives firmly denied this was the reason for her absence, stating: “The Duchess of Sussex is going about her life in the present, not thinking about correspondence from two years ago related to conversations from four years ago. Any suggestion otherwise is false and frankly ridiculous.”