Doughty Street barrister Amal Clooney and actor husband ‘set to become’ godparents to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s royal baby

By on

‘All but confirmed’, media report claims

Image credit (Prince Harry): E. J. Hersom

Human rights barrister Amal Clooney and her actor husband George are “set to become” royal godparents to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s first-born child, according to media reports.

The rumour mill kicked into overdrive yesterday evening after a “family insider” reportedly told the Mail Online that George “has a strong hunch” that they’ll be among the couples asked to take on the important royal role. It’s “all but confirmed”, the report adds.

Harry and Meghan revealed during a recent tour of Australia that they were expecting their first child in Spring next year.

The 2019 Firms Most List

There’s no denying the Clooneys have strong links to the royals. The Doughty Street Chambers barrister and her hubby of four years attended Harry and Meghan’s Windsor wedding earlier this summer. More recently, the Clooneys (who have twins, Ella and Alexander) were present when Princess Eugenie, Harry’s first cousin, tied the knot with British wine merchant Jack Brooksbank in October.

There’s a legal connection between the two couples, too (well, sort of). Amal spent three years as a lawyer in the (very real) New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell before settling in the UK and becoming a barrister, while Markle played fictional New York lawyer Rachel Zane in the US TV drama Suits.

Continuing, the report, again citing an unnamed source, claims “Amal and Meghan have been close for years, and Harry and George have become buddies because of that. They’re much closer than the headlines let on.”

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



I love what you did there, Amal and her husband should be proud. But are they even related or that close though to Megan?



Yes, according to the article that you just read.



Utter non-story? Check.
Tenuous links drawn between the subject(s) and law? Check.
Low effort overall? Check.

Yep, it’s an LC article alright.



Read story and then criticise story (repeat daily)? Check



Keep coming back in spite of criticism…check!



Keep spending time making comments…check



Keep denying to oneself that reading and commenting on LC is the highlight of one’s day….check


What a fatuous response to a comment.

Legal Cheek *can* be a good source of news. This is not an example of that. Therefore criticism of this (shitty, dreary, tediously simpering) article is not hypocrisy, it’s someone trying to steer the editors towards decent content.



Forget that the title of the website is Legal CHEEK rather than the Financial Times? Check.



*Likes own comment after posting* Check.



Alex being triggered by negative comments. Check.



Start with 5.

Multiply by 7.

Add 12.

Divide by 0.2.

Raise to the power 9 billion.

That is the number of fucks I don’t give about this story.



I take it that author: Legal Cheek really means Katie King is back in secret?



Also see Lady Hale article today.



Oh no I’ll have to get a restraining order again!



Not keen on mixing Hollywood and the Royal Family. I sort of just want them to be above it all. Perhaps it makes me a snob or something, but I think this is awfully gauche.



“Clooneys”, plural of “Clooney”, does not have an apostrophe.



I suspect this baby is going to be extremely ugly.



I suspect this marriage wont last.

Lucky for him that the machinery of the establishment will close ranks when she breaks his heart and plenty of blonde aristos who didnt want him then will be there to make sure he has a soft landing


Ex royal servant

Two sham marriages, so why not?



Yawn, boring. What a waste of those tippy typey fingers.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories