Meghan Markle’s 8th Wedding Anniversary Post: 24 Photos, Almost No One Else
Meghan Markle marked her eighth wedding anniversary with a lengthy Instagram carousel featuring 24 photographs. The post has drawn widespread criticism for what many see as an unusually self-focused presentation of her 2018 royal wedding.
What Appeared in the Post
The carousel, posted to her 4.5 million followers, included a mix of previously unseen and familiar images. Many of the photographs showed Meghan alone — getting ready, in her wedding gown, or dancing by herself in her reception dress.
Harry appeared in roughly a quarter of the images. There was also one photograph that included Elton John at the reception. According to royal commentator Allison Boshoff, Elton’s relationship has primarily been with Harry rather than with Meghan.
Notably absent from the 24 photographs were:
- Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland
- Any members of the British royal family
- Most of the high-profile guests who attended the wedding
The Absence of Doria Ragland
One of the most commented-on details was the complete exclusion of Doria. She had walked Meghan down the aisle for part of the ceremony and was a visible presence throughout the day in 2018.
Official wedding photographs from the time show Doria with her daughter. However, Meghan chose not to include any of those images in her anniversary post. Critics described the omission as striking, particularly given how often Meghan has previously spoken about her close relationship with her mother.
The Royal Family and Wedding Guests
The post also contained no photographs of King Charles (who walked Meghan down part of the aisle), Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Prince William, or Catherine, Princess of Wales. None of the couple’s children appeared either.
While the wedding had featured a large number of high-profile guests — including the Clooneys, Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams, and the Beckhams — almost none of them featured in Meghan’s selection. The only celebrity included was Elton John.
Royal watchers noted that many of these guests have had little public contact with the Sussexes in recent years. Several have been photographed instead with other members of the royal family.
Criticism of the Post
Commentators described the carousel as self-indulgent and poorly judged. Many pointed out the contrast between the large number of solo photographs of Meghan and the very limited inclusion of Harry or anyone else from the wedding day.
Some also criticised the decision to post such personal images while simultaneously promoting commercial products, including a candle. Critics argued that using photographs from a wedding largely funded by the British taxpayer for marketing purposes was inappropriate.
The overall tone of the post was widely described as “cringy” and out of step with how most people mark wedding anniversaries.
Harry’s Comments on Social Media
The post drew additional attention because of comments Prince Harry made seven months earlier. In an October 2025 appearance on a podcast, Harry spoke about being cautious and hesitant about allowing his children access to social media. He described the companies behind social media platforms as “evil” and said parents should be more protective.
Many observers found it difficult to reconcile Harry’s stated concerns about social media with his wife’s decision to post a large, curated selection of personal wedding photographs to millions of followers.
A Pattern of Isolation
The anniversary post has been viewed by some as further evidence of the Sussexes’ increasing isolation from both their former royal circle and many of their high-profile wedding guests. Reports suggest that several A-list attendees from 2018 have since distanced themselves.
With the couple no longer part of the working royal family, and with limited ongoing relationships with many of their former friends and contacts, the post was seen by critics as an attempt to rewrite the narrative of the wedding day on their own terms — one that largely excludes the institution and people who were central to it.
