Amidst turmoil within the royal family, fans rally in support of Meghan Markle, proclaiming, “Meghan possesses all the qualities of a future queen.”

In a surprising revelation, Meghan Markle, alongside Prince Harry, made headlines in 2020 when they decided to step down from their roles within the working royal family. However, recent reports have shed light on a lesser-known incident involving Meghan’s past acting career.

According to the show’s creator, Aaron Korsh, Meghan Markle faced restrictions on using a particular British term during the final season of the hit TV series “Suits.” In an interview that has recently resurfaced, Korsh disclosed that the Duchess of Sussex was prohibited by the Palace from saying the word “poppyc***” on camera.

This directive reportedly dates back to before Meghan’s marriage to Prince Harry in 2018 when she was still portraying the character Rachel Zane in the legal drama series.

Korsh explained that the original script included a line where Meghan’s character, Rachel Zane, was supposed to mention the term “poppyc***” as a subtle reference to his own family’s communication habits. He elaborated, “My wife’s family, when they have a topic to discuss that might be sensitive, they use the word ‘poppyc***’.”

However, the Royal Family intervened and objected to Meghan saying the word, expressing concerns that it could be manipulated to sound like a more offensive term. Korsh recalled, “They didn’t want to put the word ‘poppyc***’ in her mouth. I presume because they didn’t want people cutting things together of her saying ‘ck.’ So, we had to change it to ‘bulls*.’”

The resurfacing of this revelation, particularly on social media platform TikTok, has sparked mixed reactions among royal fans. While some applaud the Palace’s caution, noting the potential for misinterpretation or manipulation of the footage, others argue that in the modern era, such restrictions may seem outdated.

“It’s only right they consider this stuff,” commented one supporter of the Palace’s decision, emphasizing the importance of upholding the royal family’s image as representatives of the British state.

Conversely, another commenter pointed out, “it’s the 21st century and it’s just a word,” suggesting a more relaxed stance on such language restrictions.

The incident serves as a reminder of the intricacies and protocols surrounding the royal family’s public image, even in seemingly minor aspects of their lives and careers.