Tom Bower has launched a fierce attack on Meghan Markle after a 1997 magazine feature reignited swirling questions about her real age, turning a decades‑old profile into a fresh scandal in the war over her credibility. The headline “Tom Bower Slams Meghan Markle After 1997 Magazine Sparks Questions About Her Real Age!” frames the British biographer as a determined critic eager to expose what he claims is a carefully edited timeline.
.jpg)
The controversy centers on an old magazine article from 1997 that reportedly introduces Meghan as a teenage girl in Los Angeles, describing her as a high‑school–aged actress and part‑time model involved in school drama and local theater. Critics seized on this to argue that the timeline conflicts with the more polished version of her life later promoted in interviews, where she is often presented as already in her early 20s and working more seriously in television and short‑form films by the mid‑ to late‑1990s. The exposé suggests that if the 1997 piece is accurate, Meghan may have subtly shaved years off her age to appear younger and more “on‑brand” for the entertainment industry—and later, for royal and media audiences.
Bower, known for his hard‑hitting, investigative approach to public figures, is said to have used the magazine as a key exhibit in a broader critique of Meghan’s truthfulness. In interviews and behind‑the‑scenes commentary, he is portrayed as accusing her of deliberately curating her background, simplifying or altering her past, and leaning into a narrative of being “self‑made” and “unconventional” while hiding inconvenient details. The piece claims he called the 1997 magazine a “ticking time bomb” for her carefully constructed image, arguing that the discrepancy undermines earlier claims about her career path and timeline.
The story also suggests that Bower has questioned why Meghan did not address the age gap earlier, accusing her of allowing the confusion to linger while building a global media profile that relies on her origin story. He is depicted as arguing that even if the magazine error was simply a mislabeling of her age, the lack of a clear correction over the years shows a pattern of avoiding transparency.
Defenders, however, push back, claiming that old features often exaggerate or misstate ages and that one dated article is not proof of a long‑running lie. Some say the confusion may come from editors calling her “teenage” when she was only slightly older, or from misreading school‑era photos.