However, those reports have since been proven to be untrue.
In a statement shared to Twitter, the Canadian stylist revealed she never acted on Meghan and Harry's behalf.
"If certain investigative journalists were to do their jobs, perhaps they would see that Shoebox Project Foundation is owned by a Mr Roy in North Carolina and has no affiliations or ties to our charity The Shoebox Project. Happy Sunday," she stated.
The latest news comes after details emerged that Prince Harry and Meghan have been slammed for their response to the Queen following news that they will no longer be able to use the “Sussex Royal” trademark.
“While The Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding the use of the word ‘Royal,’ it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or any other iteration of ‘Royal,’” a statement on their website read.
The statement continued: “For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.”
“While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.”
Now royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams has slammed Harry and Meghan, telling the MailOnline that the statement was 'completely unnecessary'.
"The idea of putting out a statement which agrees that they can't use the word royal but contradicts the idea the monarchy can stop them using it,' he said, 'they're basically saying the royals can't stop them using it, but they won't be using it".
"It has been especially unnecessary to underline it in this way, especially as the agreement will be reviewed after a year."
"It simply empathises the division that we know that's there. The tone they've taken is that they are unhappy, they've made it clear every step of the way."