Carole Malone Faces Backlash After Spreading False Claim About Doria Ragland

Carole Malone’s appearance on GB News on December 4 marked one of the most reckless moments in recent royal commentary. She stated on live television that Doria Ragland had been in prison while Thomas Markle raised Meghan Sussex. The claim lacked evidence and revived a long debunked rumor. It also landed in a climate shaped by Malone’s earlier confrontation on Jeremy Vine, where a caller challenged her hostility toward Meghan Sussex. The two moments produced a stark picture of a British commentator who speaks with confidence but checks nothing. The facts about Doria Ragland’s life stand in direct conflict with Malone’s GB News claim, and the fallout shows why it has prompted calls for legal action.

The False Claim on GB News

Malone told viewers that Doria Ragland had been in jail during Meghan’s childhood. She delivered the line as fact and used it to reshape the Sussex family story. GB News removed the clip from its social channels within hours. Viewers had already saved it and shared transcripts, and those records show a firm statement repeated without hesitation. The claim collapses under scrutiny. Doria Ragland has never been arrested, tried or incarcerated. There are no public records that support Malone’s presentation. Reputable outlets, court databases and licensing boards have confirmed this for years.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Feminegra (@feminegra_)

The truth sits in plain sight. Ragland holds a California license as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, issued after fingerprinting and FBI clearance. This professional route bars applicants with felony or serious misdemeanor histories. Her license remained active without restriction. That fact alone contradicts Malone’s allegation. The rumor Malone repeated stems from confusion with a different person named Dorian Ragland, a man convicted in a federal case unrelated to Meghan’s family. The records from that case identify a male defendant whose life bears no link to Doria Ragland. Malone had access to this information, yet she repeated a rumor that had travelled through hostile digital spaces since 2018.

A Pattern of Hostility

The GB News segment did not stand alone. Earlier this week on Jeremy Vine, a caller named Sharon accused Malone of racist commentary after Malone delivered a dismissive critique of Meghan’s work. Sharon’s frustration captured a growing public view that Malone’s commentary now follows a predictable path. Her remarks focus on Meghan’s motives rather than her actions, and her language often reflects points circulated by fringe commentators. Malone responded by insisting that any criticism of a woman of colour results in accusations of racism. Sharon’s call still resonated because it aligned with a clear pattern in British coverage of Meghan. The GB News claim then strengthened the caller’s argument. Malone left the Vine studio defending her objectivity, yet returned to television repeating a falsehood about a Black mother days later.

The racial framing did not go unnoticed. Viewers on social media described the GB News remark as a targeted stereotype applied to Doria Ragland because of her race. Several posts highlighted that public figures rarely attribute fabricated criminal histories to white mothers in similar positions. Supporters pointed to the speed with which the clip vanished from GB News pages. They questioned why a broadcaster with full editorial teams would allow an unverified criminal allegation to air. Calls to Ofcom followed, citing inaccurate reporting and harm to a private citizen.

The Legal and Ethical Risk

UK libel law offers protection when a broadcaster presents a false statement about a private individual. Malone’s remark meets that standard because she stated as fact that Doria Ragland “was in jail while Meghan’s father brought her up,” and directed it at a named person. It also caused reputational harm by linking Ragland to criminal conduct without evidence. Meghan Sussex has a record of holding media organisations accountable through the courts. Her past legal wins show that judges respond when outlets publish false claims about family circumstances.

The GB News comment spread quickly across social platforms despite the deletion. Removal offers little relief because the internet keeps permanent records, and Malone’s claim now fuels groups that target Meghan with conspiratorial allegations. The reach deepens the reputational harm and increases pressure on the broadcaster.

Editorial responsibility remains central to this debate. GB News had a duty to check claims presented by its panelists. A criminal allegation requires higher scrutiny, yet Malone’s remark went unchallenged in the moment. Broadcasters rely on public trust, and trust erodes when false claims reach air without checks. The deletion of the clip occurred after complaints appeared on X, which suggests internal recognition of risk. Transparency would have helped. The audience received no explanation, and that silence added to the sense of misconduct.

Final Thoughts

Last month Ofcom received complaints about a GB News segment that targeted defendants with “foreign sounding names.” The scrutiny around that item now sits beside Carole Malone’s false claim about Doria Ragland, which crossed a clear line. She relied on a rumour disproven for years and framed a Black woman through a lens shaped by racial bias.

The facts of Ragland’s life contradict every part of Malone’s statement, and her professional record stands as documented proof. GB News allowed a serious allegation to reach viewers and removed the clip only after backlash. The incident shows how careless commentary (or racist intent) continues to damage public trust in a media landscape already strained by misinformation. Meghan Sussex has grounds to consider legal action because the impact fell on her mother, a private citizen who has not sought public attention. Broadcasters cannot treat these moments as minor lapses. They influence public understanding and affect real families. Deletion cannot resolve the harm. Accountability must follow.