LadyCG - // I have empathy for anyone who goes through what I went through, but that doesn't mean I have to believe what someone's claiming or that I shouldn't question someone's motives for telling the whole world when she's famously bemoaned lack of respect for her privacy. //
For anyone else, since Lady CG will not be reading this - odd why you would post a view on a site like this, and then enter into debate with others, but that's her choice ...
Anyway - i beleive that this sort of attitude speaks to a skewed view of what the term 'privacy' actually means.
I believe if you are absolutely anyone at all, you have a basic right to your personal privacy, and that is an inalienable right which applies to the famous and not-famous alike.
That said, privacy only applies to uninvited and unwarrented intrusion into your life by strangers for their own ends, causing you distress.
That does not mean that, while enjoying your proivacy, you are barred from expressing an opinion, or sharing an experience with others, and again that applies to everyone.
Therefore - the duchess is entitled not to have her private life investigated in minute detail by anyone and everyone in the world to point and hoot at, and she is equally entitled to share her distressing experience of miscariage if she believes it may help others in the same position.
Because she wants - and is entitled to - privacy does not mean she is gagged from ever speaking about anything to anyone she chooses - these are fundamentl rights and they don;t cease to apply when you become rich and / or famous.
Of course, the idea that a stranger thousands of miles away wants to believe that you are that desparate for attention that you would pull so cynical and disgsting a stunt as to fabricate a miscarriage is, sadly, the risk that you take by being a public figure and by speaking out - but i am sure the duchess is aware of that, and takes lots of no notice.