The Sussexes aren’t releasing Archie Harrison’s birth certificate, cue outrage

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

There were twenty million negative or negative-adjacent stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex over the weekend, because of course there were. As I’ve maintained for some time now, the British press would have climbed up Meghan and Harry’s asses about ANYTHING. The Brits had set it up so there was never going to be a “right way” to do anything involving Meghan’s pregnancy, delivery and baby-presentation. The Sun ran several nasty pieces about how the Sussexes’ communications team screwed everything up (they did not), and how the Sussexes will not remain as popular as they are now if they continue to “stage manage” everything (ugh). In addition to that, the British press – not even the tabloids, just the entire British media establishment – is trying to make it seem like the Sussexes are “hiding” things. Things like Archie’s birth certificate.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not make their newborn son Archie’s birth certificate public – as his delivery remains shrouded in a veil of secrecy one week on. Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born weighing 7lb 3oz at 5.26am on Monday. But beyond this, not much else is known about the birth – including where it took place, or who helped deliver the baby who is seventh in line to the throne.

Traditionally, the names of the consultants and their hospital are included in the proclamation posted outside Buckingham Palace, but the royal couple declined to include them. Now the pair, who wed last May, have also chosen not to make the birth certificate public to keep these details a secret for even longer, instead only submitting it to the local registrar, reports the Sunday Telegraph. It is believed the duchess, who originally wanted a home birth, was whisked away to London’s Portland Hospital, where childbirth packages start at £15,000 and can cost up to £20,000.

Jeannie Yoon, 56, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist based at the private Lister Hospital in Chelsea, who also delivers babies at the Portland, is believed to have been involved in the delivery. When approached by The Mail on Sunday on Friday at her home in north London, a smiling Miss Yoon said: ‘I’m not meant to make any comment at all, sorry. I’m not allowed to say anything at all.’

[From The Daily Mail]

First of all, I’m absolutely horrified that the Daily Mail sent a reporter out to bum-rush an OBGYN AT HER HOME to ask her about Meghan’s delivery. Are you joking? This is insane. Second of all, this story originated at the Telegraph which is a serious newspaper doing serious work. Why are they misrepresenting this? Apparently, Meghan and Harry have 42 days to file the birth certificate. And it’s been one week. Didn’t we only see the Cambridge kids’ birth certificates weeks after the births too? Why is notable in this case? Because the press is still so mad that the Sussexes didn’t share all the gritty details of Meghan’s childbirth, so they can’t criticize her for being “TMI” and “American”? Are they that eager to judge her birthing plan? Yes, they are.

Now, all that being said… I don’t actually understand why Camp Sussex doesn’t just release the birth certificate or confirm, in a general way, the basic gist of the delivery. It would certainly deflate a lot of the conspiratorial air out these balloons, and the information will become public eventually. It could be done with one statement: “The Duchess of Sussex gave birth at Portland Hospital with Dr. Blah and her doula Patchouli in attendance.” Bam. Done.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

164 Responses to “The Sussexes aren’t releasing Archie Harrison’s birth certificate, cue outrage”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Enn says:

    I thought all birth certificates in the UK were public? I’m confused.

    • t says:

      I think you can look up birth records in the UK, but you have to request a copy of birth certificate. I don’t think there’s an online database of certificates (?) – I think you may have to make the effort to request and pay a fee to see a copy of one.

      • Enn says:

        Gotcha. I don’t know anything about UK birth certificates so I was going off of previous comments, and I do remember the thing where Will put Kate’s occupation as “Princess” on George’s.

        Mine just lists parents, including mother’s maiden, city of birth, and date/stats.

      • t says:

        In the uk the certificates are like this:

        I think there is an online searchable database where you can find the name of the child, the surname, the the birth district and the year they were born in, but it’s not as detailed as the actual certificates. I think there’s a fee of about £30 to get a copy, which I imagine a newspaper will be paying as soon as they can so they can post the intricacies contained in it!

      • Brandy Alexander says:

        Can anyone just get them though? In the US I don’t think they just release them to anyone willing to pay because of identity theft. When I had to order mine, obviously the names matched, but when I ordered my son’s, I had to have a valid relationship status (mom of a minor) and reason for requesting it before they would give it to me.

      • t says:

        I think so, although I’m not sure. I think anyone can set up an account with one of the databases and order one as long as they pay the fee and give certain specific details, such as mother’s full maiden name, etc, and why they want it.

    • Meganbot2000 says:

      They are, but they don’t become public till some time after the birth (I remember the crazy Cumberbatch tinhats counting down the days till they could buy Ben and Sophie’s first baby’s birth certificate) and you have to order and pay for them. I have no doubt some tabloid will order a copy at some point, but the birth certificate may have not even been filed yet. My parents didn’t register my birth till basically the day of the 42 day deadline because they couldn’t decide on a name.

      • Tina says:

        Yes, it’s 42 days to register plus six months for the local authority to process it. So you can request it after 6 months plus 42 days.

      • Enn says:

        Woooowww that’s bananas about the Cumberbatch countdown.

  2. Megan says:

    Why does anyone care who delivered the baby and where?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I agree! Harry & Megs just need to release the birth certificate and be done with it! By not releasing whatever it is that Bill & Cathy released with each of their children, they are just adding fuel to an already out of control fire for no reason whatsoever.

      • BlueOrange says:

        THIS! Maybe people are just getting ahead of themselves and expecting to see the certificate too soon. TBH I don’t see why people even care about seeing the birth certificate or knowing which doctors were there. Why does it even matter? But if they’re withholding information just for the sake of being in control and ‘private’ then they’re doing themselves no favours and if it does turn out that any of these conspiracy theories are true and the baby was born earlier, then god help them because that would be a terrible error of judgement.

      • Duch says:

        I’ve been wondering if they are releasing less in order to make the legal argument later that he’s a private citizen and entitled to more legal protection from a privacy perspective. At least in US, public figures have less expectation of privacy.

        In this case there would be a “reason” for it beyond just preference.


    • velourazure says:


    • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

      Yes and nothing, NOTHING they do will make critics happy, so why not do things how they want to.

    • Julia says:

      There is an entire nasty subset of Daily Mail readers who have a conspiracy theory that she was never actually pregnant, the bump was fake and that a surrogate actually had the baby for them and that’s why the secrecy. They pull up the weirdest supporting “evidence”, like the fact that William didn’t mention Meghan when talking about the baby’s arrival and the absence of doctor’s signatures as proof that they didn’t actually deliver her baby. They will leap on this as further proof that the couple are hiding the real truth of how Archie arrived.

    • Jag says:

      I agree about the “Doula Patchouli” comment in that I see it as putting down doulas as less-than and just “New Age,” and not really the amazing advocates for pregnant women that they are.

      May we please allow for women to make their own birthing choices, and for those who don’t subscribe to the “put your feet up in the stirrups and push because I have to get back to my golf game” way of thinking? (My mother told the attending gyno that she was going to hold in either me or one of my siblings when her actual doctor wasn’t there. The attending was trying to rush her because he was going to be teeing off soon, so I’m not just being stereotypical.)

    • Skipper says:

      To make sure it’s legit as they and the baby are paid for by the British taxpayers. Most royals comply with this as a courtesy to them

  3. zig says:

    There is a rumor his birth was two weeks prior to the stated date, because of Harry saying the baby has changed so much in the past “two weeks”.

    • Bren says:

      That is not what Harry said. He spoke in general terms and said babies change so much over two weeks.

    • Catherine says:

      Interesting, I didn’t hear about that.

      • olive says:

        you didn’t hear about it because it’s not what harry said – he spoke about hearing from other people that babies’ looks change a lot in the first 2 weeks.

    • Rapunzel says:

      Zig- the media definitely wants to prove that rumor true, to make Meghan/Harry look really horrid.

      I hope it’s not true cause it would give the haters too much ammunition. And I fear it might be. Harry not only said what he said about two weeks, but also indicated the baby was “changing every day.” That’s a funny thing to say when the baby is only 3 days old. It would make more sense for a two week old.

      I’m not concern trolling or anything, but I honestly hope the Sussex team didn’t step into a mess in trying to give Meg/Archie privacy.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Except – that’s not what he said. Just rewatched the video and he clearly states that he was TOLD babies change a lot in ghe first two weeks and so they are waiting to see who he looks like

      • Rapunzel says:

        The two weeks thing he was told, yes, and I don’t see that as odd. But he followed it up with, “But his looks are changing every single day, so who knows.” So he specifically said the baby’s looks are changing. That is a tad odd to say of a three day old. But I didn’t say I think it’s true the baby was born earlier. I don’t believe that it is. I’m just saying the press would have a field day if it was, so I hope I’m right in believing it to be untrue.

        Honestly, I think H and M are too smart to lie about something like this. But, I can only say with 99% certainty instead of 100% due to that awkward statement of Harry’s. That’s all.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Rapunzel There is literally nothing odd about what he said. He was asked a question about who the baby looked like and he basically stated that his face is changing everyday. What is odd about that statement?? Newborns’ faces DO change everyday. 🙄

      • Mel M says:

        Yeah I didn’t find that odd at all either. Babies are always changing, and when you have one you see the changes daily.

    • Cate says:

      I really doubt that. Would they have really been able to keep something like that hidden from the Queen? I can’t see her signing off on a deception like that. Also, while the photos don’t show a lot, that is still a pretty fresh looking baby. And, Meghan still has a lot of bump showing for someone who gave birth “two weeks” ago. I know the bump can take a while to go down, but myself and all of my friends by two weeks had subsided into “might be pregnant, might have a well-developed beer gut” territory by two weeks, which Meghan has not in those photos.

    • Meganbot2000 says:

      It’s the Meghan tinhats pushing that conspiracy theory. (And one particular person has been running to every single forum and gossip blog they can find to copy and paste the exact same post containing the exact same FAKE quote about Harry saying “the baby has changed a lot over the past two weeks” — pull up your slip dear, your agenda is showing.)

      The baby is clearly not two weeks old, and Meghan is obviously only a day or two postpartum.

    • Caty says:

      Except he didn’t actually say that. Stop being dumb.

    • notasugarhere says:

      tumblr misses you. Try watching real news, not the conspiracy theories posted on tumblr or youtube. He said, quote:

      “You know everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks, we’re basically sort of monitoring how the changing process happens over this next month really. His looks are changing every single day, so who knows?”

  4. t says:

    I didn’t realise that they normally released them. No matter, some intrepid reporter will look it up eventually when it gets filed.

  5. Surly Gale says:

    Maybe they are doing it this way to show just how over the top (whilst being considerably under-handed) these articles are? I sure do wish “Jeannie Yoon, 56, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist based at the private Lister Hospital in Chelsea, who also delivers babies at the Portland, is believed to have been involved in the delivery. When approached by The Mail on Sunday on Friday at her home in north London, a smiling Miss Yoon said: ‘I’m not meant to make any comment at all, sorry. I’m not allowed to say anything at all.’ ” had NOT been smiling…in fact, had been enraged, and called the cops. THAT would have been fitting. Makes me mad she was so ‘amenable’ to being tracked down to her HOME and then questioned. I wish she had been angry, not placating.

    • Sunnee says:

      SurlyGale. I love your post.

    • Hunter says:

      Definitely over the top.
      Yesterday an article was run in a UK rag (I’m assuming, but it showed up in my Google news feed) wherein a person/source/expert with no connection to the Sussexes whatsoever claimed the Duchess will “probably” (I $hit you not) co sleep with her baby, putting the child in mortal danger. The entire article was crafted on the premise of her irresponsibility by probably doing something. I’m not landing one way or the other on the co-sleeping issue, just pointing out that the whole article was ridiculous, farcical. I’m surprised every day by the garbage this family, and Meghan particularly has to put up with.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      What @Surly Gale said. This right here is the issue and the reason they are doing things differently to the Cambs. Did any of the Cambridge doctors have press showing up at their homes (and harassing them and paying for dirt on their patient)? I think the Sussexes are trying to protect the doctors since they know they will not be treated with the same respect as the Cambs’ doctors.

      • Lorelei says:

        @RoyalWatcher: some reporter (I don’t remember which one) sent a rude tweet mocking the fact that a press release was sent before this was posted on IG. He posted a screenshot of the press release. I can’t recall the Cambridges EVER having that kind of crap openly mocked by members of the media. Criticizing a press release and posting it for the public to join in the bashing?

        I’m so tired of people saying Kate received the same treatment from the press as Meghan is because she absolutely did not.

        ETA If they hadn’t sent a press release, I’m sure the RRs would have bitched that the Sussexes are doing an end run around them by posting to IG without alerting them. It is all so stupid.

    • Olenna says:

      ITA, Surly Gayle. For a hospital known for it’s care of the wealthy and well-known, I find it hard to believe it does not have a strict policy with explicit guidance for it’s health care providers to follow when confronted or contacted by the press. This OB person’s coyness with the Fail reporter was unprofessional and indicates she’s a bit taken with her own self for attending the birth.

    • Noway says:

      That is their description. If she just said I’m not at liberty to speak about patients, which is probably what happened, it doesn’t sound as interesting. I doubt she was being coy. A doctor isn’t supposed to talk about any patient without their permission. Funny how people don’t believe the Mail when it’s someone they like, but they are sure willing to believe them on other things. I read everything with a grain of salt from them. Sure they may get some things right, but I’d be suspect.

      • Olenna says:

        Well, let’s hope the quote is inaccurate and, if so, Mrs. Yoon requests a retraction.

  6. crogirl says:

    Oh god. I am not a biggest fan of this couple or any of the royals, but it’s their kid and their decision. Let them enjoy their baby in peace.

  7. Sunnee says:

    They don’t have to, that’s why. Hippa is US regulation but I bet the UK has similar legislation. Medical Privacy is important. These wolves are scrabbling for details. Shoo and leave the “irrelevant” Sussexes alone.
    My gosh, with this fervor, you would almost believe that they are the most powerful/popular couple in the UK. 😏

    • WingKingdom says:

      I agree. And you don’t throw wolves scraps, because then they come back twice as hard. I think releasing the birth certificate is like saying “we agree that we must prove the details of our son’s birth so here they are.”

      It reminds me of Obama’s birth certificate. People were like, “just release it and let’s be done with this conspiracy theory!” but releasing it made it look like Donald Trump could make demands of the U.S. president and he would have to meet those demands. Plus the conspiracy theorists just claimed it was fake anyway.

      • Lithe says:

        “you don’t throw wolves scraps, because then they come back twice as hard”

        Absolutely, @WingKingdom!

        The Sussexes (Meghan) will be eviscerated no matter what, so they are doing the right thing focussing on their family and doling out the bare minimum details.

  8. Mumbles says:

    There are also theories out there that they used a surrogate. Releasing the birth certificate would deflate those (or rather, not releasing them would make those crazies even crazier.) I’m also curious if, like Normal Bill and Cathy, they list Meghan’s occupation as “Princess of the Realm” (so normal of Normal Bill and Cathy!)

    I think it behooves them to eventually release the birth certificate.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      Those are conspiracy tin-foil hat “theories”.
      They don’t need to release shit and the media and “theorists” just want more ammo for their racist bullshit.

    • Vanessa says:

      Why should Meghan and Harry give those trolls anything no matter what Meghan does their is always going to be people who think she had a surrogate .

    • olive says:

      what’s the point? obama had conspiracies about his birth certificate, and once he finally released it in hopes it would shut the racists up, they just decided it was fake. if harry and meghan release the birth certificate tomorrow, these tin foil hat people will just find something new to demand of her. the goal posts are constantly shifting with people like that.

    • Joanne says:

      There are many rumours that Meghan used a surrogate. The decision not to publish the birth certificate fits in with this scenario. In the UK if a couple use a surrogate they have to file a ‘parental order’ six weeks after the birth. This order, when granted, allows them to put their names as parents on the birth certificate. By the time the birth certificate is legally available for viewing (after 6 months) all trace of the surrogate will have disappeared.

  9. anniefannie says:

    I think this is their way of being passive aggressive with the press AND the stifling “rules”. My SIL absolutely will cut off her nose when she perceives she’s being dictated too. I find it hilarious in the best possible way but I’ve come to realize she’s deadly serious and to not tease her about it…

  10. Ainsley7 says:

    I don’t really understand what is going on the the birth certificate thing. It will be in the public record after they file. So, we will see it eventually. There’s a big difference between haven’t filed yet and won’t release it. They have no say over its release.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      Exactly this. They are just not doing it on the timetable that the press is demanding. It will be released in accordance with the law. My guess is they are hoping the obsession with the birth will have died down in 6 months.

  11. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    If it’s a day ending in “y” the British press will be bitching about *something*, some slight or faux pas, real or imagined, that Harry and Meghan have done (ESP. Meg). We’d better get used to it. If they feel H&M are “irrelevant”, then *why* are they so far up their a$$es all the time?

    I wonder if Bea marries her playboy bf if the press will put down the H&M “bone” and start in on them (him, leaving a fiancée and new baby of 3 mos. to latch onto her; there are already some stories starting about how desperate Bea is to marry (she is the last “singleton” in the RF), about how broody *she* is… yada yada). I think more will come up with her cousin’s wedding coming up at St. George’s chapel, too.

  12. Lory says:

    Harry was also misquoted. “Harry added, ‘Everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks we’re basically monitoring how the changing process happens over this next month really. But his looks are changing every single day, so who knows.’” This doesn’t mean the baby is two weeks old. The press jumped on it and people conspire that the baby was born earlier than has been stated.

    • RuddyZooKeeper says:

      And wasn’t it after a question asking which parent baby took after? I sort of cringed when he made the two weeks comment because, to me, it gave away that the inner circle had been discussing skin tone. I’m betting that’s what the weird look from Meghan came from as well, like she couldn’t believe he just brought that up. I’m no expert, but it’s my understanding that the skin tone of mixed race (any race combo) babies can change dramatically from birth over the course of the first two or three weeks. Sort of the same way that a baby born with blue eyes often ends up with a different, permanent color? I’m betting there were people in the inner circle who were surprised and probably delighted that little Archie has such a light complexion but were immediately schooled by Meghan and her mom about the realities of a developing skin tone. Harry’s reaction literally sounded like he was rattling off a fact that he just learned.

      • Mel M says:

        The majority of babies are born with blue eyes unless they go on to have super dark brown eyes. Also, anyone who’s had a baby know how much they change in the first year period let alone the first two weeks so I don’t understand how you get a skin tone discussion out of that. Your baby is born and usually has a super swollen face and then for the next few weeks things relax and they start sleeping less, they put on weight and so its always changing. Hair starts changing as well so that adds to the baby looking different. My oldest son was born with blonde hair which changed to red then back to almost white blonde by the time he was one. Now at almost 6 he has dirty blonde hair. Pics of my babies the day they were born look nothing like them even at two weeks later.

      • i says:

        “The majority of babies are born with blue eyes”

        You left out the words “white heritage” or “caucasian” there. In those populations it may be qwhite common, but it’s not true to a universal majority. The majority of babies born are not Caucasian, so the majority of babies are not born blue eyed.

      • IlsaLund says:

        Babies looks change constantly from the moment they are born. Eyes, hair, skin are all changing. And I would hope no one in the inner circle were concerned or discussing the baby’s skin tone. What’s always amazed me is the ignorance that people have about African Americans in particular. The majority of A.A. are actually mixed race due to the evils of slavery. A baby’s skin tone is never an issue in the A.A. community because we know you can never tell how the DNA will mix. Hell, my husband and I are clearly A.A. but when our daughter was born she looked like a Caucasian baby. Her skin tone changed over the following weeks, but at birth she had “white”skin.

      • Julia says:

        Meghan wasn’t there when Harry said it so she can’t have given him a weird look.

      • hunter says:

        Yeah I have a hard time imagining 100% black babies being born with White Walker eyes.

      • minny says:

        The child’s head and ears were covered completely in doors. It has been MY experience that the very tip of the AA babies’ ears can denote the eventual skin tone of the baby. Discussing the tips of the ears has been a topic of discussion once the babies has come in my and my extending family. It’s no biggie really, just trying to figure out who the baby takes after. I am guessing people asking who the baby takes after might be a common question asked about many new borns.

  13. GR says:

    Uh, Daily Fail – “Miss Yoon”? I think that would be “Doctor Yoon,” you sexist a**holes.

    • Legalkatz says:

      If she’s a consultant she may not use the ‘Dr’ title. Consultants tend to be ‘Mr’ or ‘Miss’

    • Fenella says:

      In the UK consultants are referred to as Miss or Mr.

    • Tina says:

      It’s a surgical thing, not due to her being a consultant. It’s due to a centuries old spat between the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons. Surgeons are referred to as Mr or Miss, not Dr.

      • PixiePaperdoll says:

        So a GYN is automatically a surgeon?

      • Tina says:

        No, some gynaecologists are surgeons and some are not. By calling her Miss, that signals to medical professionals that she is a surgeon. A google search tells me that she is the Surgical Representative on a committee at one of her hospitals (the Lister, which is affiliated with the Portland) and she has wide experience of gynaecological surgical procedures including laporoscopy (key hole surgery), hysteroscopy and colposcopy.

      • Nic919 says:

        I find that not using Ms for women in a professional context comes off as very misogynistic. I know it’s still common in the Uk but marital status should not be defining women in a business setting. It’s the standard in North America and has been for decades now.

        I know that there is a distinction between surgeons and physicians in the UK for the use of Dr, but the alternative should be Ms for women.

      • Tina says:

        I know it’s anachronistic, but it doesn’t signify marital status, at least not in this context. Jeannie Yoon is married with two children, but all women surgeons in the UK go by “Miss,” whatever their marital status. (I agree that Ms would be preferable).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        In the USA surgeons are considered a higher level of medical practice than generic Physicians.

  14. Mtam says:

    Basically the British press is exactly like Meghan’s father. Damned if you give in to what they want, and damned if you don’t. I think the best thing the Sussexes can do is just keep doing their thing and the British press can keep being mad and unethical. In the end they will do w.e it takes for their business to sell, no matter how much Meghan and Harry try to appease them.

    • Swack says:

      Talking about her father, I’m surprised we haven’t heard from him or her half-sister, moaning and groaning how they need to see the baby.

      • Bri W. says:

        I think I saw something about Samantha was blaming Doria for not pushing Megan and Thomas to talk again and that Master Archie is missing out on getting to know a creative person or something. I refuse to go back and look for the article cause I don’t want to give clicks.

      • Moose says:

        Yes there was something in the Daily Mail the other day from Nasty Sam suggesting it was breaking TM’s heart that he wasn’t meeting the baby and then in another article she said Doria needed to do more to bring Meghan & TM back together…

      • MsIam says:

        @Moose and then you read the article in the Mirror from the first wife telling Meghan to stay away from TM, lol. Sam and Dad are a dumpster fire for sure. They are so fake going on and on about Meghan and Baby Archie, meanwhile none of their family here in the US want anything to do with them.

    • Peg says:

      They are out there grumbling.
      The fixated person is going to send Meghan a photo album of the Markles for the christening, so Meghan can show Archie the Markles, I kid you not.
      She said Doria should be doing more, to make Meghan send for Thomas and he should’ve been in the photo with the Queen and DOE, then she said Doria had no interest in the Duchess and her father reconciling.

  15. Bren says:

    As soon as the press has the details about the birth here comes more BS stories to malign Meghan. They can’t make up sources close to the medical staff and hospital until they know the who, what, when, where and why of the birth. Good for Harry and Meghan for making them wait.

  16. BlueSky says:

    They want this information so they can harass the hospital staff and doctors for details. Someone mentioned in a previous post about the privacy laws in the US and I’m curious if there is something similar in the UK.

  17. Sam says:

    The conspiracy theorist are deranged.Why should Harry and Meghan care about what those people are saying.
    Its going to be available but they arent releasing it to the press.

  18. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Let’s stop demanding to see people’s birth certificates. It wasn’t cute with Obama and it’s not cute now. They don’t have to release it early to prove anything to anyone. I’m sick of the idea that the onus is on POC to PROVE things to everyone else. And that’s essentially what’s happening here. People want Meghan to PROVE things about the birth of her child. I say if it’s legally required to eventually be released then they will – when they feel like it. Until then everyone can just relax.

    • kerwood says:

      I agree. I can’t believe the British press is bullying a family that gave birth less than a week ago AND harassing a woman about confidential matters concerning her job AT HER HOME.

      Certain people are going to have to decide. Either Harry, Meagan and Archie are the most unimportant royals to ever royal OR they are the most important people on the planet and are vital to peace in our time.

    • Abby says:

      agreed. Do not understand the hounding about this.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      @V V + a million!

    • Anna says:

      Exactly. This has shades of racism and overtly so with regard to British media.

  19. 10KTurtle says:

    Oh boy, can’t wait for the nuclear fallout when they see Meghan’s occupation is “Princess of the United Kingdom”…

  20. LW says:

    Since they wanted the birth to be private perhaps they aren’t releasing details because she plans to have another and people would stalk the hospital in anticipation next time under the assumption she’d be using the same one.

  21. Chica71 says:

    They have another 45days to make public. The reporters just want to harrass doctors and nurses involved because hospital will be listed

    • Moose says:

      Agree, the hateful media have shown their true motives by showing up unannounced at a doctors doorstep who is only rumoured to have been involved in the birth… can you imagine what the press will be like when they eventually do get hold of the actual delivery doctors? (which they’ll track down when birth location is confirmed when the birth certificate is eventually available as legally required). They’ll want to chase them in the street to get salacious details as to whether Meghan screamed or was calm, whether Harry held her hand all the way through or fainted? None of these details is in the public interest – birth is a private affair! LEAVE THEM BE!!

  22. kerwood says:

    When is the Queen going to step in and stop this bullshit? She’s overdue.

  23. Boo says:

    Hey GR, when you become a consultant in the UK you go back to being Mr/ Mrs/ Miss instead of Dr. So this one time the Mail aren’t being sexist 🙂

    • 10KTurtle says:

      Why is that? Do you lose your educational background somehow if you don’t work in your field? [asking in earnest]

      • Tina says:

        A consultant in UK medical parlance is the equivalent of an attending in the US. But consultants who aren’t surgeons are still called Dr, it’s because this lady is a surgeon that she is called Miss.

  24. JanetFerber says:

    When President Obama released his birth certificate proving he was a born U.S. citizen, the haters still hated and wouldn’t believe it anyway (review D. Trump’s response). I’m sure there will still be conspiracy theories about the baby’s birth no matter what is released. What really steams me is that b—–d Trump refusing to release his taxes or the Mueller report.

  25. Lol says:

    Lord so much drama for a baby to a couple that the British media have said is irrelevant. So which is it? I mean all day yesterday Richard palmer went on and on about popular William is and Meghan is only a step up above camilla. Then why the anger for the irrelevant couples baby. Focus on popular William and his brood.

  26. Casey20 says:

    Another Nothingburger from the British Media who are still licking their wounds after having ZERO control over Archie’s birth. They often tell us Harry is 6 inline and not relevant yet they continue the harassment of the irrelevant 6 inline and his family!

  27. Go Placidly says:

    Do they get any positive press at all in the UK? Outside of it? I’d dearly love to read articles and opinion pieces about how great they are.

    • Tina says:

      The BBC presents things generally neutrally, factual reporting. Also, have a look at the Guardian and search for “Meghan Markle”. It’s a republican paper so they’re never going to be 100% positive about the royals but there are a lot of columnists expressing the utmost sympathy for Meghan in particular.

    • Casey20 says:

      No and the BBC had the racist reporter that tweeted a picture of parents bringing home a monkey from the hospital with a caption about the Sussex ….So racist

  28. HeyThere! says:

    If they released it haters would say it’s fake. If they don’t release it haters say it’s fake. LOL Haters hate and they shouldn’t but that’s what haters do. Let these people enjoy their newborn baby.

  29. Lol says:

    Jeannie Yoon should have called the police. The fact that one is stepping in now that private people are being harrassed says a lot about the royal family and the UK press for that matter. I thought the us press was bad but no the UK press is an embarrassment.

    • gayle says:

      No, Jeannie Yoon should have just walked away/slammed the door shut with a simple “no comment”. By saying that she’s “not allowed” to say anything, she just opened up a big can of worms for herself and the royals.

      • Tina says:

        Let’s not blame the doctor here. (And god knows there’s a lot about the UK press I can’t stand, but check out Ben Shapiro being interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC if you want to see a genuine old-school journalistic beatdown).

      • gayle says:

        I’m not blaming her for anything. By indicating she is “not allowed” to say anything she pretty much confirmed her involvement with the birth. I’m not familiar with UK journalists by name but hounding the royals and anyone associated with them this like this is beyond the pale….

      • Tina says:

        Jeannie Yoon did the best she could. If they wanted her to respond perfectly, they should have sent her for media training or at the very least told her not to answer the door. It’s very clear from her response that she was involved with the birth, yes. The UK press is relentless for sure, doorstepping is a normal technique. It’s not limited to coverage of the royals.

  30. Abby says:

    I am so mad today about lots of things, but the treatment of the Sussexes is just putting me over the top. Just, so mad. About the comments on the other post, comments on their IG, and the media’s obsession with the birth details. O M G.

    Stepping away from the computer. Just cannot today.

  31. Elise says:

    I do understand the point that the British tax payers are funding their lives and there are expectations and responsibilities regarding transparency that go along with that

    • Vanessa says:

      Just because the Royal are supported by the people taxes that doesn’t mean they own the royal family that ridiculously just disgusting. When Kate was pregnant she never got this treatment by the press and royal watchers this behavior by the royal reporters is disgusting racist dehumanizing toward Meghan just because she married into the royal that’s doesn’t mean she owned like a slave by the British press. Last time I check Meghan is married to the sixth in line to the throne not the heir to the throne what ever information Meghan and Harry decided to share with the public is their right . The only transparency the public needs to know about the royal family is what they do with the public money their not entitled to know Meghan birth plan or anything else that has to do with her body or pregnancy that is personal matter .

    • Sid says:

      Why does the public need to see their child’s birth certificate?

      • Chrome says:

        It’s because to be in line for succession and titles proof is required that the baby was born of the body of the mother. Up till QEII, a government representative had to witness the birth. Since QEII, doctors in the room have signed it off. It’s a requirement for those at the top of the succession tree. Also in the UK, it takes about 8-12 weeks for parents using a surrogate to legally have that baby made officially theirs, even if it is their DNA. That’s why not releasing the birthing team/ place and refusing to release the birth certificate for ages feeds surrogacy rumors. As Kaiser said, best to announce it, register the birth certificate and that’s the end of it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, the tinhats would only claim it was all fake and HM was in on the conspiracy. Seeing a birth certificate RIGHTNOW would change none of that. Acknowledging the tinhats in any way is dangerous. It would only make them come back harder, as others wrote of the tabloids.

      • Olenna says:

        I’m curious to know why anyone thinks the parents are delaying registering the birth. Meghan is pretty much housebound and Harry’s been parenting and working this past week and half. I don’t believe they are trying to delay the process; it may have already been done with a home visit by the registrar. And, if so, that’s not going to change the waiting period. The child is a private citizen, not heir to the throne, so what’s the hurry and the BFD? Anyway, I recall people getting bent out of shape over comparisons made about how Meghan was being treated horribly like Obama. Now, some angry RRs and citizens are in “birther” mode, so it seems like the earlier comparisons may have been a forewarning of things to come.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Their child does not have a title and will never be a working royal. The tabloids weren’t hounding after Sophie and Edward, or Zara and Peter or their kids, so their attacks about this are blatant. They are doing what they said they would – keeping this birth private. They work their royal jobs, but the private life of their son is private.

      The birth certificate will be filed within the legal day limit. After that, it will be accessible in six months. There is no reason for the public to be hounding after this, and nothing on the birth certificate is going to stop the tinhat trolls and their theories. They’d just say it is all lies, HM should be arrested for participating in the conspiracy, etc.

  32. Carey says:

    I wonder if they are withholding the details of the birth until they do a sit-down with a friendly journalist like Gayle King.

    • Vanessa says:

      Meghan and Harry are not doing a sit down interview with gayle that is just a rumor started out about the daily mail because cbs was one of the other station to be present when Archie was first revel. Just like how the daily mail started rumor that the only reason oprah was invited to the wedding was becaus she was suppose doing a exclusive interview with Doria that never happen . Why is so hard to believe that just maybe Meghan and Harry just want some privacy regrading the birth of their baby why is it that Kate and William were given so much space and grace during the children’s birth . But some how Meghan isn’t entitled to that at all

  33. JaneDoesWork says:

    I feel like H&M are setting expectations. Their son does not have a royal title, he is not a member of the royal family, he is a private citizen who will be expected to work outside the firm and make a living and as such they’re not going to be as free with information about his life. That said, I think its also a case of they have 42 days to file it and they just haven’t yet and the press is just rabid and out for blood.

    • Vanessa says:

      Thank you for saying just because the royals are supported by the British people that doesn’t entitled them to know the personal details of Meghan birth plan . It’s like the royal reporters has loss all sense have become completely total unhinged why is that the Cambridge are allowed completely privacy regarding their children every royal reporters praise them for protected their children. But all hell breaks when Meghan and Harry do the same for their child it’s like the royal reporters want access to Archie just to use as tool to provoke Harry and Meghan . Their racist campaign against Meghan didn’t work it only made people mad on her behalf and a lot of the royal reporters got ton of backlash for their actions toward Meghan .

  34. Sharon Lea says:

    I have heard that Kate has never let know her own time of birth be known, so no one can see for certain what her rising sign is and the true aspects astrologically and compatibility with William. If so, then what is the big deal here? Has anyone seen Kate’s birth certificate?

  35. Mel says:

    It’s insane that anyone is that interested in the birth certificate of a child that doesn’t belong to them. UGH, I’m sure there are days when she wishes she stayed in Toronto…

  36. celialarson12 says:

    Did somebody say that it may take 42 days plus 6 months processing time before it is ready to be made public.? I hope it takes that long. Since when did birthing details of any woman become of national interest ? Currently there is only one story …. the non disclosure of a birth certificate. When it is released it will be 50 stories majority of them made up by the RR. The conspiracy theori crowd will continue with their theories no matter what. Please, please Meghan and Harry….do not release Archie`s birth certificate until the last day required by law.

    • Tina says:

      Yes, they have 42 days to provide the information to their local authority and the local authority doesn’t have to respond to requests for it until 6 months have passed. There may be some refusal by the local authority to provide the information even then, but that would create a bigger fuss than releasing it IMO.

      • IlsaLund says:

        So does that mean that anyone can request a copy of someone else’s birth certificate? Here in the U.S. there are laws governing the release of such information. Most states put requirements in place. Typically only a parent or the individual can request a birth certificate and then you have to prove your identity and/or relationship. It just seems odd that someone other than H&M can request a copy of Archie’s birth certificate.

        Also, HIPPA laws govern the privacy and release of medical information. Doctors aren’t allowed to disclose any medical information without the patient’s consent.

      • celialarson12 says:

        Apart from the need for gossip and rumour mongering ( Sorry, forgot it is called a royal reporter´s career), I do not see the reason for why the press is asking for Archie`s birth certificate. It is not like he is about to be sworn in as the next monarch and there is fear about the legitimacy of his birth. But no need for drama… let Meghan and Harry file for the certificate on the 42nd day.

      • Tina says:

        Birth certificates are public information. (There aren’t any medical details on them.) See the Cumberbitches story above.

  37. kate says:

    Birthrooms are about as personal as it gets. The press literally wants to know about her vagina and if its royal enough or if her baby is really real enough. She is the boss of her own body. Its weird and creepy that people think they have a right to know about her cervix dilation . I wouldnt release the birth certificate or birth details either. Fuck them. Shes a human that baby is a human.

    • kerwood says:

      A birth certificate won’t give that information anyway. What they want from Megan is for her to admit that she’s a BLACK JEZEBEL who has hypnotized poor Prince Harry and wormed her way into the Royal Family. And there’s no place on a British birth certificate to put that kind of information.

  38. magnolia says:

    There are different standards for the British Royal Family and they lose a certain amount of privacy by being working Royals. This is the reality they signed on for. If they don’t wish to benefit from taxpayer money, security, and various other royal perks they are free to live a private life and enjoy the wealth they already have. The birth certificate does not reveal intimate details of the delivery but does include basic legally relevant information. By not revealing it they create more intrigue around it.

    However, I completely support them keeping their child private, off social media and only photographed at significant family events. No one is entitled to see him in his private life.

    • celialarson12 says:

      Working royals lose a certain amount of privacy… agreed. What does the birth certificate of a royal`s child have to do with them being working royals? ( No shade on you Magnolia). I am just fed up of gossip and rumour mongers making up lies, publishing them then calling them Royal Reporting ….. “ Story ….Princess Anne in divorce shock“` Reality….. the woman who in 1970 as a 12 year old gave flowers to princess Anne on har Canadian visit is getting divorced…“

      • Chrome says:

        It’s because to be in line for succession and titles proof is required that the baby was born of the body of the mother. Up till QEII, a government representative had to witness the birth. Since QEII, doctors in the room have signed it off. It’s a requirement for those at the top of the succession tree. Also in the UK, it takes about 8-12 weeks for parents using a surrogate to legally have that baby made officially theirs, even if it is their DNA. That’s why not releasing the birthing team/ place and refusing to release the birth certificate for ages feeds surrogacy rumors. As Kaiser said, best to announce it, register the birth certificate and that’s the end of it. After that, no-one needs to see Archie or hear about him if that is the parents’ choice.

      • magnolia says:

        I don’t disagree with you but all UK birth certificates are public. They will not be afforded anymore privacy than any other citizen. Beyond what will eventually be public I don’t see any reason to share information, but for various inheritance and succession reasons that information will eventually be made public and refusing to disclose it emboldens ridiculous conspiracy theories and draws more attention to their child, not less.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Chrome….but how do they prove the sperm came from the body of the father?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Chrome you’re only repeating conspiracy theories that have no bearing here. You’re just helping to spread them. Releasing the birth certificate now would only embolden those tinhat idiots and make them think they should work even harder to attack.

  39. Casey20 says:

    The Brits are unrelenting in their need to control everything about the RF. Remember they demanded to see Harry and William after the death of their mother. They bare!y had time to process their lost and the Brits demanded a public appearance!

    • Moose says:

      Not the British public, the British Media… I for one was very happy that the boys were kept at Balmoral out of the public eye with their family who could care and love them.. the media had no right to try to intrude on the boys’ grief and put pressure on the RF to have them seen in public at the most difficult time in their life. Disgusting behaviour from the press and they haven’t improved since then…

  40. llaura says:


    • BayTampaBay says:

      I AM SURE THEY WILL!! Demand for a paternity test will be announced in the Daily Fail by providing a phone number you can call to register your demand by leaving a voice comment and it will only cost you one pound per minute.

    • notasugarhere says:

      tumblr misses you llaura

  41. CoffeeAddict says:

    i think it its absolutely ridiculous that the british press – or anyone for that matter – has a problem with home births. There is nothing wrong with them! And I wish Meghan wouldn’t hide that if she did have one. Women who prefer home births would have someone in their corner – less stigma. But she is not the torch bearer for all women, so she should do what she feels comfortable with.

    That said, i also don’t understand why people think its wrong of the press to demand a birth certificate or other details. Harry and Meghan benefit from the crown, their whole livelihood is paid for by the people and that of their son. This isn’t like a celebrity asking for privacy – celebrities earn their keep by working. The Royals get their funds whether they work or not. I just feel like the Royals have very little ground to act precious. If they want the privilege of being a royal – then they need to put out as well. If they want their privacy, by all means, they should consider becoming private citizens. But we all know that won’t happen because they all like the perks but not the responsibility.

    • Casey20 says:

      Ok that is not true. Let’s be clear: Charles provides for Sussex ‘s from the Duchy of Cornwall… Tax Payer money. When they conduct business on behalf of the Queen, that’s when the tax payers become relevant. The Brits know this but love to play dumb so that can feel ownership of the Royals.

      • kerwood says:

        Thank you. Queen Victoria ended slavery back in the 19th century. It’s illegal to own another human being in Great Britain. I believe that includes the Royal Family.

      • magnolia says:

        Partly true. They do receive large amounts of money via the duchy; however, in return the duchy is afforded numerous beneficial and complicated tax breaks. They are also subsidized by the sovereign grant and their security, which is a heavy cost, is picked up by the taxpayers. Nothing about the royal family is simple. They are free to give it up and live as private citizens. They choose not to.

      • james says:

        The Duchy is a crown body. Charles writes off all the expenses for Meghan and her ilk and doesn’t pay tax on these amounts. In other words, the BRF are stealing from the public to pay for their opulent lifestyles. This entitles the British public to a high degree of transparency from these leaches living off of them.

      • Casey20 says:

        The Duchy belongs to the Elder Child of the Sovereign and is passed down accordingly. It is British Law. It doesn’t state anything about the British taxpayer. It is a complicated system that was agreed upon by the crown and the government. 99.9% of Brits have ZERO idea what they’re talking about! Basically, the British government couldn’t afford to pay the Royals off to dissolve this LAW. The law states they have a certain amount of time to file the birth certificate….you will see it when they are ready to make it public according g to the law and not the demand of crazy Brits!

      • Tina says:

        Yes, we should believe random Americans without legal qualifications over “99.9% of Brits”. Because that makes sense. (Magnolia and James are correct).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Casey20, The Duchy belongs to the elder MALE child of the Sovereign if that Male child is the heir apparent.

      • Casey20 says:

        Yes, the male that is correct. Standby my statement on Brits. Most are clueless about how the RF is funded, including some on this site!

  42. kerwood says:

    I’ve always believed that racism is a form of mental illness and the bullshit that’s coming down over the Sussex family is proof. Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison has said that she always believed that she had the moral high ground over racists and she’s right. I guess folks have to choose which side they want to be on. One side has Doria Ragland, a woman of style and grace. On the other is Samantha Markle.

    What’s to be gained by this constant harassment of Megan (because it really is ALL ABOUT MEGAN)? Even if she read every single one of the most hateful articles and posts about her, at the end of the day, she’s going to kiss her beautiful baby goodnight, get into bed and fuck her handsome husband. It’s clear that none of the people who spend so much time hating her (mostly American women) have anything that good going on in their lives.

    When these people finally get their hands on Archie’s birth certificate, they’re going to be disappointed. It won’t have BLACKBLACKBLACKBLACK printed all over it. It won’t say that an alien surrogate (a BLACK alien surrogate) gave birth to Archie over 20 years ago. It won’t even say that Megan suffered A LOT. It’s going to say where and when Archie was born and who his parents are. Which we already know.

    So what do these people win, when they win?

    • notasugarhere says:

      They win the idea that as long as they keep attacking, the royals respond. That’s what the tinhats want, acknowledgement.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        per Kerwood: “What’s to be gained by this constant harassment of Megan”?

        A metric-fu*K-tonne of $$$$ and BPs for the Daily Fail, The Daily Slow and The Dim.

  43. rose says:

    I don’t understand why the public needs to know any further information. All relevant information was initially released.

  44. Catherine Page says:

    The legitimacy of the birth of a biracial American being questioned by racist trolls?!? I am SO SHOCKED, this has never happened before! They should just release the birth certificate so that…

    ((world history whispers in ear)) Wait, what happened?!?! Kowtowing to the trolls did nothing but increase the expectation that the privacy of Black and biracial individuals is for public consumption? Well, color me shocked!

  45. Catherine Page says:

    I’m just waiting on the British press to start saying Meghan is secretly from Africa, something insane about her old emails, and that we should “lock her up!” The parallels are like Kavanaugh and Thomas, evidence that we haven’t come as far as we’d believed.

  46. Notafan says:

    I want them to have a friend “leak” a birth certificate listing their occupations as “black jezebel” and “thick chump” and the place of birth is Piers Morgan’s home address. Please, please let this happened.

  47. Noway says:

    Just curious is there something on a UK birth certificate you would want private? I mean I know the average person may want it private for identity theft, but when you are a Mountbatten-Windsor I think that it is kind of a moot point. I did see a comment about identity theft and it made me laugh so hard. I know it is their decision and I don’t really care. However, I don’t see the problem with letting it out either, if you are royal. It does seem to fan the flames on a topic that could easily be done with. Did they really say they weren’t going to release it, or was it just not filed yet. Cause someone said everyones is released, and if his isn’t that will just make an already rabid gossip core more rabid if they got special permission to keep it sealed.

    I think it just isn’t filed yet, and they will release it when it is. I think she intended on having a home birth and the baby being late and probably her age made them go to the hospital. I’m just saying that cause women over 35 they usually like going to a hospital anyway. This probably messed up a bit of their plans, and it didn’t get filed quickly. It’s not the first thing you think of. Cause I really see no reason to do this, as you don’t need to stir conspiracy theories. They already make up enough, unless there is more on a UK birth certificate than I know.