Have journalists or biographers investigated the birth details of Archie and Lilibet?
Executive summary
Journalists and book authors have examined and reported on the births of Archie and Lilibet, publishing timelines, hospital locations and first-person accounts drawn from memoirs and public records; those reports include mainstream features and tabloid-led surrogacy allegations [1] [2] [3] [4]. What reporting does not show is unrestricted access to medical records or conclusive public forensic proof beyond the birth announcements, memoir passages and one press report of a birth certificate—leaving room for dispute that has been amplified by partisan and commercial agendas [3] [2] [4].
1. Journalistic reconstructions: dates, places and public notices
Major outlets and reference sources have consistently reported Archie’s birth as occurring on 6 May 2019 at Portland Hospital in London with a specific time cited on public aggregations [1], while Lilibet’s birth has been widely reported as 4 June 2021 at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital after the couple relocated to California [5] [2]. These basic birth details have formed the backbone of profiles and timelines in lifestyle and news coverage rather than investigative exposés that access sealed medical records [5] [2].
2. Biographical sourcing: memoirs and intimate birth narratives
Biographical material—most notably the Duke’s published account and contemporary profiles—has supplied intimate narrative detail about Meghan’s labor experiences and the couple’s movements after delivery; Hello! summarized book passages that describe differing birth stories for each child, including the decision-making around epidural use and post-birth travel to Frogmore Cottage for Archie, and the Santa Barbara hospital birth for Lilibet [2]. Those first-person or near-first-person accounts are treated by reporters as primary sources when available, but they remain subject to interpretation and selection by authors and publishers [2].
3. Investigative claims and the surrogacy controversy
In late 2024 and early 2025 a string of articles and opinion pieces amplified allegations that the Sussex children were born via surrogacy, citing timing questions, family commentary and calls for documentary evidence; Economic Times and several tabloids described palace insiders and public figures demanding “proof” that Meghan gave birth to the children herself [4] [6]. Those outlets framed the controversy as a challenge to succession norms and public transparency, but their coverage frequently relied on unnamed insiders, speculative remarks and personalities with evident incentive to escalate the story—an agenda visible in overtly sensational sources [4] [6].
4. Public records and limits of verification
One press account referenced a birth certificate obtained by People that purportedly lists Lilibet’s time and place of birth—an example of journalists using public documents to corroborate claims [3]. Beyond that, independent verification is limited in the public domain: detailed medical records remain private and sources disagree over how to interpret timing and procedural accounts published in memoirs and interviews, which leaves a factual gap that tabloids and critics exploit [3] [2] [4].
5. Assessing motive, balance and what remains unresolved
Reporting has come from a mix of reputable outlets recounting dates and hospitals, memoir-based biographical passages adding narrative texture, and commercial tabloids using insinuation to press a scandal line that attracts clicks and political commentary; readers must weigh mainstream factual reporting (birthplaces and dates) against sensational claims that depend on anonymous sources and conjecture about surrogacy or altered records [1] [2] [6]. Crucially, existing reporting shows journalists and biographers have investigated and published birth details, but it does not produce publicly available medical documentation that would settle the surrogacy allegations conclusively—an evidentiary limit repeatedly highlighted in the coverage [3] [4].