Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there photos or medical reports supporting Meghan's natural birth of Archie?
Executive summary
Public documents and contemporary reporting show Archie Harrison Mountbatten‑Windsor was born at the private Portland Hospital in London on 6 May 2019 and weighed 7 lb 3 oz (reported by ABC/Time/Wikipedia) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not produce published medical records or hospital photographs of Meghan Markle’s labor; media coverage, the birth certificate, memoir excerpts and later interviews are the primary public evidence cited about the birth [1] [3] [4].
1. The official public record: birthplace and date
The birth certificate revealed the hospital where Archie was born—Portland Hospital in London—and contemporary outlets reported the date and time details, including the May 6, 2019 birth date and the baby’s weight of 7 lb 3 oz [1] [2] [3]. Journalists repeatedly relied on that certificate to correct earlier speculation about a home birth or other locations [1].
2. No medical records in the public domain
None of the provided reporting reproduces or cites Meghan’s private medical records (hospital charts, delivery notes, or clinical imaging). Sources either reference the birth certificate—or accounts from books, interviews and memoirs—but do not provide hospital medical records made public [1] [5] [4]. Available sources do not mention release of formal medical documentation to the public [1] [3].
3. Photographs: what was and wasn’t released
There was no immediate hospital-steps photocall as is traditional for some royals; instead Harry and Meghan introduced Archie to the press two days later at Windsor Castle, and the image releases thereafter were controlled by the couple [3] [4]. Sources note the couple declined the usual Lindo Wing steps photos and sought privacy around the birth, but they did present a baby photo at Windsor two days later—therefore hospital delivery‑room photographs have not been shown in the reporting you provided [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention any hospital delivery photos having been published [1].
4. Eyewitness and insider accounts cited by media
Books and magazine pieces—such as Finding Freedom and reporting in ELLE—quote friends, aides and authors who describe the birth as “uncomplicated” and not by C‑section, indicating a natural (vaginal) delivery according to those sources [5]. Harry’s memoir Spare and later interviews discuss aspects of the labour (including induction and an umbilical‑cord issue described in tabloid excerpts), but these are second‑hand or personal accounts rather than clinical proof [6] [4]. Those narrative sources support the claim of a non‑surgical birth in reporting but are not the same as medical records [5] [6].
5. Claims, skepticism and conspiracy online
There has been recurring online skepticism—ranging from tabloids to social media—that has questioned whether Meghan physically gave birth, with calls from some quarters for “proof” or for removal from the line of succession [7]. The Times of India piece cites Radar Online and public pressure narratives, but the reporting referenced does not point to new medical evidence—rather it highlights rumors and demands for proof [7]. Where allegations are raised, the cited sources rely on media speculation and do not produce documentation proving or disproving those claims [7].
6. What the available sources support, and the limits of that support
Available reporting and the birth certificate firmly establish birthplace, date and birth weight as the public facts [1] [2] [3]. Personal accounts in books and interviews consistently describe a vaginal, uncomplicated delivery rather than a planned C‑section [5] [4]. However, there is no public release of clinical medical records or delivery‑room photographs in the cited material; therefore definitive medical documentation beyond the birth certificate is not present in this set of sources [1] [3].
7. How media type and privacy choices shaped the record
The Sussexes’ stated preference for privacy—choosing a private hospital and delaying the public photocall—meant the narrative of the birth was shaped by official documents (birth certificate), memoirs, authorized interviews and secondary reporting rather than live press access to events in hospital [1] [4] [3]. That choice explains why some tabloids and commentators have speculated or demanded additional proof; the absence of routine, on‑the‑steps images created an information vacuum filled by controlled releases and later reminiscences [4] [7].
Bottom line: the publicly available, verifiable evidence in these sources is the birth certificate and contemporaneous reporting confirming Portland Hospital and the May 6, 2019 birth; journalists and biographers offer consistent accounts that the delivery was vaginal and uncomplicated, but no hospital medical records or delivery photographs have been published in the materials you supplied [1] [5] [3].