What did Buckingham Palace actually say in its public statements about Prince Louis's health?

1. What the search returns — not official statements but a news index and satire

The search results provided include a topic page for Prince Louis on The Independent, described as "latest breaking news, comment and features" which aggregates coverage but is not itself an official palace communiqué ^[1], and a RustStories piece that fabricates a sensational "palace confirmed" narrative and uses comedic, fictional detail about a so‑called "Louis Directive," signaling that the item is satirical rather than an authoritative palace release ^[2]. Because one source is an aggregator and the other explicitly constructs fictional palace "announcements," neither can be relied upon as the palace's public statement.

2. How the satirical item characterizes ‘the palace’ — and why that matters

The RustStories article presents flamboyant claims — for example, the "Marshmallow Protocol" and an invented apology about "kept this hidden" — framed in a tone of spoof and parody rather than journalism, indicating an agenda of entertainment rather than factual reporting ^[2]. Recognizing satire is crucial: treating such material as an official palace statement would misattribute intent and substance to Buckingham Palace and spread misinformation; the provided RustStories text therefore demonstrates the kind of false lead that must be filtered out when seeking an authoritative palace message ^[2].

3. What the provided sources do not show — no palace press release, no official wording

Nowhere among the supplied snippets is there a verbatim Buckingham Palace press release, an official Kensington Palace statement, or a quoted palace spokesperson addressing Prince Louis’s health; the Independent page is an index and the RustStories item is fictional, so the actual language used — if any — by Buckingham Palace about Prince Louis’s health is absent from the provided reporting ^{[1] [2]}. That absence is itself a factual finding: the present dataset does not contain the palace's public statements.

4. How to distinguish official palace statements from rumor or satire (methodology)

When trying to identify "what Buckingham Palace said," primary documents or direct palace channels (official palace press office releases, Kensington Palace social accounts, or statements distributed to established outlets) are the necessary evidence; the two items here do not supply those primary documents, so the prudent interpretation is that no verified palace statement is present in the material provided ^{[1] [2]}. Satirical or clickbait outlets may mimic the form of official statements; their rhetorical flourishes and lack of sourcing are telltale signs — evident in the RustStories copy ^[2].

5. Alternative viewpoints and the limits of this review

It is possible that Buckingham Palace did issue statements elsewhere, or that established news organizations published quotations from palace spokespeople not captured in this dataset; those possibilities cannot be confirmed or denied from the two provided sources, which means verification must proceed by consulting the palace’s official channels and reputable news organizations ^{[1] [2]}. The presence of invented material in the RustStories piece creates a risk that readers will conflate satire with fact unless they cross‑check against primary sources.

6. Bottom line — what can and cannot be concluded from the provided reporting

Based strictly on the material supplied, there is no documented Buckingham Palace public statement about Prince Louis’s health to summarize: the Independent link is a topical news hub and the RustStories item is satirical and fabricated, not an official release ^{[1] [2]}. Any authoritative account of "what Buckingham Palace actually said" requires locating and quoting an official palace statement or reputable reporting that reproduces it; that evidence is not present in the provided search results ^{[1] [2]}.