Did Megan Markle give birth to her children

1. How the public record establishes the basic facts — births, dates and locations that matter

Contemporary reporting and documentation consistently show Meghan Markle gave birth to Archie in May 2019 and to Lilibet in June 2021, with media accounts specifying Archie's May 6, 2019 birth and Lilibet's June 4, 2021 birth in Santa Barbara; those accounts draw on official statements, birth registrations and the couple’s public disclosures ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Coverage from mainstream outlets at the time reported the locations and dates and noted standard registration procedures; later retrospectives and profiles repeat the same baseline facts. The existence of a birth certificate for Archie cited in reporting further anchors the public record to standard civil documentation rather than anecdote or speculation ^[2]. This body of documentation forms the primary evidentiary basis for asserting Meghan as the mother who carried and delivered both children.

2. Why surrogacy rumors gained traction — anatomy of a persistent conspiracy

Rumors that Meghan used a surrogate did not originate from official records but from online conjecture, selective readings of video footage, and politically charged narratives advanced in some corners of the internet and tabloid media ^{[4] [6]}. Analysts and commentators have traced these threads to misinterpretations of appearance in televised or online moments—such as suggestions that monitoring devices or clothing explained visual anomalies—and to an environment already primed to question Meghan’s public persona. Reporting that examines the rumor phenomenon highlights how bias, visual ambiguity and the virality of sensational claims combine to sustain conspiracies even when they lack documentary support ^[6]. Those dynamics explain persistent public doubt despite the contemporaneous record of births.

3. What credible fact-checking and medical commentary conclude about the evidence

Multiple fact-checkers and medical commentators investigated the specific elements invoked by surrogacy claims—such as supposed “lumps” or the timing and presentation of pregnancy-related media—and concluded there is no verified medical or documentary evidence that Meghan used a surrogate ^{[7] [5]}. Explanations offered by clinicians for visible features during pregnancy videos include routine fetal monitoring devices and normal variations in maternal appearance; fact-check pieces document the absence of any official correction, legal filing or credible whistleblower that would contradict registered birth records. Those professional and verification efforts reinforce the conclusion that the surrogacy assertions remain unproven and originate in speculation rather than corroborated fact ^[5].

4. How race, gender and politics shaped the conversation around Markle’s pregnancies

Coverage and analysis across several outlets identify racism, sexism and media hostility as driving forces behind intensified scrutiny of Meghan’s pregnancies and parenting, shaping which questions were raised and how widely unfounded claims spread ^{[6] [3]}. Critics note that Black and biracial women in the public eye face distinctive patterns of disbelief about their bodies and family life; commentators argue that such social dynamics amplified both routine curiosity and malicious rumor. Reporting that situates the surrogacy narrative within these broader patterns finds that the persistence of the conspiracy cannot be divorced from the social and political contexts that made it believable to certain audiences ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Bottom line: evidence, open questions and why the dispute persists

The documentary record and mainstream investigative reporting support that Meghan Markle gave birth to Archie and Lilibet, while allegations of surrogacy lack credible substantiation and are treated by fact-checkers as rumor ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Open questions are not evidentiary gaps in birth records but rather about why and how conspiracies endure: the answer lies in social media virality, partisan and racialized agendas, and sensationalist media incentive structures that reward controversy over verification ^{[6] [4]}. Readers should treat the births as established facts and weigh claims of surrogacy against the absence of corroborating documents or reliable testimony; where agendas are evident, scrutiny of motives is warranted.