What have official palace statements and Meghan/Prince Harry said about their children’s births?
Executive summary
Official palace statements and the Sussexes' own announcements together supply most public information about the births of Archie and Lilibet: Buckingham Palace handled formal notifications and expressions of family pleasure, while Prince Harry and Meghan Markle provided birth details, named their children publicly and have disclosed choices — like a private christening and use of royal titles — through their Archewell and social channels [1] [2] [3] [4]. Where reporting diverges — about birth locations, protocol and later disputes over titles and media coverage — both sides have issued selective, sometimes strategic messaging that reflects competing priorities of privacy, public relations and institution-preserving narratives [5] [6].
1. Palace statements: formal notifications and family delight
When the Sussexes announced the arrival of Lilibet “Lili” Diana, Buckingham Palace released a short, formal statement informing the monarch and senior royals had been told and were “delighted” with the news, the standard tone the institution uses to acknowledge royal births while keeping details minimal [1]. Earlier, palace messaging around Archie’s birth similarly focused on official timing and logistics — Buckingham Palace announced the newborn and that the baby would not carry a courtesy title “at this time,” reflecting the palace’s gatekeeping role in what becomes public about royal births [2]. The Queen’s own archived statement also emphasized family continuity — “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family” — a conciliatory, familial line used by the institution amid wider tensions [7].
2. Sussex announcements: specific details, names and personal framing
Harry and Meghan provided the public-facing specifics: Archie's name and birth photos were revealed by the couple on social media shortly after his May 6, 2019 birth, framing the moment as personal and intimate rather than a staged royal photocall [2]. For Lilibet, the couple’s Archewell statement gave birth details including date, time and place — Lilibet “Lili” Diana was born June 4, 2021 at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital at 11:40 a.m., according to their announcement — and explained the name choices as tributes to Queen Elizabeth II’s family nickname and Princess Diana [1] [3]. Those direct communications have been used by the Sussexes to control tone and narrative, emphasizing family and tribute over palace protocol [3].
3. Where official and private accounts diverged: location and tradition
The two camps have not always presented identical pictures: reporting around Archie’s birth highlighted departures from recent royal practice — questions about whether Frogmore Cottage was the birthplace and the absence of the standard hospital photocall — and noted the palace declined to comment on some details, underscoring an intentional opacity from institutional spokespeople even as the couple disclosed personal aspects [5]. That gap between palace brevity and Sussex disclosure created divergent narratives about how closely the couple would follow tradition and how much privacy they would claim.
4. Titles, christening and subsequent clarifications: mixed signals and formal rules
The Sussexes announced that Lilibet had been privately christened in California and publicly called her Princess Lilibet Diana, signaling their intent to use royal titles for their children; the palace has later addressed the formal mechanics and historic rules that govern titles [4]. Critics and some palace-aligned reporting pushed back, invoking the 1917 rules set out under George V about who receives titles, a technical rebuttal to insinuations that the palace arbitrarily denied titles [6]. That exchange illustrates how statements from both sides serve different aims: the couple’s personal naming and ceremonial choices versus the palace’s emphasis on legal and historical precedent.
5. Rumors, secrecy and the limits of public statements
Outside official releases, tabloids and gossip sites have circulated speculation — including claims about surrogacy and “cloak-and-dagger” secrecy — that neither the palace nor the Sussexes have substantiated; those rumors persist precisely because official statements are selective and legal or privacy constraints prevent fuller disclosure [8]. Reporting shows the palace tends to issue concise, duty-focused pronouncements while Harry and Meghan use their own platforms to provide emotive context and to assert control of their family narrative, a dynamic that fuels both sympathy and institutional critique in public coverage [1] [3] [2].