What privacy rules govern reporting medical information about minors in the British royal family?

1. The legal backbone: privacy rights and case law

British law recognises a general right to privacy that covers health information, with the Human Rights Act embedding Article 8 protections into domestic law and courts treating medical records as especially sensitive in privacy disputes—meaning legal precedent supports protection of health details for public figures as well as private citizens ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Data protection and children: UK GDPR adds extra layers

The UK GDPR and ICO guidance create child‑specific rules: children under 18 are treated as children for data‑protection purposes, are entitled to transparent privacy notices, and organisations must consider age when choosing lawful bases for processing personal data; processing special category data such as medical details requires an additional lawful basis and care when the subject is a child ^{[5] [2] [6]}.

3. Medical confidentiality in practice: NHS and professional duties

Healthcare professionals are bound by confidentiality and ethical guidance that prioritise the best interests of the child and restrict disclosure of patient information except where law or overriding public interest requires it; NHS guidance and professional toolkits emphasise that confidential patient information is used only where allowed by law and that disclosures without consent are limited ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

4. The Royal Household’s distinct status: FOI exemption, privacy policy and transparency claims

The Royal Household is not a public authority for the Freedom of Information Acts and is therefore exempt from FOI requests, though it maintains a privacy notice and says it strives to be open about some matters—this means official royal family medical records are not obtainable through FOI routes and instead fall under data‑protection and internal policy regimes ^{[3] [10]}.

5. Journalism, editorial codes and the “public interest” test

Editorial codes and case law cited in commentary on royal privacy make clear that medical information is afforded “the utmost protection” by both courts and press regulators, so reputable outlets err on the side of confidentiality for minors unless publication can be justified by a demonstrable public interest; tradition (such as public hospital baby appearances) shapes expectations but does not nullify legal protections ^{[4] [1]}.

6. Parental responsibility and the child’s voice in disclosure decisions

Access to a child’s health records normally rests with those holding parental responsibility, and service providers may follow the child’s wishes where appropriate; the law and guidance recognise situations where a child’s own views and best interests can limit disclosure even to parents, reinforcing protection against public reporting of private medical details without lawful basis ^{[11] [5]}.

7. Exceptions and contours: when medical details may be disclosed

There are limited statutory and clinical exceptions—health professionals may be required to disclose information for reasons such as notifiable disease reporting, safeguarding or other legal obligations, and public‑interest arguments can prevail in narrow circumstances recognized by courts and regulators—but these exceptions are constrained and judged case‑by‑case ^{[12] [8] [9]}.

8. Bottom line: reporting constraints and practical reality

In sum, reporting medical information about royal minors is constrained by strong legal protections for health data, specific child‑focused GDPR considerations, medical confidentiality obligations, and press codes; the Royal Household’s FOI exemption and its privacy policy mean official records are not freely accessible, and only clear legal bases or narrowly defined public‑interest justifications would support lawful publication of a royal child’s medical details ^{[1] [2] [3] [7] [4]}.