In the ever-twisting saga of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, few claims have sent as many shockwaves through royal circles as the latest from Lady Colin Campbell and investigative biographer Tom Bower. Both seasoned critics of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the pair have made fresh, highly controversial suggestions about the births of the Sussex children, Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana — suggestions that have set royal watchers, palace insiders, and social media ablaze.
.jpg)
Lady Colin Campbell, known for her bold and often unfiltered commentary, hinted during a recent podcast that “there are elements of both births that have never been properly explained to the public.” While stopping short of making direct accusations, she suggested inconsistencies in the couple’s official accounts, pointing to the secrecy that surrounded both events. For Archie’s arrival in May 2019, Buckingham Palace initially announced that Meghan was in labour — only for the world to later learn that Archie had already been born hours earlier. To Lady C, such discrepancies are not mere PR blunders but part of a larger pattern of “image control” by the Sussexes.
Tom Bower, whose 2022 biography Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors pulled no punches, echoed this sentiment in a recent interview. He claimed that “there are still unanswered questions about where, when, and how both births took place,” and that palace aides were left “in the dark” more than usual for royal births. Bower alleged that this level of secrecy was unprecedented and intentional, designed to keep details — and possibly photographic proof — out of the public domain.
The mystery deepens with the fact that Archie’s birth certificate was amended to remove Meghan’s first names, Rachel Meghan, leaving only “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.” Meghan later said this was a decision made by the Palace, but critics like Lady C see it as another sign of behind-the-scenes tensions. With Lilibet’s birth in June 2021 in California, the secrecy only intensified. No official christening pictures were released for months, and even now, images of the Sussex children remain scarce compared to other royal youngsters.
Supporters of Harry and Meghan argue that the couple’s desire for privacy is both understandable and necessary given the relentless scrutiny they have faced. They insist that protecting their children from media intrusion is not only a parental right but a moral duty. However, detractors view the strategy as selective transparency — using the children’s image when it suits their narrative, while withholding details at other times to fuel intrigue.
The timing of Lady C and Bower’s remarks is also notable. With the Sussexes’ public standing in the UK at a low point and questions swirling about their future royal ties, any controversy related to their children risks further polarising public opinion. Palace sources, predictably, have refused to engage with the claims, sticking to the long-held royal policy of “never complain, never explain.”
Whether these comments are rooted in genuine investigative concern or in the ongoing feud between the Sussexes and their critics, they have undeniably reignited one of the most sensitive topics in the couple’s public life. In the age of social media, where rumour and fact often blend, such provocative claims ensure that Archie and Lilibet’s early lives will remain a subject of fascination — and contention — for years to come.