Tom Bower’s new book dropped a string of extraordinary assertions about the births of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children, and the reaction was immediate: viral headlines, outraged denials, and a swarm of snippets recycled across social platforms. At the center of the storm are three types of claims that together create a single, combustible narrative: (1) that official wording around the births was unusually vague in ways that matter; (2) that documentary details linked to those births contain inconsistencies; and (3) that some close to the family have made medical or eyewitness claims that, if true, would be consequential.

Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary scrutiny. This piece walks through the core allegations, separates what is supported by public records and reputable reporting from what remains anecdote or unverified rumor, and explains why precision matters when questions touch succession, law, and private medical history. Wherever a public fact is available, I cite it; wherever it is not, I mark the boundary between verified information and allegation.

WHAT BOWER ALLEGES — IN BRIEF

Bower’s account, as reported in coverage of his book, frames the controversy primarily around language. He highlights that the public announcements about the Sussex children used phrasing that — he argues — is atypically noncommittal; that certain documents associated with the births have anomalies; and that some individuals allegedly connected to the births either disappeared or produced statements that raise questions. The suggestion is not merely journalistic curiosity: Bower implies that these cumulative oddities could point to something far more consequential than a PR gaffe.

Language matters in royal communications. Historically, statements about royal births have followed a long-established form that includes straightforward confirmation of the mother’s delivery. Bower and others have argued that the Sussex statements — which often read, in public releases, that “the Duke and Duchess have welcomed a daughter” — conspicuously avoid the phrase many expect, such as “was safely delivered,” and therefore that the announcements permit plausible deniability if some detail later proves inaccurate. That observation is a textual one, and it is verifiable: the Sussex announcements are publicly accessible and can be read for their exact wording. But textual oddity is not, in itself, proof of fraud; it is a hook that requires further corroboration.

WHAT THE DOCUMENTARY CLAIMS LOOK LIKE — AND WHAT IS VERIFIED

A second strand of the story involves claims about official documents: birth certificates, registration data, and what critics have described as numbering anomalies. Items circulating on social media and in commentary allege that codes or registration numbers on the children’s birth paperwork are inconsistent with the public narrative about place and date of birth. Public records do show that both Archie’s and Lilibet’s birth certificates contain details that have been discussed and debated in the press — for example, changes to how the parents are named on the publicly released certificates — but those verifiable facts do not, on their face, establish the sweeping claims sometimes attached to them. Reputable outlets reported that changes to Archie’s record were made and that palace officials framed at least some of those changes as administrative, not conspiratorial.

Independent fact-checking organizations have examined the broader claims that circulated after these documents were publicized. Reuters, for instance, ran a fact check concluding that there is no evidence Meghan faked her first pregnancy — the outlet reviewed photographs, recorded appearances, and other contemporaneous evidence and found the “faked pregnancy” claim unsupported. That matters because it shows how a cluster of online assertions can metastasize; when officials, documents, and public appearances are considered together, the strongest available evidence did not support the most explosive conspiracy claims.

WHAT ABOUT THE BIRTHPLACE AND REGISTRATION-CODE ALLEGATIONS?

One specific allegation that has circulated widely claims that a child’s official registration code points to a different U.S. state than the one publicly stated as the birthplace. This is a claim that sounds, at first glance, like a forensic lever: if true, it would be a sharp, testable inconsistency. But such claims require careful verification. State birth-record coding systems vary; publications and social-media posts that have amplified this line often rely on amateur readings of documents posted online, or on screenshots that may be incomplete or inaccurately transcribed. Reputable reporting about actual, systemic mismatches in official registries is scarce. When professional outlets have examined the publicly available certificates and related materials, they reported details (including changes to how names appear) but stopped short of declaring a mismatch in registration geography that would incontrovertibly contradict the public account. In short: the “wrong-state code” story has been circulated widely, but authoritative confirmation of it — from a registrar or a reliable record search — has not been widely reported in mainstream outlets.

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS AND MEDICAL ALLEGATIONS: DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF

The most combustible rumors are the ones about what happened behind palace doors: claims by a former staffer who said they never observed a pregnancy; assertions that a doctor “vanished”; and even a reported family claim that Meghan once had a medical procedure rendering pregnancy impossible. These are claims about private life and medical history. The standards for responsibly reporting on them must be high.

A firsthand staff-member’s recollection is potentially newsworthy, but it is also limited by scope: a housekeeper’s daily vantage point is real and narrow; it can be affected by the employer’s desire for privacy, by the timing and length of employment, and by what the employer chose to show or hide. Similarly, reports that a medical practitioner “closed her practice” after a royal delivery need to be examined against the public record — confirmation of practice closure, professional licensing databases, or comments from the practitioner’s office — before that fact is treated as evidence of wrongdoing. In the cases circulating online, good-faith attempts to trace these claims often run into blockages: lack of named, corroborating sources; reliance on hearsay; or reliance on anonymous snippets amplified through the echo chamber. When outlets have probed such allegations, many ended up reporting that the details could not be independently verified. That absence is not proof of innocence or guilt; it is a neutral, necessary caveat.

THE HYSTERECTOMY RUMOR: A CAUTIONARY EXAMPLE

Of the more sensational medical claims, the suggestion that Meghan had a hysterectomy is illustrative of the broader problem. That rumor has recirculated on social platforms and fringe sites multiple times, often without documentation. Fact-checkers and mainstream outlets have repeatedly found these allegations to be unsupported by reliable sources; the claim’s origin traces to unverified social posts and has been debunked by outlets that checked medical records and contemporaneous evidence of pregnancy and childbirth. A claim of this magnitude — one that directly contradicts widely accepted timelines and public records — requires documentary proof or confirmation from credible primary sources; such proof has not been presented publicly. Responsible reporting requires that we note both the existence of the rumor and the absence of credible verification.

OFFICIAL RESPONSES — WHAT WE CAN SAY FOR CERTAIN

On matters that can be confirmed, the public record is clearer. When questions about Archie’s birth-certificate wording arose in 2021, Meghan’s representatives issued statements rebutting certain tabloid narratives and stressing that changes to public documents wered “dictated by The Palace,” according to spokespeople quoted at the time. Mainstream outlets reported those statements and published copies of the public documents; the balance of evidence in that specific case pointed to administrative decisions and official involvement, not secret deception. That is an important, verifiable point because it shows official pushback against some of the tabloid framing.

At the same time, there are institutional limits. The Freedom of Information rules in the U.K. do not compel Buckingham Palace to produce certain private documents, and health privacy protections in the U.S. do the same for medical records. When a formal requestor sought confirmation years ago about the location of a royal birth, the government advised that the relevant private details fell outside the scope of records easily released under public-access rules. The upshot is that some questions are structurally hard to answer without consent from those who control the records; that structural opacity invites speculation even while it protects individuals’ privacy.

WHY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “UNUSUAL” AND “ILLEGAL” MATTERS

It is useful to separate three outcomes when confronting these stories. First: unusual wording, editorial choices, and the private handling of sensitive details — these are oddities that invite scrutiny and press inquiry, but by themselves are not evidence of criminality. Second: document errors or misfilings — if those exist, they can be audited and corrected; they are bureaucratic problems rather than moral condemnations. Third: deliberate falsification of records to alter line-of-succession claims or to commit fraud — those would be serious legal and constitutional matters. Publicly available, verified evidence to support the third claim has not been established by mainstream investigative outlets to date; instead, what exists are assertions, allegedly corroborating anecdotes, and disputed readings of documents. Responsible reporting should therefore treat the aggregate of claims as allegations in need of verification, not as proven fact.

HOW JOURNALISM AND THE PUBLIC CAN MOVE FORWARD

There are pragmatic steps journalists and interested members of the public can take that respect both the public interest and individual privacy:

• Seek primary-source confirmation. If a claim rests on a particular birth-register code or an official certificate, obtain certified copies from the issuing authority or a statement from the registrar explaining the coding convention.

• Test eyewitness accounts. Corroborate staff recollections with contemporaneous records (for example, employment dates, payroll records, or other staff testimony) rather than relying on anonymous or single-source recollections.

• Respect medical privacy. Medical records should not be sought simply to fuel sensationalism; a legitimate public-interest inquiry should meet the threshold of verifiable evidence and legal access.

• Apply proportionality. The monarchy’s rules on succession are a legitimate area of public concern, but not every oddity implies criminal culpability. Report what can be proven and clearly label what remains allegation.

A STORY OF QUESTIONS, NOT CONCLUSIONS

Tom Bower’s book reignited a debate that has been simmering for years: how do public institutions, celebrities, and the press manage births that are both intensely private and, by virtue of succession and symbolism, of public interest? Bower’s framing — insisting the wording and paperwork amount to a cloak for a deeper truth — is a provocative thesis. It is also a thesis that leans heavily on inference and contested testimony.

What the public record supports is a more measured set of facts: changes and editorial choices were made to certain public certificates and announcements; spokespeople for the Sussexes and senior palace officials have offered their own explanations; and independent fact-checking outlets have rejected the most incendiary claims (for example, that Meghan faked a pregnancy). Meanwhile, more sensational assertions — about registration codes proving a different birthplace, or about definitive medical history — remain uncorroborated by authoritative sources in the public domain.

We live in a time when partial documents, a glimmer of odd wording, and an eyewitness assertion can catalyze a viral narrative. That makes skeptical scrutiny — not reflexive dismissal, and not credulous amplification — more valuable than ever. The right lesson here is not that the public should ignore Bower or others who raise questions; it is that the public should demand the kind of evidence that transforms allegation into fact. Until that evidence is produced and verified in the open, the story is better described as a series of questions and conflicting claims — not as an established exposé.

(For readers who want to dig into the verifiable public record: mainstream reporting at the time of the certificates’ publication, parliamentary guidance on public-record access, and independent fact checks are the best immediate sources for assessing what can and cannot be responsibly reported.)