Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who catch the attention of the media and the public with their every single move, are no strangers to controversy. Yet, recently the British tabloids have started speculating on yet another potential aspect to this couple: surrogacy. Speculation has recently swirled about whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may have used a surrogate to carry and give birth to their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilbet, who are sixth and seventh in line for the British throne. Some critics argue Meghan should provide more proof that she gave birth.
First off, from our review, there is currently no evidence or admission that Harry and Meghan had a surrogate for either birth. It's possible these rumors are their critics looking for another reason to harass and doubt the couple for living independently in the United States and apart from the rest of the Royal Family. Surrogacy contracts are normally governed by confidentiality clauses, so if Harry and Meghan did have a surrogate, their surrogate would likely be bound to not disclose the identity of who she carried for. In most states, the parentage action in which the court finds the intended parents are the parents, it would be sealed to the public. In a state like California, only one birth certificate is issued naming the intended parents as a child’s legal parents, while in some states, a birth certificate with the surrogate’s name will briefly exist before being sealed. Nonetheless, the scenario raises unique questions: why would it matter if a child born is born via surrogacy, if genetically the child of Harry and Meghan? What legal issue would arise under royal succession laws if a child was born by a surrogate as opposed by the Duchess herself?
Challenges to Conventions
Meghan Markle, as a biracial, American-born royal, has already challenged several conventions, from speaking openly about mental health to addressing racism within the royal institution. We would think that Meghan and Harry would not be reluctant to embrace surrogacy publicly just as they are willing to talk about other aspects of their life. No doubt, it would further their reputation as modernizers while igniting a cultural conversation about family-building alternatives. Nonetheless, it is surprising to learn that the method of giving birth could matter for legitimacy.
The line of succession to the British throne is governed by centuries-old traditions and legal frameworks, primarily the Act of Settlement (1701) and the Succession to the Crown Act (2013). These laws ensure a clear lineage, emphasizing legitimacy and birthright. Having said that, surrogacy introduces complexities that these statutes never anticipated.
Central to the legal debate is the Roman law principle of mater semper certa est—"the mother is always certain"—which underpins UK family law. This legal concept reinforces the surrogate's initial status as the mother, potentially complicating the royal child's claim to legitimacy. The Succession to the Crown Bill discusses the necessity for an heir to be the "offspring of both parties" in a royal marriage, raising questions about the legitimacy of children born via surrogacy.
Interestingly, while the British royal family has yet to address surrogacy publicly, other royal families have faced similar challenges with modern reproductive methods. For instance:
Viscount and Lady Weymouth: Viscount and Lady Weymouth became the first members of the British aristocracy to have a child via surrogacy. This event has sparked conversations about the acceptance of surrogacy within the upper echelons of British society.
Prince Gustav and Princess Carina of Denmark: Welcomed their second child via surrogate via surrogate 11 months after the birth of their first child. This couple overcame strict royal rules to get married before, which makes historian and royal house commentator Lars Hovbakke Sørensen thinks that such experience "can help to create more understanding around their decision about surrogate motherhood."
These examples highlight that royalty worldwide navigates the delicate balance between tradition and modernity, with varying degrees of transparency.
The Legal and Cultural Debate
If Harry and Meghan were to announce the use of surrogacy, the implications would extend far beyond tabloid headlines.
Royal rights and privileges remain undecided for a child born via surrogacy. Legal experts suggest that a parental order, which transfers parental rights to the intended parents, might satisfy succession requirements. Nevertheless, this would likely require additional scrutiny or even new legal precedents.
Legal experts point out that the monarchy’s approach to succession has evolved over time to adapt to changing societal norms. One great example is the Succession to the Crown Act (2013) abolished male preference primogeniture, allowing female heirs to take precedence over younger male siblings. This reform demonstrates that royal laws can be flexible.
Culturally, surrogacy remains a polarizing topic. It has gained acceptance in many parts of the world, including the UK, but traditionalists often view it as incompatible with royal lineage. “The queen was this wonderful blank canvas,” says longtime royals expert Richard Fitzwilliams, on which Britons could project their own views and perceptions onto.6 However, after the queen’s passing, royalties are facing challenges. The institution still enjoys a broad support, a recent YouGov survey shows that the rate has declined from 62% to 58%.7 To maintain its popularity, even the monarchy must eventually reconcile its traditions with contemporary realities.
In the meantime, surrogacy needs increasingly grow in the UK. The number of parents having a baby using a surrogate in England and Wales has almost quadrupled in the last 10 years. Family Law Commissioner Professor Nick Hopkins commented: “The use of surrogacy to form a family has increased in recent years, but our decades-old laws are outdated and not fit for purpose.”
All this evidence proves that reformation is urgently needed. As Lord Michael Jopling of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom mentioned: “Surrogacy is becoming much more common and it is not impossible that this could happen in the future……It is rather important that this should be clarified now because it could give rise to considerable difficulties in the future.”10 Surrogacy, although once seem to disrupt the “ideal” image, it is now a topic that requires the royal family’s opinions.
Public Opinion and the Future of the Monarchy
While the story has yet to ignite without further evidence, this controversy also sheds light on perceptions of surrogacy in British society. In the UK, surrogacy arrangements are legal but heavily regulated. Public acceptance has grown, particularly among younger generations, but a stigma persists.
Public opinion will undoubtedly shape how the Royal Family approaches this issue. Surveys indicate a generational divide: younger Britons tend to support alternative family-building methods, while older generations remain more conservative. One poll shows that 55% of respondents aged 18-24 and 50% of respondents aged 25-49 viewed surrogacy positively, compared to only 36% of those over 65.
When it comes to the public’s perception, transparency could play a key role. A candid acknowledgment of surrogacy might help destigmatize the practice and align the royal family with modern values. Alternatively, silence or ambiguity might instead fuel further speculation and criticism.
If handled thoughtfully, the British monarchy could use this moment to demonstrate its relevance in a rapidly changing world. By embracing progressive values while respecting tradition, the royal family could reinforce its place as a unifying institution.
Conclusion: Tradition Meets Change
A possible surrogacy controversy surrounding Harry and Meghan reflects the evolving nature of family-building in the 21st century. While surrogacy raises complex legal and cultural questions, it also offers an opportunity for the British monarchy to demonstrate adaptability and inclusivity.
If a royal child were to be born via surrogacy, it would undoubtedly spark debates about legitimacy and succession. However, it could also set a powerful precedent, by challenging outdated norms and normalizing diverse paths to parenthood.
If there is a surrogacy birth in the Royal Family, the world will be watching. Whether through transparency, legal reform, or quiet acceptance, we hope the British Royal Family redefines what it means to be royal in an era of change.
Comentarios