You are correct, she has full legal custody of all minor grandchildren, the law in question is calledpart of me wonders if she’s deliberately obtuse about the details surrounding giving birth because she WANTS people to speculate on whether she used a surrogate or not. It creates drama which she thrives on and gives her attention.
Is it also feasible she wants to make sure Archie *isn’t* in the line of succession - if there is sufficient doubt around the details of his birth and they didn’t follow required protocol then could this be a basis for excluding him?
I could be wrong but I’m fairly certain heirs of the Queen of England “belong” to the monarch and if this as the case, the monarch could force Archie to be returned tothe U.K.and goodbye child support/ emotional blackmail tool against Harry
but maybe I’m too far down a rabbit hole...!
‘The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family’, it was introduced by King George I in 1717.
Perhaps the old chap had dealings with a Markke ancestor back in the day!
![Face with tears of joy :joy: 😂](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/joypixels/emoji-assets@5.0/png/64/1f602.png)
Article here:
![www.independent.co.uk](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.independent.co.uk%2Fs3fs-public%2Fthumbnails%2Fimage%2F2018%2F08%2F22%2F16%2Fharry-meghan-royal-children-law.jpg%3Fquality%3D75%26width%3D1200%26auto%3Dwebp&hash=0676fa02596e4f4b357785b8e9c09bf0&return_error=1)
The reason why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry may not always have custody of royal baby
The law dates all the way back to the early 18th century