Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have often been referred to as extremely protective parents and have largely opted to keep their children, six-year-old Prince Archie and four-year-old Princess Lilibet, out of the spotlight. Meghan has, however, shared various pictures of their children on her Instagram account, with her returning to social media in January 2025.
The mother-of-two has previously been called out for her « hypocrisy » in posting Archie and Lilibet since the Sussexes’ work to try and get social media firms to protect children and young people.
Speaking of Meghan’s most recent post of Harry and Lilibet, royal expert Ingrid Seward and The Mirror‘s Mitya Underwood wrote about how baffling it was that the former working royal allowed his wife to post the particular picture of Lilibet – with the picture being the most visible one that fans have seen of her side profile.
They wrote: « It is somewhat baffling that Harry allowed it to happen. He has made a point of describing how much he hated the cameras, which apparently he really did, and then there is a photograph of his daughter on Instagram for the whole world to see, which appears to be absolutely contrary to what Harry has said he wanted.
« So I would think they have some pretty fiery rows about the topic… But Harry understands the privacy issue better than Meghan does due to his own experiences as a child. For Meghan, being seen with a gorgeous child is just a plus, because she has had very different experiences. »
They also likened Meghan to a « movie star », adding: « Movie stars are always showing themselves off with their children but you don’t expect it from a Prince of the Realm. So it is obviously Meghan who wins on this. »
It concluded: « I would have thought Harry might have been brave enough to point out that the photograph was absolutely contrary to everything they said they wanted, and it cannot be undone now ».
Appearing to imply that Harry has no power, they added: « I think Meghan probably gets the final word in everything they discuss though. »
Source link
