On March 8th, Meghan Markle took to social media to share a selection of supposedly heartwarming photos in honor of International Women's Day. Among them was an image that allegedly features Prince Harry and their daughter, Lilibet, on a boat.
The issue? The child in the picture isn’t wearing a life jacket, which is a direct violation of California state law. According to California regulations, every child under 13 must wear a life jacket while on a moving vessel, no exceptions. So, how did this so-called loving and responsible couple allow such a glaring oversight?
This either points to staggering parental negligence or adds further credibility to the ongoing speculation that these children may not be real at all. Could this be yet another sloppy attempt at AI-generated imagery, one that overlooked a basic safety detail?
Is This Another Photoshop Disaster?
Let’s be honest—this isn’t the first time Meghan and Harry have been called out for questionable imagery involving their children. Remember when Archie was born? The absence of traditional royal birth announcements, inconsistencies regarding the hospital details, and Harry’s awkward, rehearsed-sounding first interview raised eyebrows. Then came the infamous Christmas card where Archie’s face looked heavily filtered, as if it had been digitally manipulated beyond recognition.
And now, this boat photo only fuels the ongoing debate. A child on a boat without a life jacket is not just irresponsible—it’s downright illegal. So, did Meghan and Harry genuinely fail to ensure basic safety, or did the AI editing simply forget to include a life vest?
Social media exploded with criticism. One X (formerly Twitter) user wrote:
"Even pet owners ensure their dogs wear life jackets on boats. What responsible parent would ignore such a basic safety measure?"
Another commenter added:
"Lilibet should absolutely have a life vest on! This is beyond reckless."
A History of Questionable Parenting and Inconsistencies
The Sussexes have a track record of inconsistency when it comes to their children. Despite claiming they want privacy, they frequently use their children as PR tools, yet refuse to provide any verifiable proof of their existence in public settings.
Unlike William and Catherine, who carefully balance their children’s privacy while ensuring authenticity, Meghan and Harry’s approach is anything but transparent. Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis are seen at appropriate public events, always dressed properly and adhering to safety protocols. The same cannot be said for the Sussex children, who appear only in heavily controlled, often questionable images.
Adding to the mystery, there’s still no publicly available authentic photograph of Lilibet with King Charles, her supposed grandfather. If these children were real, wouldn’t there be at least one genuine, unfiltered image of them with their royal relatives? Wouldn’t there be school sightings or casual family moments captured by paparazzi, as happens with every other high-profile family?
The Big Question: Are These Children Real?
There are several possible explanations:
The Sussexes are simply reckless parents who failed to follow a basic safety law and then broadcasted their mistake to millions.
They deliberately edit or manipulate images for PR purposes, leading to these bizarre inconsistencies.
The children may not exist in the way they’ve been presented to the public.
Each of these possibilities raises serious ethical concerns. If they truly cared about their children’s safety, wouldn’t they ensure even the smallest details, like a life jacket, were in place? If they’re using AI to fabricate images, what does that say about their credibility as a couple?
Meanwhile, King Charles, Prince William, and Princess Catherine have continued to handle their duties with dignity, despite ongoing challenges. Even as Catherine battles her health issues, she remains a dedicated mother, ensuring her children are safeguarded yet still connected to the public in a responsible manner. The difference between the working royals and the Sussexes couldn't be clearer.
