Princess Eugenie shared a heartwarming update on her growing family via her Instagram account. She and her husband, Jack Brooksbank, recently welcomed their second child, a beautiful baby boy named Ernest George Ronnie Brooksbank. The new addition to their family made his grand entrance into the world on May 30th, weighing a healthy 7 pounds and 1 ounce.
With overflowing joy, Princess Eugenie also treated her followers to a precious snapshot of her little one. The adorable image captured her newborn son in a serene slumber, nestled within a cozy Moses basket, complete with a charming knitted blue and white hat.
It’s worth noting that a birth announcement featuring the name “George Ronnie Brooksbank” briefly surfaced on the social media platform Twitter, but it was swiftly removed. However, during its brief appearance, it stirred quite a bit of discussion among Royal fans.
This incident raises intriguing questions, particularly when comparing it to the birth announcements of other Royal children. Notably, the absence of Queen Elizabeth’s signature on Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor’s birth announcement has piqued curiosity. This departure from tradition is especially remarkable as the Queen had traditionally signed every birth announcement during her reign.
This contrast with previous Royal births becomes even more striking when considering that no doctor has yet signed off on the birth of Archie. Such a departure from protocol is indeed unusual. While all of Prince William and Catherine’s children were born at St. Mary’s Hospital, so were Prince Harry and Prince William. In contrast, Archie was born at the Portland Hospital, a decision made by the Sussexes. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were also born at the Portland Hospital, and their birth announcements conform to the customary format.
Notably, the key differences between Archie’s birth announcement and those of other Royal children include the absence of a typewritten format for Archie’s birth notice, whereas the others feature typed information. Additionally, the paragraph spacing in Archie’s birth announcement differs from the standard format used for other Royal births. The mention of “Brooks Bank Palace” beneath the crest is also more widely spaced on Archie’s announcement compared to others.
All these variations have led to speculation and doubt among some observers. Some have suggested that the unusual aspects of Archie’s birth announcement may be indicative of a different childbirth scenario, such as surrogacy. The suspicions were further fueled by the reported inconsistencies in the narrative of Meghan’s childbirth experience, including the timing of her discharge from the hospital after giving birth.
For instance, it’s noteworthy that Meghan, who had a “geriatric pregnancy,” purportedly had two epidurals and was able to leave the hospital merely two hours after giving birth. Many find these claims medically improbable, given the standard postpartum recovery protocol for women who have had an epidural. Furthermore, the use of “laughing gas” during childbirth and the circumstances surrounding it have raised questions about the accuracy of the story.
Additionally, the notion that the hospital would release a miscarried baby for private burial under a tree has also been met with skepticism. These and other inconsistencies have left some with lingering doubts about the circumstances surrounding Archie’s birth.
