In a surprising turn of events, it has been revealed that Prince Charles made amendments to the royal succession bill in 2013, citing DNA evidence that allegedly proves Prince Harry is not his biological son.

This revelation has sparked speculation about whether the royal family had an emergency backup plan in place to prevent Harry from ever ascending to the throne.

The amendment, which was inserted after clause 1, introduced new clauses regarding royal marriages and heirs of the body.

According to the bill, a marriage is considered a royal marriage for the purpose of establishing the claim of any person to succeed to the crown as an heir to the body, but only if the marriage is between a man and a woman.

Furthermore, the bill states that a person is disqualified from succeeding to the crown as an heir to the body of a royal marriage if they are not the biological offspring of both parties involved.

However, there is a provision that allows both Houses of Parliament to pass a resolution exempting certain cases from this section.

As it stands, any titles or honors can only be inherited by children born to the wife of the title holder.

This means that children born through other means, even if the wife’s eggs were used, have to be legally adopted and are unable to inherit any titles.

To support their argument, proponents of changing the law point to a case where a non-royal couple had a baby through a gestational carrier using the wife’s eggs.

They successfully lobbied for a change in the law, allowing a judge to declare the babies as their natural children without the need for adoption.

Many find this reasonable, but it remains uncertain whether the same principles would apply to the royal family.

Speculation has been rife about whether Meghan Markle and Prince Harry used a surrogate, as they have not publicly confirmed or denied it.

If they did use a surrogate, the question arises as to whether the babies born with Meghan’s eggs and Harry’s sperm via another woman’s uterus would have rights to inherit.

The issue becomes more complex when considering that common law does not always apply to the crown and its associated matters.

Initially, it was assumed that if Meghan and Harry had used a surrogate, the law would have been amended to accommodate their situation.

However, the fact that Parliament did not agree on a straightforward hypothetical scenario suggests that the couple would have faced an uphill battle.

Their case would have relied on legal scholars and Parliament being supportive, which may not have been a risk they were willing to take.

Furthermore, it is highly likely that DNA tests have been conducted on the children, given the advancements in technology since the last time a male monarch and a female spouse were in power.

While this information would understandably remain private, rumors circulated that the Daily Mirror obtained some of Prince Harry’s DNA for testing.

The lack of any public disclosure suggests that either Harry is indeed Charles’s biological son, or the test results were so significant that a super-injunction was imposed to prevent their release.

Insiders within the royal circle claim that the 2013 amendment to the succession bill was directly linked to Charles’s reliance on a paternity DNA report comparing him to Harry.

The confusing results of this test prompted all senior members of the royal family to agree on the immediate need for amendments.

Consequently, the updated bill now holds implications for the future royal titles of Archie and Lilibet, as Meghan finds herself embroiled in suspicion surrounding the use of a surrogate.

If Prince Harry is not the biological father, it raises doubts about the direct link between the offspring and Sophie of Hanover, which is crucial for qualification in the line of succession.

Additionally, if the child is not biologically related to Meghan, questions of legitimacy may arise.