Where are your Kids? Meghan Look Shocked As CBS Jane Pauley Demand Proof Of Kids On CBS Sunday Morning Interview

In a highly anticipated interview on CBS Sunday Morning, Meghan Markle found herself in the hot seat as veteran journalist Jane Pauley pressed her for proof of her children’s existence. The Duchess of Sussex, who has fiercely guarded her family’s privacy, appeared visibly shocked and uncomfortable as Pauley demanded tangible evidence that Archie and Lilibet, Meghan’s two children with Prince Harry, are real.

The interview, which was billed as a candid discussion about the Sussexes’ philanthropic work through their Archewell Foundation, took an unexpected turn when Pauley challenged Meghan on the lack of public appearances by the couple’s children. “You and Prince Harry have been very vocal about the need to protect your children from the glare of the media,” Pauley said. “Yet, we’ve seen precious little of Archie and Lilibet. Can you understand why some people might be skeptical and wonder if they even exist?”

Meghan, who had previously spoken about the intense scrutiny and online harassment her family has faced, seemed caught off guard by the line of questioning. “My children are very much real,” she responded, her voice wavering slightly. “Archie and Lilibet are the center of our world, and we’ve made the conscious decision to keep them out of the public eye to give them a normal childhood.”

However, Pauley pressed on, citing the lack of photographic evidence and the couple’s reluctance to share updates about their children. “Forgive me, but many of your critics have pointed out that you’ve been quite selective in the images and information you’ve chosen to share. Isn’t that a bit suspicious?”

Visibly uncomfortable, Meghan attempted to defend her family’s privacy, but Pauley continued to push. “Surely you can understand the public’s curiosity and desire for proof. After all, you and Prince Harry have been quite vocal about your children and the challenges of raising them. Wouldn’t it be in the interest of transparency to at least provide a few recent photos?”

The exchange grew increasingly tense, with Meghan appearing to struggle to maintain her composure. “I understand the public’s interest, but my children’s wellbeing is my top priority,” she said. “I won’t subject them to the kind of scrutiny and harassment that I’ve had to endure. Their privacy is non-negotiable.”

Pauley, however, remained undeterred. “But don’t you think that by refusing to provide any tangible proof, you’re only fueling the speculation and conspiracy theories? Surely, you can see how this might come across as evasive or even dishonest.”

The interview’s dramatic turn has sparked a firestorm of controversy, with Meghan’s supporters accusing Pauley and CBS of engaging in a “witch hunt” and “bullying” the Duchess. Critics, on the other hand, have praised the journalist for her tough questioning and have called for Meghan to provide more transparency about her family.

“If Meghan and Harry are so committed to protecting their children, then why not simply share a few recent photos or videos?” said one commentator. “Their refusal to do so only serves to fuel the rumors and suspicions surrounding their family.”

Others have pointed to the couple’s history of making controversial claims, such as their allegations of racism within the royal family, as a reason to approach their statements with skepticism. “Meghan and Harry have a track record of making explosive claims without providing concrete evidence,” said another critic. “It’s only natural that the public would want to see some proof when it comes to the existence of their children.”

The interview has also reignited the ongoing debate about the balance between public interest and personal privacy, with some arguing that as public figures, the Sussexes have a responsibility to be more transparent.

“They can’t have it both ways,” said one commentator. “They want to be treated like royalty and enjoy the privileges that come with it, but they also want to shield their family from public scrutiny. That’s not how it works.”