It comes just a few days after she delivered a passionate speech in Switzerland about the risks of social media to children’s online safety. Following the backlash, a spokesperson for the Duchess told Newsweek: “The Duchess has always been clear that there is a distinction between sharing moments from her life and exposing her children to public scrutiny.
“By obscuring their faces, she is demonstrating the very principle she advocates for: giving children privacy, agency, and protection in an increasingly digital world.
“Far from being contradictory, by concealing their faces she is actually reflecting the message she delivered in Geneva: that parents can choose to share family experiences while still taking deliberate steps to protect identities, privacy, and digital footprint.”
But now a child psychologist argued that while hiding a child’s face online can add a layer of protection, online safety is “not absolute”.
Dr Sasha Hall, senior educational child psychologist and founder of Hall & Co Educational Psychology Services, told the outlet: “Rather than focusing solely on whether a face is visible, parents may benefit from thinking about what information the image reveals and whether their child might be comfortable with it remaining online in years to come.”
Dr Martha Deiros Collado, a clinical psychologist and family therapist, echoed the same view, adding: “It can improve children’s safety online if you blur the face on the photo itself, but it might not do much for their privacy.”
Ms Hall added: “Children only get one childhood, and protecting their privacy today helps preserve their ability to make their own choices about their digital identity in the future.”
Meanwhile, fans on Reddit claimed the hidden faces of Archie and Lilibet are due to California laws that aim to protect the children of actors and other content creators from having their presence monetised online.
Two new laws, Assembly Bill 1880 and Senate Bill 764, went into effect in January 2025 and provide legal and financial protections whenever a minor is the focal point of monetised content by influencers or “vloggers”.
Both laws are part of the California Child Actors’ Bill.
It is not known whether that is the true reason behind Harry and Meghan’s decision to keep their children’s faces hidden.
Notably, neither of the new laws specifies whether the faces of the minors need to be shown, but says that at least 30 % of the “vlogger’s compensated video content or the vlogger’s compensated image content” in a month needs to include “the likeness, name, or photograph of the minor” for the compensation to be required.