Royal couple Prince Harry, Meghan Markle become parents to baby boy
London, May 6: It's a "healthy" baby boy for Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle, making him seventh-in-line to the British throne.
The 34-year-old father, Duke of Sussex, was present at the birth of his boy, who weighs 3.2 kg.
The new father, Prince Harry, told reporters that Meghan and the baby were doing "incredibly well" and that the couple were "absolutely thrilled" since the birth at 05:26 am (local time).
"It's been the most amazing experience I can ever possibly imagine. How any woman does what they do is beyond comprehension, said Prince Harry, making a brief media appearance as a new father.
"It was amazing, absolutely incredible. I'm so incredibly proud of my wife and as every father would say, this baby is absolutely to die for So, I'm just over the moon," he said, confirming that the baby was "a little bit overdue" and that the couple were still deciding on a name.
"The couple thank members of the public for their shared excitement and support during this very special time in their lives," the palace said, adding that, "More details will be shared in the forthcoming days."
Meghan, 37, went into labour "in the early hours" of Monday morning.
The new royal baby, as Queen Elizabeth II's eighth great grandchild, will be seventh-in-line to the British throne.
He or she will be in line behind its grandfather Prince Charles, uncle Prince William and his children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis and father Harry, Duke of Sussex.
However, the baby will not be bestowed a title of His or Her Royal Highness (HRH), or referred to as a Prince or Princess, unless the 93-year-old monarch steps in to make an exception to the royal titles rule dating back to 1917.
The boy will be able to use one of Harry's lesser titles to be known as the Earl of Dumbarton.
Meghan, a former actress, and Harry got married at a lavish wedding ceremony in Windsor Castle in May last year and announced the pregnancy publicly in October 2018, on the first day of their Commonwealth tour of Australia and New Zealand.
In a break from usual royal tradition, the couple have chosen to keep the birthing plans for their baby a private affair and said that they would be announcing the birth publicly only "once they have a chance to celebrate privately as a family".
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had moved out of their London home at Nottingham Cottage in Kensington Palace into their newly-refurbished 10-bedroom family home at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor on the Queen's estate recently in preparation of the new arrival.
Their new home has a curious Indian history as the cottage which was a royal gift to Abdul Karim by Queen Victoria, then Empress of India, in recognition of his service and as a sign of her affection towards her Indian aide and confidant.
Karim, whom the monarch referred to as her Munshi , was just 24 when he arrived in England from Agra to present Victoria with a special mohar or gold coin to mark her Golden Jubilee in 1887. He quickly grew close to the ageing monarch, who bestowed many gifts on him including Frogmore Cottage for his own use.
"Queen Victoria gave it to Abdul Karim, as a special gift. She would often visit the cottage and have tea with his wife and him. He had decorated the house with many exotic things, including presents given to him by European royalty," said Shrabani Basu, the author of Victoria and Abdul: The Extraordinary True Story of the Queen's Closest Confidant'.
Harry and Meghan, who have been based at Frogmore Cottage since early April, were appointed Youth Ambassadors for the Commonwealth by the Queen and there have been some speculative UK media reports on them choosing to be based in Africa as part of that role in the future.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
