Harry to sue BBC

[Viviennemary]

I just read Harry is going to sue the BBC for announcing the Queen wasn't consulted over the name Lilibet. They said she was told of their plans . Maybe told isnt quite the same as consulted. When is this all going to end. Seems to be getting worse instead of improving.

An article has appeared in the Telegraph claiming that courtiers have become frustrated that the Sussexes spokespeople seem to feel that they can speak for the Queen

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/06/09/palace-frustration-name-choice-part-wider-annoyance-sussexes/

Sorry its behind a paywall. Here’s a couple of bits:

“Royal aides have become increasingly vexed by Harry and Meghan’s representatives - both official and self-appointed - claiming to speak for the 95-year-old monarch when they are in no position to do so.”

During that conversation, he (Harry) shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name."

Yet despite their lawyers Schillings accusing the BBC of defamation, the statement does not contradict the thrust of Mr Dymond’s report that the Queen was told, rather than asked, about the baby’s name.

Courtiers also appear to be increasingly concerned that the self-exiled royal couple keep attempting to draw a distinction between the Queen and the institution she represents.

Harry and Meghan have been noticeably careful to heap praise on the sovereign, as she prepares for her Platinum Jubilee next year, while voicing criticism of "The Firm" in general.

Yet as the head of the Royal family, not to mention the Commonwealth, insiders have
long argued the Queen and the monarchy are one and the same thing.

From confiding in James Corden that "granny" bought Archie, their two-year-old son, a waffle maker for Christmas, to the revelation they "spoke to the Queen to express their sympathies" in the wake of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death in April, there is a sense of cynicism around the couple repeatedly name-checking the monarch amid briefings that calls with other members of royals have been "unproductive".

This perhaps explains why sources close to the Prince of Wales have been so keen to brief this week that he is in "regular contact" with his son - in the absence of such information emanating from across the pond.

Curiously, the Sussexes tend to shy away from discussing private exchanges - unless they involve HM. It is therefore understandable that the palace may be minded to intervene when, to coin a phrase, "recollections may differ".

Honestly who cares they’re not relevant and they’re doing anything to get attention/sympathy. Even just choosing that name was going to attract attention poor child is being treat as a pawn and she’s not even a month old.

God... the waffle maker again. The DT really are scraping the barrel.

How incredibly sad.
I remember that happy bubble of exhaustion and excitement when my dd was born and had a 2 Yr old ds.
I don't think I knew or cared about anything other than the four of us.
There they are in their amazing home with, I imagine, plenty of help and lovely weather. 2 healthy kids and a great life...
They're foolish to the highest degree and have sunken to acting like publicity hungry reality stars.

I just think done people are giving a lot of time and headspace to a couple they wish would go away.

True dat, the press know it's clickbait.

I don’t think the waffle maker is the issue here. It’s the repeated “dropping” of conversations with the Queen.

Why mention it then! It's all a bit pathetic.

@smilesy

I don’t think the waffle maker is the issue here. It’s the repeated “dropping” of conversations with the Queen.

Exactly. If the Queen and her staff are irritated for the reasons the Telegraph gives, it’s hard to fault that irritation.

I suspect Harry would have a completely different understanding and not see why it’s problematic, though. Some things seem to whistle straight past him.

[quote RonaldMcDonald]@Viviennemary do you have an issue with Prince Harry taking paternity leave?

My husband took 12 weeks with each of our children and whilst I know we were blessed by that, it was what he had arranged with his workplace. I had a very quick return to part time in comparison.[/quote]
If my husband’s employer agreed to 12 weeks paternity leave I’d be very concerned they’d discover they could manage perfectly well without him.

@Roussette

Why mention it then! It's all a bit pathetic.

It’s just an example of something we only know because Harry shared the contents of his private conversation with HMQ.

If my husband’s employer agreed to 12 weeks paternity leave I’d be very concerned they’d discover they could manage perfectly well without him.

My dh had 3 months paid leave, quite normal in good firms.

As with a lot of this stuff it could be a simple misunderstanding. On a video call to your gran you say we are thinking of naming your DC after her, gran smiles politely perhaps does not hear, thinks grandson is joking or does not know he means her nickname. Hence some confusion. Mountain and molehills for all concerned. Taking legal action on this basis will only lead to richer lawyers and no-one being happier.

museumum
I actually on this one feel that the palace / queen / bbc are all being really nasty

Can you imagine if you named your child after their grandparent and instead of 'congratulations how lovely' everybody instead weighed in with 'but did you ask her permission?' 'and if you did, did she feel she had to say yes?' it's mean and petty. it's an honour to have a child named after you, any child, you don't get to 'give permission'.

This. It's pathetic how the royal-loving idiots on here twist every little thing. If someone named their child after me i would be so touched, It would never occur to me that they should have asked my permission!

No sorry, of course no permission needed to name the child Elizabeth after her grandmother. No one would have batted an eyelid. This isn’t the same. They’ve crossed a line. They create all this drama all around them. They did it with the birth of the last baby, they did it with the stepping down news, they’ve done it virtually continuously since moving and now they’ve done it again. They are beyond contempt.

“RickiTarr

Roussette
Why mention it then! It's all a bit pathetic.
It’s just an example of something we only know because Harry shared the contents of his private conversation with HMQ.”

Exactly. He didn’t name any other gifts from any other members of either family. Only the one from the Queen. A serious case of mentionitis 🤣

@Brainwave89

As with a lot of this stuff it could be a simple misunderstanding. On a video call to your gran you say we are thinking of naming your DC after her, gran smiles politely perhaps does not hear, thinks grandson is joking or does not know he means her nickname. Hence some confusion. Mountain and molehills for all concerned. Taking legal action on this basis will only lead to richer lawyers and no-one being happier.

Except the Telegraph have quite clearly been briefed by the palace that they consider it to be habitual.

They did it with the birth of the last baby

What did they do wrong then?

@Roussette existed?

He didn’t name any other gifts from any other members of either family

I can't be arsed to go and check but from memory JC asked him if I remember correctly. What does it matter? It's just a nothing burger

If my husband’s employer agreed to 12 weeks paternity leave I’d be very concerned they’d discover they could manage perfectly well without him.

What? Do you worry about that when women take months and months off?

existed?

I was going to say 'draw breath'
😂

@Roussette

He didn’t name any other gifts from any other members of either family

I can't be arsed to go and check but from memory JC asked him if I remember correctly. What does it matter? It's just a nothing burger

The controversy isn’t about individual gifts or the baby’s name.

@smilesy C&Ped most of The Telegraph article and explained Buckingham Palace’s reported concerns quite clearly.

The whole story is about communication, privacy, conflicting narratives within the family and how the media get dragged in.

@Roussette. The point though is not the waffle maker. As the article from the Telegraph makes clear (and I quoted the relevant bits) they only mention any interactions with the Queen herself. Not with anyone else unless it is negative. It’s like they are constantly bigging up their part in relation to the Queen, whilst failing to comprehend that if they rubbish the Firm they are equally rubbishing the Queen. They are trying to make a distinction between the two where there is none. Stop focussing on the blessed waffle maker and look at the whole picture 🤣

@Roussette it's fucking mad

@RickiTarr cross post but you used more grown up words than me 😂

The Tellmecrap has shown no evidence they've been 'briefed', as we know the only statements from the Palace are official statements. Palace staff are under NDAs anyway. The Royal Family don't comment or authorise anything except their own statements that they put out.

Why does it not surprise me that non-supporters of H and M have a subscription to the Tellmecrap. I also wonder how many on here are regular readers of the Daily Fail. And actually believe the garbage in both outlets? This is exactly what H and M said when they talked about the British press stirring up hatred. People actually do believe what they read in those outlets.