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.

Quite laughable to say they named their baby for clout chasing. No matter what they named Lili, she would always be known as HMNQ great granddaughter and PC granddaughter, no matter how much you wish she was not.

'she would always be known as HMNQ great granddaughter and PC granddaughter, no matter how much you wish she was not'

Oh I would not 'wish she was not' at all. What a funny thing to say. I do find it odd that they would use an affectionate name, used privately, of the head of the institution that caused them such grief. Allegedly.

It's not used privately, just in the last two months, the King of Spain publicly called her that name.

Maybe you can look at it as Elizabeth - the head of the firm. And Lilibet- loving gran gran (though how loving she is will be debatable)

@ittakes2

Does this mean the Queen will be called to court as a witness??

no, she won't - she has "immunity" of sorts.

I agree in the future very few will connect her name to the Queen in the US unless they are told about it. It will become one of those did you know unusual facts.
I mean Princess Margaret was in the press all the time and people of a certain age know all about the scandals attached, but young adults today would be more likely to say. Princess who?

It’s a rather sad start to Lilli’a life isn’t it? More controversy and threats to sue. They should have picked a name with no Royal associations and have gone quietly about their business. All this stuff about having time off. Time off from what? Harry’s so called jobs don’t seem to be jobs in the way anyone else understands it. M doesn’t have a job. So why make such a song and dance about how they’re all taking time off?

Does that immunity include the RF household ie. the firm staff? Because I suspect they have been counting on that.

And it used to be traditional to name children after grandparents. Unless your grandmother was Mother Theresa, no one thought it meant you had a lot to live up to.

Breaking you're right. It is a sad start....... You'd have thought the media and ' royal sources' would have laid off a woman who's just given birth and is getting over that and grieving for the child she lost previously. Along with Harry of course.

And yet here we are.

@BreakingtheIce

It’s a rather sad start to Lilli’a life isn’t it? More controversy and threats to sue. They should have picked a name with no Royal associations and have gone quietly about their business. All this stuff about having time off. Time off from what? Harry’s so called jobs don’t seem to be jobs in the way anyone else understands it. M doesn’t have a job. So why make such a song and dance about how they’re all taking time off?

It's not a song and dance, but it does highlight that is the paternity leave policy for Archewell. Infact, I don't think a statement was even put out about the maternity leave - most certainly not to the British tabloids that have been going on about it. The red tops just stuck their oar in.

So why make such a song and dance about how they’re all taking time off?

Why does it worry you? Do you know what their normal days consist of? I don't think so. They are involved in different initiatives so might well be quite busy. And saying 'M doesn't have a job'... and 'Harry's so called jobs'. This is what rich and famous people do who have different interests in lots of stuff. They don't trot off after breakfast and work 9 to 5 do they?

@MobyDicksTinyCanoe

Breaking you're right. It is a sad start....... You'd have thought the media and ' royal sources' would have laid off a woman who's just given birth and is getting over that and grieving for the child she lost previously. Along with Harry of course.

And yet here we are.

Exactly, the palace should have kept their mouth shut. What happened to never explain, never complain.

'You'd have thought the media and ' royal sources' would have laid off a woman who's just given birth'

You'd think the Sussexes and their cheerleaders would lay off a 95 yr old women whose dh was dying during the cringeworthy Oprah pity party and all the family who were fabulous a short time ago, but nope. They are out to cause maximum damage because they didn't get their own way.

I agree in the future very few will connect her name to the Queen in the US unless they are told about it. It will become one of those did you know unusual facts

Don't worry, I'm sure folk will be told about it

I wonder, though, what royal relevance the name will have in future, given that the Queen can hardly live for ever. It won't be all that long until the crown passes on, and at that point the name becomes an historical thing rather than a connection to a reigning monarch

Thing is, if they did check with the Queen and she gave her permission, you'd think how lovely, thank goodness, it looks like they are trying to build bridges. If they didn't, it looks like they are trying to reinforce their connection with an institution they disliked so much that they had to escape from it, as part of a branding exercise.

It's hard to believe that the first version can be what happened - the BBC will be super sensitive to royal stories at the moment, they haven't removed it, and the palace has refused to deny it. The Queen is famously private and conflict averse, why would she agree the use of the name and then lie about it to stir up trouble in the press?

@Mummy194

It's not used privately, just in the last two months, the King of Spain publicly called her that name.

Maybe you can look at it as Elizabeth - the head of the firm. And Lilibet- loving gran gran (though how loving she is will be debatable)

Her relative, a close family friend for two generations, and one of the few people who can relate to her role as Head of State. I’d say that makes it more intimate, not less.

@altamory

I really do not think anyone close to the Queen, who wants to stay in that position, would speak out without the Queen's agreement.

agree.

No matter what they named Lili, she would always be known as HMNQ great granddaughter and PC granddaughter, no matter how much you wish she was not.

Or the daughter of a pair of saintly philanthropists. Or a pair of bitter has beens.

Time will tell. I hope it is the former. I want to be wrong. Going on his recent form I’m not sure.

@esterwin

I agree in the future very few will connect her name to the Queen in the US unless they are told about it. It will become one of those did you know unusual facts. I mean Princess Margaret was in the press all the time and people of a certain age know all about the scandals attached, but young adults today would be more likely to say. Princess who?

Sorry if I misunderstand what you are saying.

Lili will still be connected to her father who is Prince Harry. Her grandfather who will likely be a King when she is older. Later on, her uncle will be King too. If PC does not change the rules, then she will be a princess herself. It does not matter what her first name is. She could have been called Lerato (from Botswana), Doria, Lillie (Doria's aunt). She would always be known and connected to her RF too.

@Mummy194

Does that immunity include the RF household ie. the firm staff? Because I suspect they have been counting on that.

The Queen doesn’t have immunity as such. The Paul Burrell case threw up a few of the issues, when it became clear that part of his defence was that he’d discussed him keeping some of Diana’s personal effects with the Queen. The judge said: “I am reasonably clear Her Majesty would be competent to give evidence should she wish to. The question is, if she did not wish to, could she be compelled to do so? That is an issue to which I cannot give an authoritative answer.”

The issue of whether she could be compelled has not been tested in modern times. Charles I was compelled to give evidence at his trial, obviously, but that was nearly 400 years ago. A previous Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, was compelled to give evidence in a divorce trial - the lady in question’s husband alleged that he had been one of her lovers. He said he wasn’t when called to the stand.

The position of the staff is quite clear: they absolutely can be compelled to give evidence. Some of them might quite welcome it to be honest, as a court order overrides any non-disclosure agreements they have had to sign as part of their roles.

You'd think the Sussexes and their cheerleaders would lay off a 95 yr old women whose dh was dying during the cringeworthy Oprah pity party and all the family who were fabulous a short time ago, but nope. They are out to cause maximum damage because they didn't get their own way

I agree.
It would be nice if Harry and Meghan got on with their life in the USA, did their charitable things, enjoyed being a family, and enjoyed being free from the family who they seem to strongly dislike and consider toxic.

Alas, they didn't do that. They keep dragging up anything and everything royal and throwing pity parties on the world stage and have been shown to be creative with the truth.

I find it slightly cringeworthy that some people in society seem to love the tribal Harry and Meghan Vs The Royal Family angle, especially when some seem incapable of realising that grown adults can criticise a public figure's actions without automatically being on 'the other side'.

Her relative, a close family friend for two generations, and one of the few people who can relate to her role as Head of State. I’d say that makes it more intimate, not less.

And he used the name formally and publicly , not privately.

@Mummy194

Her relative, a close family friend for two generations, and one of the few people who can relate to her role as Head of State. I’d say that makes it more intimate, not less.

And he used the name formally and publicly , not privately.

In a very personal message of condolence to her that he also published (as did many other European royal families) as a mark of regard. You really don’t know when to stop digging, do you!

It probably was taped, and the reason it has not been leaked to the press is most likely because H is correct and it works against what the RF are saying.

If the palace are recording all communications with the Sussexes there is no way in earth they would reveal that fact by leaking the tape now over this.

This is small fry, comparatively, and the palace wouldn’t leak a tape. They might keep records for their own legal protection in case the whole thing goes nuclear, but they would never leak them. That would just cause a much bigger scandal by revealing that the tapes exist.

The note Lord Mishcon made about Diana’s concerns was a similar thing. A “just in case” thing for if things go really wrong.

wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Mishcon_Note

How did the media get ahold of tampon gate? Can't remember.