No mention of Lilibet on Royal Family website

[NaryFairy]

The royal family's website - Royal.uk - says that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have one child , Archie. I find this extraordinary. You'd think they have the staff to update a website. Are there any informed royal watchers out there who could explain this? Does a new addition to the family need to be introduced to the Queen before he/she is acknowledged?

Omid Scobie Rousette.

That is who is being referred to?

Oh, OK.

I'm a bit slow today

Will let you off

@Roussette

And 'after the Queen dies' nonsense headline implicitly implies that it's dishing the dirt on the RF. He has refuted that surely

He’s denied it, not refuted it. (Nor has he disproved it, as you also stated in an earlier post). There’s a difference.

And given that the Sussexes and Omid Scobie have a long track record of being the boy that cried wolf, with their constant statements that “XYZ report is false” when it actually turns out later to be on the money, then is it any wonder people aren’t prepared to take their many statements at face value any longer?

Splitting hairs.... the difference between 'denied' and 'refuted'. In fact the meaning of 'refuted' is to deny.

How can he disprove it when the end of 2022 with his book hasn't happened yet.

Nor has he disproved it

I didn't say he had disproved it. I said the Rebecca English clickbait headline was disproved with a statement from the sussexes.

If we're talking books, there is more to think about than a book that isn't coming out for 18 months given today's headlines regarding the Queen and William/Earthshot etc.

He could easily disprove it by disclosing the actual terms of his contract with the publisher.

I mean, he obviously doesn’t have to do that, but that is what disproving something means - offering actual evidence to refute something. To me, both disprove and refute necessarily involve providing evidence to back up your denial.

Yes, this is semantics, but there is a difference between a bald denial (which is what they generally do) and giving evidence to show that the report is factually wrong. Given their denials have often in the past been shown to be inaccurate, many people don’t give much credence to their simple denials any longer.

He could easily disprove it by disclosing the actual terms of his contract with the publisher

Why should he?
Do all authors do that? Do you expect him to publish his Contract with Random House because that is unheard of.

He issued a statement, end of. Just so odd that some of the public demands more from him.

FWIW I think he should rethink the book but that isn't happening so he can just get on and do his one book.

@CauliflowerCheese30
“ Omid Scobie Rousette”

For one moment there I thought you were revealing that Roussette is actually Omid Scobie.
Hmm…

Now that's funny! and stupid

@Rousette if you’d read my post you would see in the very next paragraph I pointed out that “obviously, he doesn’t have to do that”.

It was an example of what disproving something would look like. As opposed to just denying it. Hope that helps.

And you were the one who asked “ How can he disprove it?” I gave you one possible answer.

An example. Not a necessity yes.

I look forward to him showing you all his contracts as required by you

Are you being deliberately needly Rousette? Can we not have a discussion without you looking to twist people’s words to make specious points?

I could honestly honestly say exactly the same about you. I could've written your post saying that to you.

Shall we let it drop and move on?
That would be good.

Happy to move on if you are.

@Roussette

He could easily disprove it by disclosing the actual terms of his contract with the publisher

Why should he?
Do all authors do that? Do you expect him to publish his Contract with Random House because that is unheard of.

He issued a statement, end of. Just so odd that some of the public demands more from him.

FWIW I think he should rethink the book but that isn't happening so he can just get on and do his one book.

He needs to because so many of his “truths” and statements have been proven to be total fiction/bullshit. Most people don’t believe a single word H&M or any of their representatives say. A couple of inaccuracies or misunderstandings are ok, but even the OW “interview” was way beyond that, and there’s been more since then.

I don't agree, but there you go

Agree with Roussette here.

To me, both disprove and refute necessarily involve providing evidence to back up your denial. Yes, this is semantics, but there is a difference between a bald denial (which is what they generally do) and giving evidence to show that the report is factually wrong. Given their denials have often in the past been shown to be inaccurate, many people don’t give much credence to their simple denials any longer.
It's clear you do actually expect him to provide his contract details, @Serenster.

Roussette with the greatest respect you seem to post on the H&M threads more than most.
You seem to relish in playing devils advocate.
FWIW my opinion is that there-are faults on all sides. However to maintain the higher ground (if that was the objective) would be to keep their mouths firmly shut.
Maybe, possibly , Henry's latest tome might be how he's grown up hugely privileged and is grateful for it, maybe it's about how he's hated being shackled and side stepped.
Maybe he'll tell us how he escaped a racist institution and he wants his birthright swallowed by a huge eagle.
Who knows!!
But by saying you're right because they're wrong just gets exceedingly tiresome.
In fact I'd go so far as suggesting that you keep the lights burning and the thread turning.

I think Rousette is definitely the poster with the most invested in all H&M threads, and I agree she's the one who does most to keep them going.

For what it’s worth I would have expected Penguin to come out and issue a very short, one sentence statement, with PH backing, to say either ‘there is no truth in the four book deal’ or ‘there is no book deal that carries the condition that a book by PH be published but only after the Queen passes’.

End of the matter.

But no, Penguin remain tight lipped with neither a confirmation nor a denial (so make of that what you will) and seem happy to do their bit to keeping the rumour mill swirling.

driveinmecrazy

You seem to relish in playing devils advocate You may of course say that about me, but believe me, there are many posters who fall into that category on the other side of the argument

Anyway, I feel it's my prerogative to answer you as you directed that post to me personally, but in doing so, I suppose I'm keeping this thread going, I can't win can I....

I agree, who knows what will be in the book. I read somewhere that he will talk of his time growing up at Highgrove. No one has a clue but posters have decided there's going to be a string of books and it's going to be all bad.

But by saying you're right because they're wrong just gets exceedingly tiresome

Which is exactly what everyone else does on these threads

I think Rousette is definitely the poster with the most invested in all H&M threads, and I agree she's the one who does most to keep them going

Thanks Edith
Nice to see I have trended overnight

The name Lilibet makes me shudder every time I read it

Yes. I shall refer to her as Lili as that is their nickname for her and it’s less to type out.

StormzyinaTCup

“For what it’s worth I would have expected Penguin to come out and issue a very short, one sentence statement, with PH backing, to say either ‘there is no truth in the four book deal’ or ‘there is no book deal that carries the condition that a book by PH be published but only after the Queen passes’.

End of the matter.

But no, Penguin remain tight lipped with neither a confirmation nor a denial (so make of that what you will) and seem happy to do their bit to keeping the rumour mill swirling.“

I agree with you . My own view ( and it is only that!) is that there are 4 books . Rebecca English’s statement saying that has never been disproved , the only bit challenged has been the second “ memoir” being released after HM dies . As I have said before it is all semantics .
It reminds me of the time many years ago ( post Diana) when PC was rumoured to be be marrying CPB. The statement in response said he “ had no intention” of marrying her …………