Queen's fury over naming of baby Lilibet: Aide says monarch was 'as angry as I'd ever seen her' after Harry and Meghan claim

[royalwatcherr]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12962667/queen-elizabeth-II-fury-prince-harry-meghan-markle-baby-lilibet.html

I'm not surprised, choosing that name was so brazen

Neither. Gloriously fake cute.

The Independent, ITV, Evening Standard, Telegraph - all generally positive towards the Sussexes, all reporting this negative story about them. And he's not suing them, so why would they? Oh I know, because it's in the news!

Exactly. Doria is a lovely name and they could have given it as a middle name.

Wasn’t Archie one of Prince George’s nicknames too? I’m sure there were articles back in late 2018 / early 2019 about George telling a dog walker his name was Archie.

I think it was a nice tribute and she was always to be known as Lili.

I would think, apart from anything else, she thought it was a daft official name for a baby. They could have called her Elizabeth and then shortened it to “Lilibet” as a nickname.

You've hit the nail on the head here. Odious couple.

I don't believe daily mail, they are always telling lies. If the Queen supported it or not who cares, they are free to choose any name for their children. Lilibeth is a lovely name. I would be honour if any of my children decided to use my name or my family nickname for their children..

What’s happened to Tom Markle? He’s lost the power of speech after another stroke (someone up there loves his DD). Is he at home or in care.

I mean, its a dreadful name, and they probabkyvshoukdnt have lumbered the poor kid with it. But didn't they say she would be called Lilli? Just like Harry is Henry known as Harry?
But really, The Queen was angrier than he had ever seen her, about a baby bring named after her? I think she should have got her priorities right considering all the other scandals and embarrasments her family have been involved in over the years.

Tbf, it was a really weird choice of name.

I thought it was lovely but then I’m biased because I generally like Harry and Meghan, in the same way that people who don’t like them are predisposed to think it was crass and disrespectful. We are all biased because of the context.

It only really matters what the Queen thought and we will never know because she was careful to make sure we never knew what she thought about anything. As is correct for her role.

And I’m afraid some quote from an anonymous aide is not proof of anything. We know nothing about this person therefore how can we possibly know if it’s credible?

Of all the strange/questionable/wide-of-the-mark things H&M have done, I always thought their appropriation of his grandma's nickname for one of their children was the strangest. And most arrogant. And really rather cringeworthy.

So I can quite believe she was cheesed off about it. I doubt it was the most enraging thing she ever experienced - but you couldn't blame her one jot for feeling some irritation or even anger.

I remember thinking it was an odd choice - primarily as it isn't actually a name but a private pet name used by the Queens close family (Margaret I believe) and later picked up by her husband.

I think I would be a bit pissed off if a private pet name, only used by my husband and sister in our private moments was used in a very public way by my estranged grandson to name his daughter.

But you know - it's isn't end of the world.

That article doesn’t say that the Queen was furious about the name choice. It says she was angry that they went to the press to say that the Queen had been supportive etc. Whatever the Queen’s reaction, it was in a private conversation, which Harry and Meghan then told to the press. Most of the family’s anger seems to be about private conversations being made public. That articles says the same; that the Queen was angry that her reaction in a private conversation was made public, and possibly also that she wasn’t hugely supportive but didn’t say no and it was told to the press with a different spin.

Completely agree. They are a pair of CFs.

Honestly? I wonder whether Elizabeth II would have been a bit (or very) uncomfortable with a load of speculation over what she thought of XYZ before she died. There was a load of stuff in the Times about her final days which were also a bit unnecessary.

That was my reading of it, @Itslegitimatesalvage . Also that the Sussexes were going to take legal action against the BBC for their report that it wasn't with permission of the late Queen, and wanted BP to support their legal action. Which they wouldn't. It was about them reporting a private conversation.
I think it's a very peculiar choice of name, but their child, their choice. I don't suppose it bothered the late Queen too much.

‘As angry as he’d ever seen her’? So even angrier than when Johnson prorogued Parliament. Great to see she maintained the sense of perspective so well illustrated when she forked out millions to protect her pervert son.

Oh, I think we can have a guess at what the Queen thought. If the original BBC report of 2021 was from a Palace source, and that source did not corroborate H&M when they were threatening libel against a number of media outlets including the BBC, I think you can be pretty sure that she was not amused. And none of this was mentioned in Spare, nothing about a phone call to his dear granny to ask for permission - funny that. Besides which, if Hardman's book hasn't been lawyered up to the hilt and contains libellous inaccuracies, they can still sue.

The Queen being "the angriest" she's ever been. Ever heard of death by a thousand cuts? After what several of her children and one of her grandchildren had put her through over the years, together with her beloved husband dying, maybe this was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone has their limits.

I suppose a book about Charles is quite boring really. So not a great shock that the spoilers/extracts have been about other people.

Details of QE2 death
Woman of 96 with multiple health conditions dies in sleep nothing to see here
There were plans for a regency in the event of QE2 being incapacitated
Would expect nothing different
H&M didn't ask permission to name their child by QE2's childhood pet name.
Again, not the surprise of the century and still not actually about Charles.

Did they really trademark the Queens nickname?

Load of bollocks from the DM as usual

Isn’t the MN line that you don’t own a name and people can call their kids after your kid/whatever the fuck they like?

I see it as only a good thing to name your kid after your grandmother. Surely that’s the normal response and not the whipped up frenzy this has become?

I understand this is in a new book published recently, and being serialised in the DM.
I rarely read the DM, so not sure re the serialisation.
I am also not sure whether her anger was them using the name (her pet version of ELizabeth), or anger about being misrepresnted as giving her pemission. ie Did they ask her permission?
Did they ask permission to use her name, and she thought they meant 'Elizabeth'. From what I have read it is not clear.
Obviously, you can name your child anything you want, but it is usual and polite to ask permission to use the same name as a grandparent, etc (great granparent in this case).
They called 'Archie' something completely different, (unless there is someone on Meghan's side of the family with that name), so it may have been better to have also named their second child something different.
Especially as they claimed to have found Freedom away from the Royal family, and have continued to trash them at every opportunity.
It's all in the past now, anyway.