Robert Lacey: The Queen was so mad at the Sussexes over trademarks & lawsuits

Queen's Christmas broadcast

On Friday, we discussed Robert Lacey’s interview with the Daily Mail in advance of the release of his new book, Battle of Brothers: William and Harry – The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult. I should have known that this would be a major deal as soon as I saw all of the royal reporters tweeting about it last week. I have no doubt that many of them provided information and quotes to Lacey too, likely as “insiders” or “royal commentators” or “long-time royal-watchers.” As I can see now, some of the narratives Lacey explores came directly from those reporters’ smears and cherry-picked tantrums. It also sounds like a lot of people in Kensington Palace AND Buckingham Palace wanted their side of things out, especially in the wake of Finding Freedom. The thing is, FF barely got into most of this subject matter, so Lacey’s revelations read like the panicked and nasty reactive stories to a wholly imagined “threat.” The Mail has done several excerpts, and I’m breaking them up into various posts (please don’t threadjack). Subject #1: The Petty Queen purposefully left out mention & photos of the Sussexes for her Christmas 2019 speech.

The Queen is petty & spiteful: Lacey notes that the Queen didn’t have any photos of Meghan and Harry on her desk for her 2019 Christmas speech. In the speech, “The Queen simply acknowledged the arrival of her great-grandchild in passing, without mentioning his name or his parents: ‘Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great-grandchild into our family.’..The Sussex family had been ‘non-personed’ as effectively as the Soviets non-personed Trotsky and Khrushchev — another charming custom, of course, that had been developed by the Kremlin.

Why was the Queen really mad, at that point? “There was the row over the fitting for the tiara Meghan wanted to wear at the wedding — leading to Harry’s famously petulant outburst: ‘What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.’ There was the deception over the announcement of Archie’s birth, which unlike every other royal birth of modern times took place in total secrecy: Buckingham Palace announced at 2pm on May 6, 2019, that Meghan had gone into labour that morning — when in fact, she had safely given birth to baby Archie eight hours earlier, at 5.26am. That was followed by a refusal to make public the names of the godparents. It is still expected by monarch, palace and just about anyone with a stake in the game that the world should be told who the new royal baby’s ‘sponsors’ are.

Oh, the Queen had a LITANY of complaints: “There was the issue of Vogue that Meghan guest edited. Unlike Kate and Diana before her, she declined to feature on the cover. Her concept was instead to display with the headline Forces for Change, a gallery of the women activists she admired, from Jane Fonda to Greta Thunberg, with 13 other Left-wing, multiracial campaigning women — a move which left many with serious constitutional concerns about the monarchy weighing into politics.

Trademarking: And when Harry and Meghan decided to trademark Sussex Royal products without asking the Queen’s permission, the extent of royal fury at Sussex impertinence rose to even higher levels. ‘Hopping’ was a mild description of how mad the family was.

And the Sussexes didn’t tell Charles & the Queen about the lawsuits: As 2019 wore on, family consultation was ceasing to be Harry’s style. During his and Meghan’s tour of South Africa in the early autumn of that year, the couple issued between them three lawsuits against News International, the Mirror group and Associated Newspapers. In other words, the couple had lined themselves up against three of Britain’s biggest media companies — without talking to the Queen or Prince Charles first.

The Queen’s punishment: The absence of a single Sussex from the 2019 assemblage of significant royal faces in the Queen’s Christmas broadcast appeared to reflect a deliberate decision on her part. She would be providing no brand endorsement opportunities this year for Sussex Royal.

[From The Daily Mail]

So after spending the better part of two years trying to figure out the f–king tiara story (there was no there there, beyond Angela Kelly being a C-U-Next-Tuesday), we now have to talk about those unhinged stories about trademarks? You know who also trademarked variations of their names, titles and “Kensington Royal”? The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They did it for the same reason Harry and Meghan trademarked everything to do with their names and titles: because they didn’t want anyone else to be able to slap “Sussex Royal” on a product and profit from it. Does… does the Queen not understand trademarks?

Now, the lawsuit thing I believe! I believe Liz and Chuck were legitimately pissed off about the Sussexes suing the Mail and others, and they were especially mad about not being given a heads up. We established at the time why H&M didn’t do that though – because they were beyond mad at the smear campaign, which they believed was being run out of several palace communication offices, including Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Clarence House. Liz and Chuck were mad that the Sussexes were trying to derail a smear campaign which they (Liz and Chuck) were perpetuating. THAT was a bigger deal, I believe, than all of this other make-believe bullsh-t.

Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, attend a roundtable discussion on gender equality!

Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, attend a roundtable discussion on gender equality!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

67 Responses to “Robert Lacey: The Queen was so mad at the Sussexes over trademarks & lawsuits”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. JJ McClay says:

    Christ on a cracker, what a toxic bunch they are! As always, when I read these stories, I’m just praying that H & M are happy in their new life and protected from this BS.

  2. VS says:

    Is this insanity or what? No women with brain/ambition/drive/passion should ever marry anyone in that family
    Never have I seen so publicly a collection of mediocre people all wrap up with the same DNA…..and we have the trumps

    • Oh says:

      I agree, I wish that time comes back and Meghan doesn’t marry Harry, that family doesn’t deserve her …. I hope Harry really deserves Meghan.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is a good thing Meghan married in, and that together she and Harry and standing up against this system. The more that comes out, the more the monarchy and the Windsors are on the losing end.

      • Kfg says:

        I think they need to stop this whole campaign because Harry has Diana’s temper and will eventually write a tell all that will destroy the monarchy.

  3. Kalana says:

    Who cares if the Queen is mad? The point is was she right to be upset that the Sussexes trademarked their name? That’s what all these authors shy away from. Stop treating her like some kind of demigod and examine her views as well.

    All these criticisms are linked to fury from the Palace that Harry and Meghan showed any independence. Harry didn’t have to deal with this before so it must have been a nasty shock to realize how invested his family was in controlling Meghan and bringing her to heel. They were trying to break her by punishing her, degrading her, and filling her with the kind of self-doubt we see in Kate.

    Regarding the Vogue issue: Is it only political if the person has left-wing views? One of Prince William’s best buddies is William Hague who was reprimanded even by the Tories for his xenophobia. (If William wants the spotlight as a leader, it’s more than time his choices and inner circle was also looked at.)

    • Becks1 says:

      Excellent point. There’s so much reporting about the queen being mad but very little analysis of that anger – no one stops to say “she was mad, but it was hypocritical of her to feel that way because of XYZ.” Her feelings are treated like the be-all and end-all.

    • Merricat says:

      “Who cares if the Queen is mad?” EXACTLY.
      Who is going to visit Granny at Christmas? Everyone she can force to attend, and no one she can’t. I hope Harry keeps walking.

    • PEARL GREY says:

      Had Meghan filled that Vogue issue with just right-leaning British white men and women, maybe it wouldn’t have people still so bothered to this day. How dare Meghan put only women on a women’s magazine cover and how dare ONLY 5 (out of 15) of them be white! That’s racist, according to the likes of Camilla Tominey. I’m not sure if the Queen actually cared that much about the cover. I suspect it was mostly the courtiers and Cambridges that were enraged as usual. But it was petty of her to leave them out of her photo display. She hasn’t been very smart in giving them such a lack of support.

      • Lady2Lazy says:

        @ PEARL GREY, I agree. It also must be extremely hurtful with regards to having your OWN grandmother being petty on a national level that she was clearly making a statement. I cannot imagine a more vile and disgusting display of disapproval of your own grandmother making such a public statement in regards to her feelings. Petty Betty needs to wake up and smell the smoke because there’s fire and it’s those bridges that she once had with her grandson!

    • Lizzie says:

      Did the queen ever talk over these issues she was mad about with Harry or Harry and Meghan? No, just broadcast to the whole world that she removed their photos at Christmas.

  4. TheOriginalMia says:

    Betty is petty. You know there wouldn’t have been any lawsuits if the palaces had put a stop to the harassment and abuse early on, but I guess that was too much to ask for by the biracial duchess.

  5. Becks1 says:

    oh man, the gloves are coming off now, aren’t they?

    This bit from Kaiser – “Liz and Chuck were mad that the Sussexes were trying to derail a smear campaign which they (Liz and Chuck) were perpetuating. THAT was a bigger deal, I believe, than all of this other make-believe bullsh-t.”

    - I agree with to a large extent, except that I still think KP was behind the smear campaign for the most part. But Petty Betty and Charles could have stopped it and didn’t, and they did probably freak out over the lawsuits for fear of what the lawsuits could reveal, or just the fact that they could rock the delicate relationship between the press and the monarchy.

    As for the rest – it does feel like a rehash of the smear campaign, right down to complaining about Sussex Royal being trademarked (when other royals have done the same thing) and the cover of Vogue (no, I don’t think the Queen gave a rats ass about that.) And I also don’t think the Queen really cared about the godparents not being announced. But the courtiers and press did.

    Finally – the pictures during the Christmas address DID send a message, and the Sussexes received it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Becks1, I think they were already long gone by then. Harry and Meghan didn’t offer the half-in, half-out plan because they wanted to stay. They offered it because the Windsors wanted them to stay. They have what they want now – freedom. Freedom from the system, the chaotic family, his abusive brother. Beautiful home they own themselves, healthy son, huge new NetFlix deal, a future.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        It’s also possible that Harry knew his family well enough to know the half in, half out deal would be soundly rejected and that’s what he wanted. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Harry had attempted a half in thing back when he was talked into staying in after the military. It’s possible based on the response then, he knew they would reject his offer and that’s why he made it. I just get the feeling Harry was done and that was a surface offer to appear to compromise.

  6. Sofia says:

    The woman is 94. I truly don’t think she as furious about things like Vogue as people are making her out to be. Sure she may have went “tsk tsk” and “what a disappointment” but 5 minutes later, she probably started thinking about her dogs or what her next meal will be. I imagine most 90 year olds – whether they’re a monarch or not, care too much about what their granddaughter-in-law (who’s married to the “spare” no less) is doing with their job.

    Lawsuits? Tiaras? (which I still don’t believe quite happened the way these authors are saying it did) Sure I can believe she was genuinely upset about those because those things are important to her /personally/ and “The Crown” but not a bloody magazine.

    • Myra says:

      I agree with you. For all the scandals that she has personally witnessed in her family over her 94 years in this world, she is about this small thing? A lawsuit and a trademark? Sounds implausible to me. I’ll believe that she is mad that Meghan is taking all the attention from the rest of them, just like Diana did. She has never supported women before and she isn’t going to start now. She’s always done what old and middle aged white men has told her to do.

  7. Bohemian Angel says:

    Oh Lordy, I’m so glad Harry and Meghan have left this brexit island and that hideous family.
    The queen is petty as fu@k and unfortunately most here on this little island look up to her and believe she is the be all and end all!

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Between so many in Britain and some CW countries looking up to this woman and such a significant number of Americans willing to dive off a cliff with Trump, I keep wondering what’s wrong with humans? Why are some humans so easily manipulated, so easily led by obvious below average folks. Throughout our history this gullibility is evident in the leaders a significant choose and it takes forever for to change course.

  8. ABritGuest says:

    Very suspect that the things this book says the royals were upset about lines up with the press’ complaints.

    Trademarks getting Queen upset doesn’t make sense seeing as this is merely a legal move to prevent other people trading using a name that royal has created goodwill for eg sussex royal & therefore creating an association that the royals wouldn’t want. People in the Firm would be familiar with this-it never meant they were launching products emblazoned with the marks. Charles has hundreds of marks registered, the Cambridges did the same.

    I’m pretty sure the queens speech did include that famous picture of her& Philip meeting Archie even if names weren’t mentioned so not too sure about this snub angle although if slighting a baby is angle somebody wants to go with..

    Vogue- I do think the Firm weren’t happy with this as they barely promoted it. But wonder what the real reason is because it being ‘political’ isn’t it. William called for more diversity at the BAFTAS with no issue & many royals have talked about celebrating the UK’s diverse communities in speeches. Charles met Greta after Vogue was published. Why was there no issue with Kate including BLM protest in her hold still project also? Not adding up.

    I’m sure the Firm did want them to do the hospital photocall as it’s probably good will etc for the family. But I suspect the reluctance was also because the press were likely planning a nasty surprise like having a Markle there to confront her (didn’t Samantha come a to KP gates around that time?). And she would still have got harsh criticism if she did do hospital photo call (that’s unfeminist, she just wants attention, Diana and kate did it better, her baby isn’t that important) – can’t blame them for not doing it.

    If they announced she went into labour in the morning when she did how was that a deception? And thought the author would know the queen would have to be informed (once she has woken up) before the press? As for the christening it was her chapel she could have refused if it was such an issue them keeping godparents quiet. Plus didn’t zara do the same & withhold the names of Mia’s godparents?

    The Queen & Charles have sued the press on same basis as Meghan. But think the lawsuits did upset them because they need good press relations because of Andrew and other dirt. And probably because the lawsuits would expose certain Palace machinations. The Queen has written a statement praising journalists again today & talking about need for trusted news sources. More support than ever given the Sussexes

    • Thirtynine says:

      Yes, I was going to mention this, too. The Queen only today put out a message of support for the work of the British newspaper industry, which includes those papers being sued by the Sussexes, praising them for their trustworthiness. It does not matter if this ostensibly is in the context of covid. It shows the Queen has absolutely no problem in letting her thoughts and views be known at all. If she didn’t intervene on Harry and Meghan’s behalf when that same ‘trustworthy’ press was lying and vilifying Meghan unceasingly, it’s because she just chose not to. Every time the Queen does something like this, Britain just sinks even lower in my eyes.

  9. DS9 says:

    What kills me is none of the unhinged fears have come to pass.

    Meghan and Harry aren’t selling shit. No plates, coins, etc. We see them when it’s time to promote a charity event. Even the so called political messages are benign issues like climate change, gender equality, and saving elephants.

    Anyone who calls them attention seeking has clearly never been on Instagram.

    They’ve made some minor missteps, mostly in not attempting to appease people who would never have been happy. But nothing worthy of all this pearl clutching insanity.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      I think this was Harry more than Meghan. I think keeping the press at a distance is almost a phobia with Harry at this point. He just don’t want them having any hold on his family and seriously I can’t blame him for that. The BM is not trustworthy from my vantage point and if given access would have turned on them (H/M) sooner or later when asked to protect others in that terrible family.

  10. Elizabeth says:

    The Kremlin is not a flattering comparison. Geez. They sound lovely.

  11. RoyalBlue says:

    That family is so nasty. They are inadvertently pulling the veil away from their own charade by these vile hit pieces that are being published.

  12. SJ Knows says:

    Liz has been quoted as saying “One mustn’t let daylight shine on magic” meaning the BRF/The Firm is built on shadows and mirrors, pomp and parades.

    Now that The Firm has been shown to harbor criminals (Andrew), be full of adultery (Phil, Charles, Di, Fergie, etc.), shady money deals (Andrew & Fergie), and out right racism (Phil, The RR, that awful Princess Michael and her wretched racists jewelry, Edward & Wallis and their support of Hilter) ….. Liz is correct, we all know how horrible the entire group is and she knows the monarchy is outdated and the clock is ticking.

  13. truthSF says:

    Whew! I see why Harry married her quick, had a baby with her quick, and got her and their baby TF out of there…QUICK!!!😂🤣

    This man knew how lucky he was to be with someone like Meghan, and he treats/treated her exactly like the gem that she is! Smart man, Harry, son of Diana!!👏🏽

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Someone else said this several months ago. They said it was almost like Harry was in a race to get Meghan locked down because he knew he was the lucky one. I tend to agree that of the two of them, he’s the luckier one in this relationship. The BM and that family can gaslight all the want and pretend like Meghan is the interloper who stole the prince, but the truth is Harry for a gem and was wise/smart enough to realize it.

  14. tee says:

    If Harry and Meghan were paying attention (which I’m sure they aren’t), every excerpt would reaffirm their decision to leave. Anyway, the British media has completely exhausted these topics. Will they ever move on?

  15. equality says:

    The tiara story has always baffled me. The claim was that she wanted a tiara that was unavailable for whatever reason. If the woman showing her the options was even halfway competent at her job, why would an unavailable tiara even be presented?

    The announcement about the birth was from BP. Are they mad at themselves for lying? That assertion doesn’t hold water either.

    Being angry over the godparents wanting their privacy as private citizens makes the royals look really petty. Should they not be willing and courteous enough to respect somebody else’s wish for privacy? Or was Harry supposed to keep going until they found godparents willing to be publicly named and examined?

    I think they have now proven that they don’t need “royal” in a business name to succeed so all taking it away has done is make the Queen look petty.

    This makes me wonder if the court isn’t ruling against Meghan in anything they can justify at all because the perception is that the royals aren’t backing her. She was probably told just to take it like all the other royal women who marry in take abuse but hers was far worse because of the racist and anti-American aspects.

    What really bothers me is the treatment of children by the family and it makes it totally understandable why Harry wanted out. If you look back at other years, the children who get the attention in her speech are the direct heirs. George got a long spiel when he was born with pictures showing his christening. Zara and Peter’s children and Charlotte and Louis got the bare mention, if at all. Some years she has pictures next to her and some not so I don’t buy into the picture thing. I feel sorry for the other children who can notice or look back one day and see that they were less important to her. The people who gloat about Archie being snubbed need to think this through. All of this will be available on the internet and he will realize someday. In 2019, it was all about George yet again with all the pudding-stirring videos. I would have been more impressed if she had gotten all the younger children who were of an age to participate and let everybody stir. Isn’t that supposed to be the tradition that everybody is included? If you are petty with your family and small children at Christmas, especially, what does that say for you?

    • Guest with Cat says:

      I agree that it just looks absurd that a child would be singled out like that at Christmas as if her were the only grandchild. But it was a ridiculous photo op to begin with. The Queen didn’t even set her handbag down. So it only highlights the fact this is not the kind of grand mother who bakes heirloom recipes during the Christmas holidays with her beloved grandchildren gathered around.

      She in fact barely permits their presence. Descriptions of her so called family Christmases make it sound like a special dark comedy skit that centers entirely around HER. The children are bit players. If I remember correctly, Diana once said such a Christmas was exhausting. Like everything else about this dysfunctional family, it is all about form and little to do with substance.

      • equality says:

        I’ve read those descriptions. By the time you do (and change apparel for) all the events that are adult-only you wouldn’t really see your children much on Christmas day. And people were shocked that Harry wanted to opt out on Archie’s first Christmas.

    • A says:

      Wrt the children–keep in mind that this was how the Queen herself was raised. She was the heir, therefore, she was important. She was the one who got all of the deference and the attention, and her sister, Margaret, was a largely discarded afterthought. There’s an anecdote floating out there, where Margaret, at one point, bitterly told someone that her grandmother, Queen Mary, was the ultimate prima snob, who hated both Margaret and her sister, because they were both designated as HRH at birth, and their grandma was styled with the lesser title of HSH. And that whenever she met with both Margaret and Elizabeth, their grandmother would only pay attention to Elizabeth, because she was going to be Queen.

      They all pretend like they don’t care about titles and styles and whatnot, but they do. They care deeply. Status, hierarchy, and where they fall within it, all of that matters to them. Who curtsies to who, who walks ahead of who, everything that seems (rightfully) small and petty to us, is a big deal to them. This stuff dictates their whole lives and makes up their identity as people. Why these glorified welfare recipients bother having more than one child is beyond me.

      • equality says:

        I think a lot of ordinary people buy into it also and praise the royals for being that way. On other social media sites, Meghan haters love to gloat about how Meghan will have to curtsy to Kate. I hate to break it to them but as an American, she doesn’t have to bow down to any monarchy.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        I agree especially with why they bother having more than one child given how anyone but the heir is treated. Back in the past when young deaths were more common I get, but today I just don’t get it. I understand the desire to have multiple children in healthy families but the way these people treat their children, I can’t support any desire of theirs to keep having children when the succession line is so extensive. Stop the abuse, abolish the monarchy.

  16. Digital Unicorn says:

    What a toxic family and glad they got out – at the end of the day they will put the Andrew, the institution and the heirs before anything and anyone else.

    The Monarchy will die after Charles – the public are seeing them for what they are, they see how they and the press treated Meghan. Clearly NOT ONE SINGLE person in that family can see how damaging the negative press aimed at Meghan was to them all and their precious institution.

    • Merricat says:


    • notasugarhere says:

      It should die with Charles, so William doesn’t inherit all the private wealth tax free. If it ends while Charles is king, more likely he’d divide up the assets with one private estate going to each of his sons.

    • A says:

      I’m not optimistic that this institution will die after Charles. I think that Charles will not be as powerful or as influential as the Queen, and that’s going to affect him and his reign, and it’ll be because he’ll be seen as a left-wing softie by the Tory contingent that have taken and consolidated power. William will then position himself as the “right-wing” heir in contrast to his father in the tabloid press, and they will do the rest to market the royal family as the placid, acceptably white face of post-Brexit Britain, to send a message to anyone who’s not-white and not-British that they have no place in that country.

      • equality says:

        It may die out among the commonwealth nations that still have the monarch as head of state. The stodgy Brits may continue on with it. I could see keeping them as figureheads to represent your nation but give them a salary and budget limits with no power at all. And, before continuing any of the pomp and ceremony, an intelligent nation would want a cost-benefit analysis to prove it was worthwhile.

      • A says:

        @equality, you’re underestimating the role the British tabloid media (and some of their respectable broadsheet publications for that matter) plays in creating certain perceptions that they feed to the public. We’ve already seen that the tabloid media has no interest in being honest. Even if it comes at the cost of misinforming the public. They have seized on to this Meghan-Harry-Royal Family story as the latest angle in their culture wars for a more right-wing Britain, and they have positioned the royal family as the figurehead stand-in for their vision of white British society. The evil, bitch, biracial American DIL harming the pure, lily-white, benign, dutiful, middle-class royal family.

        Plus, the British royals already are technically figureheads, with a salary and budget limits, with no power at all. The costs of upkeep are the only sticking point, but the distraction that the endless litany of Meghan stories are providing is being used as a method of refocusing the public rage on an external scapegoat, which allows the royal finances to escape any real close scrutiny.

        As for the commonwealth countries for whom the Queen is the head of state. While some of them can, yes, get rid of her in that capacity, many of them can’t. Canada, for example, would face significant legal issues if the question of removing the Queen as head of state would arise. I bring this up every time someone hand waves the whole republicanism thing. Everyone presumes this stuff is easy, it’s *not*. Britain doesn’t even have a written constitution, but the monarch is a constitutional monarch. They would need a constitutional convention to codeify that stuff properly, before they can even begin to tackle the larger issues. And given how Brexit has gone, I don’t trust the British govt to cut a circle out of colour paper at this point.

      • equality says:

        That’s sad. It makes it sound like Canada is stuck in a bad marriage with no hope of divorce.

      • Nic919 says:

        Canada managed to agree to a repatriation of their constitution in 1982 and added a Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it’s not unheard of to alter things significantly. They won’t do it now because of inertia, but the death of the queen and all the costs of changing things over from queen to king will spark up discussion. They will not need the UK in any way to change the country since they haven’t even had the Privy Council as highest court in the land since 1949. Canada can also decide to make someone else king. It doesn’t need to be Charles as case law has determined that Canada is not obligated to follow what the British do. They only follow by convention. The Uk has no control over Canada and it’s laws in any fashion.

        The British monarchy is not a part of canadian culture as it is in the UK. They are outsiders and with every generation far less relevant to Canadians. Canada can turn into a republic if there is political will to change. And with other commonwealth countries moving in that direction there will be many examples to watch.

  17. Anne says:

    One thing to say about Robert Lacey’s book: Claiming to exhaustively document the brothers’ difficulties but failing to mention Prince William’s affair with R Hanbury means the story is fundamentally incomplete. I see that as a huge problem for Harry and it founded his loss of respect for his brother.

    Rose & William not being addressed is a giant hole in the center of the story.

    • Mignionette says:

      The Hanbury story would NEVER have made it past the publisher’s legal team. Especially with the section 8 super injunction. I am not surprised it’s missing.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, Rose Hanbury was never going to be mentioned.

        FWIW, I don’t think that leaves a giant hole in the story EXCEPT for the reason why it was never going to be mentioned – i.e. William getting his lawyers to stop the story in its tracks. It showed that the palace could and would use legal action to stop a bad story when it wanted – the palace/royal family just never wanted to stop any of the stories about Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        If the UK had a legitimate written constitution there is no way a secret injunction would exist to hide personal affairs. That is not the sign of a democracy when things not relating to national secrets can be hidden for certain elites.

      • Mignionette says:

        William actually used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act -Privacy and Family Life. It’s a solid legal principle. A judge would have ruled that it was not in the public interest for whatever reason ?

        A basic reading of Article 8 seems to suggest that the press came by their information on the Hanbury affair by means that were not permissible under the Human Rights Act.

        I do wonder why Meghan did not use the same legal strategy and went straight towards a Privacy Action ?

      • Nic919 says:

        The human rights section is an EU law and under Brexit won’t hold much value. William only sent a letter but didn’t test the validity of the law in the UK in court.

      • blue36 says:

        @Mignionette – if the article states they came across the information by means that were not permissible, then doesn’t that mean Meghan would have not been able to win under that article? The letter was probably obtained legally by the DM (probably in the form of a payment) from T.Markle

  18. Merricat says:

    The tabs and the monarchy need a therapist to help them get over the fact that the Sussexes are gone, and they’re never coming back. So what if the Queen disapproves?
    By revealing the depths of her shallowness (ha), the Queen is going to leave this world remembered as the racist old lady who helped to drive out her own grandson. The old ones who remember her as a pillar of wartime strength are dying, and so will the monarchy.

    • Mignionette says:

      I agree I have seen this sort of situation before and it has NOTHING to do with the BRF’s affection with Harry. It’s all about toxic family dynamics. Both Harry and Meghan are scapegoats in their respective families. They are the charismatic but kind and empathetic ones who do not wholly ascribe to or approve of the wider family values but try to rub along and keep everyone happy. They have always been loyal and forgiving and subjugated themselves for the needs of family members. In this respect Harry more so than Meghan bc he lived in the Royal bubble where the importance of Crown first was always preached.

      Then when it came to the time for Harry to be rewarded for his loyalty, forbearance and love to the cause they sh*t on him, his wife and even his child. Harry like any rational person distanced himself and his young family from the toxicity. That likely ticked them off further because he chose his biracial wife over them. I am sure that at this point Harry would have truly understood his role within the family and it must have hurt.

      At this stage the Windsors are completely unhinged and leaving was the only option…

  19. WintryMix says:

    The snide aside about the Queen offering no “brand endorsement for the Sussexes” by leaving them out of her Christmas message, if true, is so revealing about the fundamental miscalculation the BRF has made. Does the Queen actually think that SHE lends her shine to the Sussexes? Does she genuinely not realize it’s the other way around? Mentioning them would give HER more relevance, not them. I care not one single bit about the Queen and I care deeply about the Sussexes. And those of us who feel that way are legion.

    • A says:

      This also explains to some extent why they were so MAD about the Netflix deal. They really thought they were so clever, stripping Harry of his military titles, making sure they don’t use their royal styles, thinking this would remove all the mystique and pomp that is CLEARLY the reason EVERYONE is clamouring after them.

      And then the Netflix deal closed. And it happened when they were effectively no longer a part of the royal family. And now, they have their own money, that they earned, which further allows them to put distance between this toxic family and themselves. And this happened even without Petty Betty’s royal “brand endorsement.” How could this be?! How could these evil villains thwart the royal courtiers’ and the Queen’s IRON-CLAD plan to cut them off????? What do you mean you don’t need endorsement given by an increasingly out of touch old lady, in front of a gold piano, to have any status or rank or self-worth?!

      No wonder those poor little idiots got enraged. They’re struggling to grasp the fact that Harry could be a goddamn Walmart greeter, and people would still be into him, and pay money for what he offers to the world. I’d feel bad that they’re so stupid, but they can easily fix their stupidity by learning how to read something outside of the Fail and the Sun, so I won’t bother wasting my time.

  20. Heather H says:

    I don’t believe the majority of any of it. The Queen will care about what truly impacts or tarnishes the crown, I doubt she cares about all the minor stuff. She is likely insulated from a lot of the squabbling as well, I’m not sure she even knows about so much of all the press rumors.

    As far as the line of succession photos, does everyone recall there are other children and grandchildren of the Queen as well? It is line of succession, which Harry and everyone else are far down now, so really nothing out of the ordinary for the Palace and reigning monarch to focus on especially when they will not likely live past the next decade.

    I’m not a Queen apologist, I think the whole monarchy can go, but I feel like so much is gossiped and inferred that likely isn’t much of anything, or has anything at all to do with the Sussexes

    • Merricat says:

      If the Queen truly cared about what impacts or tarnishes the Crown, she would not have tolerated the wholesale media attack on the black Duchess.

  21. Amy Bee says:

    This book is the journalists’, royal sources’ and royal family’s rebuttal to Finding Freedom.

  22. L4frimaire says:

    Ha! So the Queen was really pressed about the Vogue issue, and the tabloids had their marching orders to ridicule and criticize it, which turned it into a record breaking best-seller. The thing is, if Meghan had appeared on the cover and did a photo spread, that would have had the exact same reaction and accusations of self-promotion and being too “Hollywood”. Interesting how the royals have been photographed and met with some of those on the cover like Greta Thunberg and Sinéad Burke ( 2 of the white women fwiw). The reality is that no matter how salty Will and Charles got, if the Queen had supported them, most of this wouldn’t have happened, but like the rest of them, they couldn’t Stan once again being eclipsed by another newcomer, especially an American. I swear the royals have institutional PTSD from Edward and Wallace, Margaret and Townsend, and Princess Diana, but instead of learning from this and trying to learn and move forward, they are once again they are repeating the same mistakes and pulling out all the knives. They really eat their own.

    • Figment says:

      Nothing H&M have done so far is as bad as what the previous generation of royals got up to at the same age, that’s facts. But for them to be accepted and supported by the BM is to play their part in propping up those further up the line of succession. That means being used as headline fodder when real scandals need to be buried, and never out working or outshining those further up the line of succession. Being black and woke already meant MM would be a square peg in the round hole of the BM (white, crusty). It’s very sad how it all went but looking at it all now, from start of the courtship to their emancipation, they’ve made the best of a lose lose situation.

  23. A says:

    “with 13 other Left-wing, multiracial campaigning women” – So again, we see here that the veil is being lifted from this absolutely disgusting family, and the monarchy as an institution. Their problem is not anything in particular–their problem is the fact that Meghan chose to feature women they perceived as “left-wing”. That is an crucial, important thing to talk about, because it spells out something that should frighten more people in the political fold in Britain.

    The royal family is supposed to be “above politics.” It shouldn’t matter what kind of politics. They are above it all, aren’t they? Meghan and Harry get excoriated by the press for expressing awful, Marxist political views, such as, “Don’t harass people online,” and “Don’t lie about facts on the internet for the purpose of misleading people,” and “Hey racism is bad ya’ll,” and “Voting is important for a democracy.”

    But the flagrant, blatant, absolutely puerile animosity displayed by the Queen’s mouthpiece towards “left-wing multiracial campaigning” women goes without being commented on? Really? This is not a political view, is that it? Shitting on progressive values and the people who hold them is their definition of being “politically neutral,” and anything outside of that is taking a side which royals are not supposed to do.

    People need to wake the fuck up, because what this points to is that the royal family is being radicalized in an alarming direction. For someone who likely represents the Queen, who purports to speak for the Queen and her values, to stake out a position that’s pissing on “left-wing, multiracial, campaigning” WOMEN should frighten anyone with two decent brain-cells left to rub together. These people are not politically neutral then, they’re in bed with the fucking Tories. We already knew that William was a reactionary of some variety, given the people with whom he chooses to keep company. This man is going to be king some day. Maybe I’m overreacting, but this is scaring. This is a bigger threat to democracy in Britain, and yet, no one seems to give much of an eff.

    • ABritGuest says:

      I mean if it’s true that the Queen was upset about Vogue being ‘political’ (which I doubt but think her right leaning courtiers & their friends in the press didn’t like) then putting aside her own and her children’s history of political intervention& lobbying& looking at the married-ins only-why was she so forgiving of Sophie back in the day? In that news of the world sheikh sting, Sophie was caught insulting not only her but various politicians & seemed to make clear she was in favor of the Tories. Yet the Queen issued a statement against the paper’s actions and defended Sophie.

      Of other married ins, Fergie sold access to Andrew, was caught cheating, got that loan from Epstein and has done various embarrassing things yet the Queen is reported to still be warm to her. Given all types of actual royal scandals is Lacey really suggesting that editing a ‘leftie’ Vogue, registering trademarks (like other royals before), a lawsuit against the Fail (when Charles sued on same basis), not giving a play by play of birth& not naming godparents was so bad that senior royals allegedly lost tolerance & wanted her to go?

  24. BnLurkN4eva says:

    If I were H/M I would take this book as a good thing because it shows the BRF and BM showing their hands. They were so certain that FF came directly from H/M and would reveal loads of unpleasant things, they seemed to have ordered this as a preemptive rebuttal and it might reveal way more than the honestly wish to have out there. They think they are hurting H/M and in the end, they are really just harming the monarchy because at this point, H/M are over it nothing they can take away from them now, is worth keeping.

  25. Zaya says:

    Petty Betty is mad at trademarks? What about Charles or William’s trademarks? As if she doesn’t have any herself.

    Guess what Brenda, I’m mad that you’re getting a government bailout when the people of the UK are suffering. Can you believe the queen gets a bailout because the crown estate suffered during an economic slump? What about everyone else who doesn’t even have a tenth of what she has?

  26. Lizzie says:

    They called Harry’s bluff and lost the whole pot.