For the past week, Robert Hardman’s new book about King Charles has been excerpted in the Mail and Telegraph, and he’s been shilling it all over the British media. Hilariously, every time I read anything about this fakakta book, it has a different name. According to the Daily Beast, it’s now being called The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy. Sure. You might think that the book would be all about Charles then – you would be wrong. The biggest stories to come out are about QEII’s rage over her great-granddaughter’s name and how Prince William isn’t religious or intellectual or a hard worker. Given all of the medical news about the Windsors in recent days, Hardman and his book have been overshadowed, so much so that people missed the fact that Hardman walked back the whole “QEII was super-mad about Princess Lilibet’s name” story. Thankfully, Hardman chatted with Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast about all of that and more. Some highlights:

QEII loved Harry: Queen Elizabeth “loved Prince Harry right to the end,” despite her anger over the way he and Meghan Markle misleadingly claimed that she had been asked for her permission to name their daughter Lilibet, which was Elizabeth’s private nickname dating back to a childhood mispronunciation.

Hardman clarifies the Lilibet kerfuffle: Hardman says the late queen’s anger was occasioned not so much by the use of the name itself as by Harry’s team claiming that Harry had sought and obtained her permission to use the name, after the queen’s staff told the BBC that she had not been asked. Sources later told other outlets that Harry had “told” Elizabeth about the name as opposed to asking her. Hardman tells The Daily Beast: “We don’t know exactly what the conversation was, but we can imagine it went something like, ‘Granny, great news, we are calling her Lilibet,’ and the queen saying: ‘Oh how nice,’ or something like that because she hated confrontation. What made her angry was the subsequent putting of words in her mouth, the inference that they had her blessing, that permission had been sought and granted, when it hadn’t, and then the way that [Harry and Meghan] tried to corral the palace into supporting legal action against the BBC. Her anger wasn’t actually about using the name itself.”

Hardman wonders if Andrew has done more damage than Harry: Hardman says that he has some sympathy with the “counter-view” that the behavior of Prince Andrew has been more damaging to the monarchy than Harry and Meghan. Does he think Queen Elizabeth believed his denials of the charges laid against him by Virginia Giuffre. “I’m sure she would have taken him at his word, as any mother would. You have to remember that lots of people have said lots of things about the royals over the years that have not turned out to be true, so it’s not surprising that for the royals, blood runs thicker than water.”

Everyone’s worried about Andrew’s mental health: Hardman reports that “insiders… fear for his mental well-being. One official who had known him over many years during his days as a working member of the family was astonished by the transformation in him after a meeting since his internal exile, describing him as ‘almost incoherent.’”

William isn’t eager to be king: “From what I gathered in an interview with William some years ago, he doesn’t want to think about it. He wants to get on with his life. You can lead a perfectly happy, if not happier, existence in a supporting role rather than being the main person—although, since he’s become king, Charles seems happier than I’ve ever seen him in all the years I’ve followed him. He appears more content, perhaps feeling that this is his destiny, what he’s been preparing for.”

Charles’s relationship with Harry: “I think he’s very good at compartmentalizing. It’s an issue, a source of sadness, but he’s not going to dwell on it or brood on it. It is what it is. There’s not much he can do about it. Harry, in his Netflix series and some interviews, talks about waiting for an apology. That’s probably not going to be what resolves the situation.” Does he think that more could have been done to, if not keep Harry in the monarchy, at least to prevent the rupture from being quite as dramatic and toxic? “Yes, I do. I think everyone would have to admit that all sides could have done more.”

Eugenie & Beatrice won’t become working royals: “I don’t think there’s any appetite for that. To suddenly bring them into the public orbit would, I think, send out a confusing message that would go against the general sense of streamlining. The king is very fond of his nieces, but they’re private individuals.”

[From The Daily Beast]

“Her anger wasn’t actually about using the name itself” – it’s so weird, then, that royal reporters have spent the past week shrieking about how Meghan and Harry are awful people for choosing the name Lilibet for their daughter. It’s so weird that column after column has been written about that issue, not the bullsh-t about how the palace aides blatantly lied to the BBC when they claimed that Harry had never spoken to his grandmother about the name. “I think everyone would have to admit that all sides could have done more.” Weird, then, that Charles’s staff spent the week briefing the media that they were celebrating the attacks on the Sussexes over the child’s name!!

Note by CB: Harry and Meghan say they got Queen Elizabeth’s blessing to name their daughter after her nickname, but the courtiers and royal rota disagree! Get the top 10 stories about the drama over Lilibet’s name when you sign up for our mailing list! We only send one email a day on weekdays.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.