Hardman: QEII was never angry about the Sussexes’ naming their kid ‘Lilibet’

Two weekends ago, Robert Hardman’s new royal book began to be excerpted in the Mail and Telegraph. The biggest headline was “Queen Elizabeth was furious that Prince Harry and Meghan named their daughter Lilibet.” Royal reporters spent all of last week screaming about Meghan and Harry’s appalling rudeness for using QEII’s family nickname for their daughter. Columnist after columnist swore up and down that QEII was incandescent with rage over a baby’s name, and the Mirror reported exclusively that palace aides were “celebrating” because the truth finally came out about how much QEII despised her great-granddaughter’s name. Then, weirdly, Hardman began steadily walking back the story. Hardman claimed that QEII was merely upset that Harry’s lawyers threatened the BBC, when the BBC lied and reported that QEII had not been consulted or asked about the name ahead of time. Hardman said no, of course QEII was not mad about a baby’s name. Well, Operation Walk It Back is still upon us, with Hardman giving a new interview to Newsweek. Some highlights:

Whether Charles should repair relations with the Sussexes: “Yes, in some way I do [think that he should]. I don’t know how and when. Certainly, on this side of the Atlantic, the door is always open, and there’s so much other stuff going on. For Harry, it’s a different order of magnitude, because, does he want to reengage with his family? Charles would love to have him back in the fold, not being royal again—I think that ship has sailed, and I’m sure Harry would not want to do that.”

The Sussexes’ half-in solution: “Someone said to me today, ‘could this be the moment with the royal work shortage, for Harry to step in?’ But it doesn’t work like that. What would probably help move towards that situation is if he gradually started having a sort of normalizing… suddenly it’s not such a big deal if Harry and Meghan are coming over to the U.K. privately with their children and having a playdate with their cousins. A lot of families go through these things, and they don’t have to have it all scrutinised endlessly by the likes of you and me. I don’t pretend to be close to the Sussexes at all but, from what I glean, it’s a ‘never say never’ situation.”

On QEII’s anger about the name Lilibet: “I’ve seen a lot of reports that the queen was furious about the name. It wasn’t the naming that was the issue; it was the way that the naming was presented. The sort of war of words. It was the fact it was presented that she was in favor of this and then the BBC reported that actually she wasn’t asked. And then the Sussexes said, ‘That’s not true; here’s a lawyers’ letter,’ and the palace were asked to endorse this and very pointedly did not. That was what was the source of great fury.”

The controversy that Hardman created is unfair on a toddler: “I get that. She’s a completely blameless, adorable child. Queen Elizabeth loved Harry and loved Lilibet, and I’m quite sure didn’t envisage this ding-dong [quarrel] going on after her death. Once the lawyers’ letters start flying around, this has been a story in the public domain for some time.”

[From Newsweek]

First of all, when are the royalists going to learn that “Charles would love to have him back in the fold” is the very reason why Harry will never return? Harry and Meghan have been married for almost six years, they have two children and they have a strong marriage. The king or the institution constantly sending the message that they only want Harry back, or that they want the marriage to end, that’s not doing them any favors. It’s giving “leave your Black wife in America and come running back to us, your abusers.”

As for the Lilibet stuff… Hardman explicitly had the Lilibet stuff locked and loaded for the first round of book excerpts and it all went as planned, with royalists dutifully rolling out their stories about how the Sussexes are despicable people for honoring Harry’s grandmother by naming their daughter Lilibet. Then something shifted with the coverage – mid-rollout, Hardman and others were like “wait, this makes QEII sound awful and it’s also not believable in the least.” Weird that Hardman’s walkback hasn’t gotten anywhere near the kind of wall-to-wall coverage as the first version of the story.

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! Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 10 stories about the drama over Lilibet’s name. We only send one email a day on weekdays.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

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

54 Responses to “Hardman: QEII was never angry about the Sussexes’ naming their kid ‘Lilibet’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rapunzel says:

    Of course she wasn’t mad. Petty Betty isn’t that petty.

  2. Lulu says:

    We all knew the Lilbet stories were a distraction, and now we know they were distracting from a royal rushed to hospital on Dec 28 and Kates ‘planned’ surgery last week.

  3. sevenblue says:

    Just like Endgame, every newspaper is only interested in H&M’s part of the any royal book. Let us remember, this is a book about Charles, just like how Endgame was about the leftover royals. But, if there is H&M story in there, it will be used for giving publicity to the book. If you can’t sell your book about royal family without using an “irrelevant” couple’s name in the press, you got problems.

  4. YeahRight says:

    Too late to watch that back the damage is done. I think Meghan has came to peace with the way that her husband’s family are and has moved on. Harry doesn’t want to go back into the fold he just wanted a normal family relationship but racism, jealousy and his family being all around horrible people gets in the way of that.

  5. Chloe says:

    I’ll always call her Lili anyways. Just like i call Henry Charles Albert David Harry.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Lili is what her parents call her. They said in their birth announcement that she will be known as Lili. It’s the press that insists on calling her Lilibet.

      • Chloe says:

        Exactly and I am not going to indulge the press. If her parents say she’ll be known as Lili, then I’ll call her Lili.

      • Celine says:

        Not just the press. Even her parents sometimes call her Lilibet. Meghan called her Lilibet in the Netflix documentary and Harry called her Lilibet in Spare, and he also addressed her as Lilibet in court in June last year. I never heard Charles or Diana call Harry “Henry” in public. Also, in her parents’ personal profiles, always stated as they are residing in California with their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Even their friends and personal photographers call her Lilibet, like Misan Harriman and Alexi Lubomirski.

      • Ripley says:

        @Celine, I’ve noticed that too. I wonder if she’s just more of a Lilibet? We have a son named James and planned on calling him Jimmy or Jim — I actually liked the name because I liked all the nickname iterations. That being said, he has been Sweet Baby James from Day 1. Best laid plans.

  6. Yes I think what he is saying now isn’t gaining any traction. It really did make the Queen look bad but these people never ever look at the big picture. They never think logically and are always looking for a “gotcha” but in reality it’s them being the recipients of their own “gotcha”. The cult was and still is very jealous of the relationship Harry had with his grandmother. So expect more of this nonsense.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      It’s really amazing how they didn’t get how the story would make Liz look. Even Mr TigerMcQ, who never reads royal stuff noticed the story and commented on how sh*tty TQ was to be upset over having a great grandchild named after her. Goodness, but they’re so inept.

  7. Laura D says:

    So who said “My name is the only thing I own”? I know Marlo did in The Wire but, we were all supposed to believe QEII said it as well. My goodness I doubt this lot can even lie straight in bed!

    • Amy Bee says:

      Probably the same person who attacked Meghan for wearing jewels from the Saudi Royal Family when the British Royal Family has a treasure trove of Saudi jewels.

  8. Becks1 says:

    I think someone realized that this made the queen look bad, in a way they didn’t realize in 2021. I also think the line from english about “all she had was her name” just took this to a whole different level that maybe the palace didnt want, as social media began reminding everyone of what exactly QEII did have, and it was a lot more than her name.

    Some have speculated that the Sussexes pushed back again this time, but I think its one of those rare instances where someone at BP realizes how bad this makes them look and a phone call was placed accordingly. Not to the rota, oh no. English can still run her stupid stories. But to Hardman, yes.

    • Tina says:

      This was completely mocked on social media by regular Brits. I see alot of “derangers” and “Sussex squad” tweets but this was from normal regular people. It certainly doesn’t help amid a cost of living crisis to remind people just how rich this family is. The palace insiders and the media are so far removed from regular people that they don’t get how stuff like this is perceived by people who are not obsessed with the royals.

      • Proud Mary says:

        Tina, you beat me to it. I think the palace is just waking up to the fact that their media echo chamber is not as powerful as it once was. The sociai media pushback on this, and on the “William the dutiful husband” really has them AND the rota shook.

    • Robert Phillips says:

      The problem they have with their “All she had was her name” malarky. Is that wasn’t her name. It was a nickname. The same as Harry is his nickname. His name is Harold. On top of that Windsor isn’t even her real name either. And all her other names are taken from other people. So if she really was upset (she wasn’t). That would make her a complete hypocrite.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Robert Phillips: Harry’s name is not Harold. That’s a nickname too. His real name Henry.

      • Jaded says:

        Only William called Harry “Harold” when he was being sarcastic. Harry’s formal name is Henry. His nicknames are H, Haz or Hazza.

    • JEMMY says:

      According to JOBSON ( the guy who had the racist picture about Archie) It seems PW is getting ready to tackle cyberbully in particular against the royals

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12992265/ROBERT-JOBSON-trolls-Kate-hospital-Fergie-skin-cancer.html

      so their back tracking maybe in line with the proposed move.

      Also Daily mail is planning a subscription only service – Mail+ from where the link 👆was taken from

  9. ShazBot says:

    A) the door is not always open, it was decidedly closed by eviction and pulled security. I wish people would push back on that one.
    B) the walk-back doesn’t make sense. She was ok with the name but not ok with pushing back on media lies about the name? They’re soooo close to the truth – that the Queen was fine and her courtiers were pissed that their lies were getting called out.

    • Carty says:

      The Queen could have issued a statement when this all happened. She chose not to, so they can drag her for all I care. They’re all awful people in the Firm

      • Robert Phillips says:

        At that time I actually wonder if she could have issued a statement. She was totally surrounded by people who were pushing their own agendas. And was totally reliant on them. Harry even commented he didn’t like a lot of the people that were around her. She might have issued a statement. But it just never went out of the palace.

      • May says:

        @carty, 💯💯💯💯💯💯

      • windyriver says:

        @Robert Phillips – I tend to agree. Harry certainly made it publicly clear in April 2022 when he and Meghan made their secret visit to TQ that he was concerned about the people she had around her.

        I suspect TQ would have considered the name private business, especially if, as is also possible, she discussed it in a conversation with Harry the courtiers weren’t aware of (and were therefore angry about). And, if she wanted to issue a statement, it would have gone through her private secretary, the one Charles (and Andrew) had installed, Edward Young. According to Spare, by January 2020, Harry (and TQ) were realizing that Young was lying to her about her schedule, and making sure he was present when she talked to Harry. The story that was leaked to the BBC and other outlets about Harry not asking TQ about the name, how she responded. etc. was very likely made up by Young, etc. The courtiers weren’t going to admit they had lied.

        I also wonder how much TQ really knew about these situations, about things being said in the press, especially once ensconced in her bubble at Windsor during Covid.

      • May says:

        @robert, @windyriver, I absolutely do not believe that the Queen was incapable of making some kind of a show of support for the Sussexes and their children. I’m betting that the courtiers winced at the Queen showing support for Andrew (paying off millions to Guiffre, carpooling to church with him, etc) but were unable to stop her trying to protect her baby. I also think the Queen would have been aware of the kerfuffle after the announcement of Lili’s name. She was not being isolated at that point (she still had contact with the outside world) and she maintained communication with the Sussexes. Surely someone would have mentioned the vitriol being directed at an innocent newborn.

      • Mel says:

        I totally think that Chuckles and Will were wilding out with the media against Harry and Meghan because she wasn’t well at all and Phillip was dead. When you see their interactions with Harry, his grandparents clearly loved him to pieces and he did tell James Corden that they zoomed all the time and she did ask what Archie wanted for Christmas and she had it sent.

      • windyriver says:

        @May, IMO TQ (for whom “never explain, never complain” was a somewhat more realistic concept than it’s been for either Charles or Will) would’ve though it was nobody’s business but hers that her grandson and his wife wanted to name their child using her pet nickname. I assume the BBC getting a letter from the Sussexes did happen – it makes sense – but I don’t buy H&M asked the palace to confirm it. Why would they, when they already knew it was the palace that fed the lie to the press? And while lying and creating such a fuss over a child’s name was disappointing to say the least, in the long run, it wasn’t any worse so much the palaces had already done re: H&M. Meghan referred in the documentary to them playing “wack-a-mole” with what was being leveled at them, this was just one more thing. I’ve also suspected Harry had told TQ at some earlier point not to worry about what she might read in the papers, that he and Meghan would deal with everything. That’s what I would’ve done if I had a 95 year old grandmother in questionable health who had lost her husband and had some dicey people working for her.

        As far as Andrew goes, paying off Virginia benefitted far more than just TQ; it got that situation off the table for the Firm and avoided the possibility of worse revelations, so don’t know that it’s an example of TQ’s power to make things happen or just a convergence of objectives.

        Where I have suspected TQ got her way had to do with H&M’s participation in the Jubbly, and especially, that solo entrance into the church. After everything that happened in the two years since H&M’s departure, it’s fun to imagine the courtiers, Will, and probably C&C hating every minute of it. The Jubbly was all about her, so maybe she had a little more ability to get what she wanted.

        In the long run, this is all just my opinion, I don’t know anything more than anyone else.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    What’s interesting to me is that it would seem that Hardman and the press did not realise that the Queen looked bad when the BBC first reported on the Lilibet story two years ago. They truly live in a bubble and if the Queen was a normal person she would be mad that the courtiers leaked to the press that she didn’t give permission rather than at Harry’s daughter being named after her. The backtracking in real time from Hardman has been amazing to watch. As for Harry returning to the fold, at least Hardman’s not deluded like his colleagues in the press. But his comments about Charles would love Harry back in the fold, just further confirms to me that he didn’t want Harry to marry Meghan and that he still holds out hope that he will leave her and come back to the UK.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Amy Bee, that the story did not go over well for them the first time, is why I am so surprised that even Harry and Meghan supporters felt the need to react as if this is some new story. I recall two years ago seeing a BBC audience reaction video in which BBC’s own viewers castigated BBC’s coverage. You would think they would let sleeping dogs lie. But here come BP and KP, stupidly resurrecting a story that makes not only them, but the late Queen herself look like flaming racists.

  11. Mslove says:

    Hardman left out the part where Peg shoves tissues under the door to the Queen, when she was raging about how the “naming was presented.”

  12. Flamingo says:

    I like to think QEII took it as it was meant to be, it was a love letter to her.

  13. equality says:

    “But it doesn’t work like that.” Actually, it does. QE brought E&S in as “full time” “working” royals after their big scandals. And, Bea and Eug did events with QE occasionally. And PH wouldn’t go back to being royal, he still (supposedly) has the magic royal blood. He wouldn’t go back to being a “working” royal. For someone supposed to be an expert, this dude is ignorant. This still doesn’t make QE look good if she was siding with the BBC over her grandson and his family.

  14. Cessily says:

    When does he write about the King in the is book about The King? Guess Chuck isn’t even interesting enough for his own biography 🤷🏻‍♀️🤭.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      I’ve been wondering the same ever since this book came out.

      Anyway, l’m sure this debate over little Lili’s name and how the queen reacted to it will continue on long after most of us are dead and buried. It’s wild to me that it’s already gone on for years now.

  15. Eurydice says:

    If you didn’t mean what you said, why did you say it?

    • Jais says:

      Exactly. Hardman released this excerpt first. It was meant to be another revenge against the Sussexes. Against a baby. Royal reporting is grotesque in every way.

  16. Over it says:

    Poor lili, . She is a baby , an innocent beautiful baby and these heartless creatures set out to drag her through the mud for what ? Just existing and being the blue eyed grandchild with a half black mom. I will never be able to forgive these people for all that unnecessary stress, pain and pure evil. When karma comes knocking at the institution door and that includes the palace aids, the British media and the Windsors. It would have been earned by all of them

  17. Lau says:

    I wonder if Hardman is going to get some pushback from the royalists about this whole “operation damage control”.

  18. Mary Pester says:

    Soft lad knew his book wouldn’t sell. He wanted to get maximum publicity and he knew the way to do that was to dangle Harry and Megan in front of the media and the Palace plebs. Funny thing, apart from the Palace plebs and a few stupid papers, it didn’t land the way he wanted. People were enraged that he was using the Queen and her great granddaughter. He was destroying lizzies legacy. So he started the bowel shuffle. He took hints from his mate Tom who had the same problem with his rubbish book, and around we go again. Will the Palace plebs now deny the dancing and pleasure, will the press row back, 🤣🤣of course not. They all hope people will forget they have been made to look prize pillocks by soft lad.

  19. Asantewaa says:

    His book is not selling. I know this because I work in a bookshop in London. We took in only 7copies, compared to Harry’s 30copies. Only 2 copies have been bought, and it’s been 3weeks now. It is a small bookshop, with an affluent ageing white mornachist.

    • May says:

      Interesting. I was wondering how this book was faring, sales-wise. Were poor sales the reason Hardman came out to “correct” the Lilibet naming story (as opposed to just doing it because it made the Queen look bad)? Did the attacks on a little child for her name turn people off of buying this book?

      • Laura D says:

        @May – There’s a reason why slagging off a little girl who is probably only just starting to put sentences together isn’t a tried and trusted selling point! The market is already saturated with regurgitated crape on Sussexit and about the fall-out between the brothers. For those reasons alone the book was never going to be a huge money spinner. The best Hardman could hope for was money from a tabloid serialisation and TV appearance fees. The book will be in the “less than half price” basket in the not too distance future.

  20. Sobiewski says:

    *Shaking my damn head* That whole family is fucked up. I don’t care about how much renown, fame, prestige, money, inheritance comes with a name, I would not want to be in that family for all the tea in china. What a shitty thing for QEII and the palace in general not to back Harry up in that bbc row/fight and simply make a statement saying ‘ Harry consulted the queen and she gave her acquiescence for the use of the name.’ How effin easy would that have been to do what is right? smh…… Harry is better than me. I would never talk to any of them any more after everything they have put him and his family through and all because he dared to marry a black woman and have mixed babies. just sad and wrong on so many levels…The monarchy needs to be abolished. These people are not God and it sickens my stomach how the brits damn near worship those demons.

  21. Saucy&Sassy says:

    “And then the Sussexes said, ‘That’s not true; here’s a lawyers’ letter,’ and the palace were asked to endorse this and very pointedly did not. That was what was the source of great fury.”

    So, was QE2 angry because the palace did not endorse the fact that she approved of H&M using her nickname? This sentence makes me think it’s possible. I tend to think the Queen was very closely managed by Young and others on orders of KFC. We’ll probably never know how much KFC had taken over by that time.

    “Charles would love to have him back in the fold, not being royal again”

    How in the world does KFC’s son–a blood royal–not be royal? That’s probably one the most idiotic things I’ve seen written. These people are so bad at this stuff.

    • KT says:

      I can believe the Queen was furious that her lovely nickname being given to her great-granddaughter in her honour was used as a way of attacking the Sussexes. I can believe that she was furious at reporters who tried to drag her private feelings into a public family argument. I can believe she was furious that the Palace wouldn’t slap the nonsense down, and that the Sussexes had to resort to sending lawyers in.

      I don’t believe for a moment that she was angry at Harry and Meghan. She was not a stupid woman, she must have expected them to say that they had asked for her blessing for the naming and that she approved. What was were they meant to say?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        KT, I agree. I find it very interesting that they’re getting close to saying that here.

  22. LivingDesert says:

    So Queen Elizabeth II did not rage about “them” having stolen “the only thing I own, my name”?

    Well, well, well, imagine that. Weren’t there people around only a couple of weeks ago who basically swore having seen her racing down the corridors screaming?

    Where are the “we only lied, it is not true” screams?

  23. Just Jade says:

    They all should keep little Lili out of their mouth.