Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

valoren

It might also be a case of inviting the Queen to play a game she can't win e.g. she is told shortly before the birth about the name and either supports it or not. If she doesn't support it or prefers they use a more formal name then out comes a friend or a source close to the couple saying the Queen refused to allow them use that particular name, it props up the narrative of needing to get away from a "toxic" institution, highlights to an American audience how silly it is to need approval from someone for a name. Or, if the Queen supports it pay back after the whole “you don’t own the word Royal” situation. Essentially it's them saying you clipped our lucrative Royal wings but we can use the pet name you've had all your life for our daughter. It just seems strange to use the name of the Monarch when you've spent the preceding weeks denigrating the system she is the head of.

lrushe

retro:electro wrote: »

I think you’re missing the point. Had they named the child Elizabeth, Beth, Eliza or even Lily I’m sure that would have been appropriate and fair because it’s predictable. It would still be a little odd that they would choose to name their daughter after the head of what they feel is such a toxic and racist institution but, nonetheless, it wouldn’t have caused as much of a stir. But they have co-opted a personal nickname and, it seems, did so without permission. The only person really who has any entitlement to feel upset is The Queen and if she is fine with it then it’s much ado about nothing really. Still a strange choice for a couple who wish to cleanse themselves (very publicly) from the practicalities and toxicities of Royal life (unless it’s where titles are concerned) but sure look, stranger things have happened.

But if they didn’t tell her, and it came as a huge surprise to her to have her personal pet name released to the world like that and commented on globally, well that’s kind of shltty of them, and more evidence of their sense of entitlement that they can take take take all they want without actually being worthy of it. And wanting all of the perks of Royal life without working for them. It smacks of “you think you can take our titles, well we can take your name”.. I guess the jury is still out on the ins and outs on whether she actually gave explicit permission for them to use a personal nickname, or whether they said “we might name her after you”, and she said something like “oh how lovely”, under the impression that it would be Elizabeth or a derivative of that, and not something as personal and sentimental as a childhood nickname. Also, it’s highly likely that The Queen will have absolutely no relationship with the child so it seems kind of pointless and performative to name her after her.

There's a blurred line there though. There's the queen 'head of an institution' and the queen 'grandmother'.
We have no idea if the queen loved or hated the idea of them naming the child what they did so taking umbrage of it on her behalf is pointless. She has apparently met the baby on video chat so I'm sure they have discussed her name.
Given the queen's age she will unlikely have much of a relationship with many of her very young great grandchildren but then again children have been named after relatives that have died before they were even born so I'm not sure a relationship is need to be a namesake.

Lollipops23

JoChervil wrote: »

Still for me, what is cute for a child or lovers, is not so for a real person. Imagine 40 years old Lilibet!

She's to go by Lilli by all accounts, which isn't as bad!

iamwhoiam

Why didnt they just call her Lili Diana and leave it at that . No fuss , no controversy , no discussion ? Ah No but that wouldn’t do would it they need attention .

cnocbui

What do family members give the Queen for her birthday?

Boxes of burner phones.

lazygal

I don't understand parents who give their kids a name and then make a point of saying "but they'll be known as "other name" day to day". Just give them the name and let any derivative or diminutive naturally happen.

retro:electro

lrushe wrote: »

There's a blurred line there though. There's the queen 'head of an institution' and the queen 'grandmother'.
We have no idea if the queen loved or hated the idea of them naming the child what they did so taking umbrage of it on her behalf is pointless. She has apparently met the baby on video chat so I'm sure they have discussed her name.
Given the queen's age she will unlikely have much of a relationship with many of her very young great grandchildren but then again children have been named after relatives that have died before they were even born so I'm not sure a relationship is need to be a namesake.

Well that’s not too dissimilar to what I just said. Nobody knows really what her reaction was to the name but either way, the underlying point for me is why would you even want to name your child that after you’ve made it perfectly clear that you have no desire to be tied to this institution (except for titles and security of course) and don’t want to inflict the generational pain that was passed to you on to your children. Naming your child after the head of the firm you have spent the last three months bashing kind of flies in the face of all of that.
They are a strange pair, I’ll give them that.

lazygal

Lilibet also isn't a standard name. It's widely known as a cute name the queen was called as a child.

Be right back

Apparently Harry is threatening legal action against the BBC for claiming he didn't consult the Queen over the name. Ridiculous if true!

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

Apparently Harry is threatening legal action against the BBC for claiming he didn't consult the Queen over the name. Ridiculous if true!

What's ridiculous? That he should be threatening the BBC for promulgating a lie or that a palace 'source' presumed to know without asking the Queen herself?

What I find ridiculous is all the people who think they wouldn't have sked the Queen first.

valoren

I'd imagine with any Royal reporting that the BBC would be ultra cautious (i.e. accurate/on good authority) after the Diana/Bashir interview news in recent weeks.

Sardonicat

lazygal wrote: »

Lilibet also isn't a standard name. It's widely known as a cute name the queen was called as a child.

I met more than one Lilsbet (officially named) in the UK. There are so many possible derivatives of Elizabeth, I doubt the Queen is the only Lilibet who ever existed, either as a pet name or official name. I can certainly understand feeling a bit possessive of a pet name, though. The fact that the last person who addressed her by that name has just passed away, it may well be upsetting for her. On the other hand, while she might not want to be addressed by that name by anyone else herself anymore, she could be pleased that the name lives on in her descendant as it's also honouring her own parents and sister who coined the name.

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

What's ridiculous? That he should be threatening the BBC for promulgating a lie or that a palace 'source' presumed to know without asking the Queen herself?

What I find ridiculous is all the people who think they wouldn't have sked the Queen first.

Would a palace source have spoken out without the Queen's permission? I doubt it.

I find it ridiculous that Harry is doing this instead of spending time with his newborn. He just seems to like being a victim and all poor me.

PhoenixParker

The source is quoted by the BBC as saying "the Queen was not asked by the Duke and duchess of Sussex about naming their daughter Lilibet"

Nobody but the Queen can say that so categorically and bluntly because no one is with the queen 24/7 listening to all conversations.

The "source" has therefore spoken directly to the Queen about this and the BBC are confident enough of this to publish it directly. A source that familiar with the queen will only speak to the press with her authorisation. Otherwise they wouldn't be that familiar with the queen for very long. My conclusion is that the article in the BBC is a clear signpost that the queen is not delighted by the baby's name.

The precise wording of both sides is important.

It seems like the Palace side is saying H&M didn't discuss it in advance with the queen and didn't ask permission.

The Sussex side seem to say they called the queen as soon as Lili was born and told her about the name then. They wouldn't have used the name if she was not supportive.

That sounds awfully close to calling the queen up and telling her the baby was to be named Lillibet.
As to what ensued, whether permission was asked or the queen was supportive . . . recollections may vary

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

Lilibet also isn't a standard name. It's widely known as a cute name the queen was called as a child.

Exactly. It's specifically a made up nickname for the Queen given to her as a child by her father who died when she was still young, and used only by her husband after that in a private capacity.

If they wanted to use a version of the Queen's name, they had so many to choose from - in fact it's one of the few names I can think of that has so many variants and derivatives and nicknames, for example:

Eliza, Elissa, Elsie, Elise, Elisa, Elisabet (Elisabet is the original Greek spelling), Elspie, Lisabette, Lisabetta, Lisbet, Lisbeth, Alisa, Lisa, Lisel, Liselle, Lesetta, Lisette, Lizzie, Lizzy, Lib, Libby, Libbie, Liz, Lisa, Tetsy, Tetty, Tibbie, Beth, Bethia, Betsy, Betsey, Bettie, Bettina, Betty, Bet, Bess, Bessie, and Betsy. Elspeth is the Scottish form; Else and Elisabeth are French forms; Lusa is the Finish form, Erzsebet is the Hungarian form; Elisabeth and Lise are German forms.

If you look at the list on Wikipedia, it's even longer still and in many languages - so very many to choose from and some are gorgeous names.
Yet Lilibet isn't on the list. It's not a derivative of Elizabeth. In any language.

Recollections may vary. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9667207/Harry-Meghan-NEVER-asked-Queen-naming-daughter-Lilibet-source-says.html

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

Would a palace source have spoken out without the Queen's permission? I doubt it.

I find it ridiculous that Harry is doing this instead of spending time with his newborn. He just seems to like being a victim and all poor me.

If you ever have children, you will discover that newborns do actually spend some of their time asleep.

lrushe

So if a source can only comment once they have the queens permission is that not effective the queen/palace commenting?

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s not too dissimilar to what I just said. Nobody knows really what her reaction was to the name but either way, the underlying point for me is why would you even want to name your child that after you’ve made it perfectly clear that you have no desire to be tied to this institution (except for titles and security of course) and don’t want to inflict the generational pain that was passed to you on to your children. Naming your child after the head of the firm you have spent the last three months bashing kind of flies in the face of all of that.
They are a strange pair, I’ll give them that.

this is the biggest non-issue going.
they named the child after the child's great grandmother, the fact she is the head of an institution they have issues with and decided to step back from is a separate thing, the queen doesn't stop being the child's great grandmother because the sussexes left the institution.
so ultimately no, the naming of the child after her great grandmother doesn't fly in the face of anything, as the sussexes are still ultimately members of the rf the family and that isn't going to change, they just aren't part of the institution.

Be right back wrote: »

Apparently Harry is threatening legal action against the BBC for claiming he didn't consult the Queen over the name. Ridiculous if true!

well we will see what the outcome of that legal action is, but so far, it is a case that if the claim is untrue then harry has no option but to take that action, given the BBC cannot be allowed to make what may be a false claim.

valoren

We must remember that in the Oprah interview that the impression given was that the Royal family was trapped in the institution of the Monarchy and that the Queen, in her dotage, was at the whim of advisors i.e. that she was being nudged and guided by malevolent types unhappy with the Sussexes. The same sort of people who wouldn't provide help when it was sought. Note the story about how they were invited to Dinner by the Queen and, after advisors presumably had a word in her ear, they weren't to illustrate this. You also have the supposed smear campaign emanating from with the institution. I presume this we said/they said situation will feed into the (supposed) ongoing smear campaign.

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

If you ever have children, you will discover that newborns do actually spend some of their time asleep.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. If their baby is asleep then he should spend his time with Archie. I find his attitude petty. He criticised his family and when the media disputes his statements, time to call the lawyers!

end of the road

valoren wrote: »

We must remember that in the Oprah interview that the impression given was that the Royal family was trapped in the institution of the Monarchy and that the Queen, in her dotage, was at the whim of advisors i.e. that she was being nudged and guided by malevolent types unhappy with the Sussexes. The same sort of people who wouldn't provide help when it was sought. Note the story about how they were invited to Dinner by the Queen and, after advisors presumably had a word in her ear, they weren't to illustrate this. You also have the supposed smear campaign emanating from with the institution. I presume this we said/they said situation will feed into the (supposed) ongoing smear campaign.

that can all be true, but still remain the case that the rf as people are still a family.

Be right back wrote: »

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. If their baby is asleep then he should spend his time with Archie. I find his attitude petty. He criticised his family and when the media disputes his statements, time to call the lawyers!

well as we know, certain elements of the british media don't simply dispute claims with real, irrefutable evidence, nor do what they do to expose the actual truth for the greater good of society.

so quite frankly if that is their game, they deserve what they get.

PhoenixParker

lrushe wrote: »

So if a source can only comment once they have the queens permission is that not effective the queen/palace commenting?

In this case yes.

The statement by the BBC is unusual. It’s very direct with no weasel words.

Normally there’d be something like a source close to the queen “believes” that the queen wasn’t asked, or “understands”, or in a tabloid they’d refer to rumours or whispers or something. There’s a whole language and techniques used by journalists to indicate how certain they are and give themselves an out in case of law suits.

The BBC are categorically stating that the queen wasn’t asked. That certainty is rare and suggests extremely robust sources. Since it’s directly about conversations with the queen, this came from the queen.

Also note Harry has demanded they retract it via a cease & desist but it’s still on the website. The BBC are confident.

lrushe

PhoenixParker wrote: »

In this case yes.

The statement by the BBC is unusual. It’s very direct with no weasel words.

Normally there’d be something like a source close to the queen “believes” that the queen wasn’t asked, or “understands”, or in a tabloid they’d refer to rumours or whispers or something. There’s a whole language and techniques used by journalists to indicate how certain they are and give themselves an out in case of law suits.

The BBC are categorically stating that the queen wasn’t asked. That certainty is rare and suggests extremely robust sources. Since it’s directly about conversations with the queen, this came from the queen.

Also note Harry has demanded they retract it via a cease & desist but it’s still on the website. The BBC are confident.

So why not just release a statement like after the interview?
Why the cloak and dagger stuff with a source??

cnocbui

Be right back wrote: »

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. If their baby is asleep then he should spend his time with Archie. I find his attitude petty. He criticised his family and when the media disputes his statements, time to call the lawyers!

You should join mumsnet and become one of those mummy shamers, like the ones who tell women they don't like how she's holding HER baby, or presume to micromanage a fathers time, telling them how they should prioritise their time and what the should be doing during each minute of it.

You don't.

Sardonicat

valoren wrote: »

We must remember that in the Oprah interview that the impression given was that the Royal family was trapped in the institution of the Monarchy and that the Queen, in her dotage, was at the whim of advisors i.e. that she was being nudged and guided by malevolent types unhappy with the Sussexes. The same sort of people who wouldn't provide help when it was sought. Note the story about how they were invited to Dinner by the Queen and, after advisors presumably had a word in her ear, they weren't to illustrate this. You also have the supposed smear campaign emanating from with the institution. I presume this we said/they said situation will feed into the (supposed) ongoing smear campaign.

It's a very upsetting and unpleasant situation for a recently widowed 95 year old to have to be dealing with this media nonsense about her great grandaugher's name. The child's arrival into the world should be news that's bringing her a bit of joy and comfort during a sad time. If you disregard the fact that she is Queen for a minute and reflect on the fact that she us a 95 year old widow, this really is a nasty, trashy business to be reporting on it at all and the Sussexes would do well to rise above it out of respect for the woman.

Neyite

lrushe wrote: »

So if a source can only comment once they have the queens permission is that not effective the queen/palace commenting?

I'd say so. This is the Palace's way of commenting without saying anything.

I'd believe the version the palace source told a BBC reporter over the Sussex's pet biographer. And to be honest, after all the inconsistencies and backtracking and downright untruths the Sussex's have come out with, I'm even more inclined to believe the Palace source. At least the palace source is actually in the palace and compared to the other side, the palace sources typically word their statements very carefully.

MoonUnit75

Be right back wrote: »

Would a palace source have spoken out without the Queen's permission? I doubt it.

I find it ridiculous that Harry is doing this instead of spending time with his newborn. He just seems to like being a victim and all poor me.

Seems to me it's all down to Meghan's need for drama and attention.

Sardonicat

PhoenixParker wrote: »

In this case yes.

The statement by the BBC is unusual. It’s very direct with no weasel words.

Normally there’d be something like a source close to the queen “believes” that the queen wasn’t asked, or “understands”, or in a tabloid they’d refer to rumours or whispers or something. There’s a whole language and techniques used by journalists to indicate how certain they are and give themselves an out in case of law suits.

The BBC are categorically stating that the queen wasn’t asked. That certainty is rare and suggests extremely robust sources. Since it’s directly about conversations with the queen, this came from the queen.

Also note Harry has demanded they retract it via a cease & desist but it’s still on the website. The BBC are confident.

And is the Queen not impressed? Or did an official source liaise with the press and the only point being picked up is the simple answer to the question 'Did they ask her permission to use the name?' How do we know the Queen thinks her approval should have been sought?

PhoenixParker

Sardonicat wrote: »

And is the Queen not impressed? Or did an official source liaise with the press and the only point being picked up is the simple answer to the question 'Did they ask her permission to use the name?' How do we know the Queen thinks her approval should have been sought?

We don't know whether the Queen is impressed or not.

But if she was impressed and happy with the name, the source could have said nothing or simply said something non-commital like "the queen is delighted that Harry's daughter is healthy and named in her honour".

My money is on her being pissed.