Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Meghan and Harry Make Legal Threat Over Palace Briefing on the Naming of Lilibet

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have insisted that they did ask for the queen’s blessing to name their child Lilibet, the monarch’s childhood nickname, after palace sources briefed British journalists that they had made the announcement without getting permission from the queen.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the former royals issued a legal threat after the claim was published by the BBC. A British newspaper source told The Daily Beast that a rare legal warning had gone out to the papers advising them not to repeat the allegation that Harry and Meghan had named their second child after Queen Elizabeth without asking her first.

The couple are now engaged in yet another full-scale briefing war with the palace in an episode that once again exposes the mistrust which seems to characterize the Sussexes dysfunctional relationship with the monarchy.

The couple were prodded into making an official intervention after BBC Radio 4’s flagship breakfast news program said Wednesday on its 6:30 a.m. bulletin that the BBC had been told Harry and Meghan “did not consult the queen about using her childhood nickname Lilibet for their baby… a Buckingham Palace source says she was never asked about it.”

The key briefing was apparently given to the BBC’s royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond.

[quote] If you love The Daily Beast’s royal coverage, then we hope you’ll enjoy The Royalist, a members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.

Dymond’s report tallied with a report over the weekend in The Times that said that the queen had merely been “informed” about the choice of the name rather than having had her permission explicitly sought.

Indeed, it appears from the couple’s own statement that they only sought the queen’s blessing after the child had been born—having already decided on the name they wanted to give her.

The couple’s spokesperson said, “The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called. During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”

Rumors about the queen’s supposed unhappiness with the name have circulated for several days along with stories that the palace was blindsided by the announcement of the birth, as it took more than an hour and a half for Buckingham Palace to issue an official statement of congratulation.

In the interval between the Sussexes publicly announcing the birth and the royals officially congratulating them, the royal family’s official Twitter account posted a series of messages about an official engagement carried out by Princess Anne, suggesting, at the minimum, a lack of co-ordination.

Omid Scobie, the journalist and writer who penned the sympathetic biography of the couple, Finding Freedom, and has become an unofficial mouthpiece for the couple, disputed the BBC’s claims in tweets Wednesday. His language, citing a source, seemed to echo the official statement received by The Telegraph, saying, “A Sussex source says that the Queen was the first family Harry called after Lilibet’s birth and during that conversation, he shared the couple’s hope of naming their daughter in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.

“Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement so perhaps this report highlights just how far removed aides within the institution (who learned of the baby news alongside the rest of the world) now are from the Sussexes’ private matters.”

That may be true, but this new controversy will do little to encourage the view that the birth of the Sussexes’ second child will lead to a new era of harmonious relations between Montecito and London.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6306/16/2021

You are a day late, there are other threads from yesterday.

by Anonymousreply 106/10/2021

I'm starting to think that the Queen has Alzheimer's, and she's getting senile.

She seems to be becoming very forgetful.

Too bad there's not a home for senile Royals.

by Anonymousreply 206/10/2021


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 306/10/2021

Lili Mountbatten is the porniest royal name that ever porned.

by Anonymousreply 406/10/2021

They better rename that child and do it quickly.

by Anonymousreply 506/10/2021

[quote] They better rename that child and do it quickly.

Or what?


Meghan and Harry can do whatever they want, and can name their child anything they want.

by Anonymousreply 606/10/2021

This is being covered ad nauseam in two other threads. The legal threat is toothless, had no effect on the media outlets, who doubled down on the story, and the Palace's refusal to back the Sussex's lies ended the matter, as any lawsuit would have called the Queen a liar. Everyone knows the Queen authorised the leak to the BBC.

This is over, and Harry thought he could blister h7s way past it with yet another threat to the press.

He gambled and lost. End of.

by Anonymousreply 706/10/2021

They'll be calling her Diana any way.

Everyone hates the name Lilibet.

by Anonymousreply 806/10/2021

They will call her Lili. The Queen and Prince Charles need to muzzle the Firm.

by Anonymousreply 906/10/2021

Now they pick a fight with the BBC.

I am astonished at the string of moronic things they’ve done in just the last six months.

by Anonymousreply 1006/10/2021

[quote] Now they pick a fight with the BBC.

You forget the press I delivered to the British Royal Family was MY POWER.

The sword.... cuts both ways.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1106/10/2021

Why can't you give me.... the RESPECT.... that I'm ENTITLED TO???!!!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1206/10/2021

Picking a fight. Gaslighting 101 make the victim the aggressor. The wider public just isn't buying it anymore. The discussions on social media overall revolve around the Brf courtiers working with the UK media this week because they were the last to know about the new baby. Mass trolling and multiple articles aren't changing that opinion.

by Anonymousreply 1306/10/2021

R13, I can't tell if your post is pro-BRF or pro-Meghan.

Could you be more clear?

by Anonymousreply 1406/10/2021

The fact the UK press moved the goalposts from 'The Sussex didn't ask permission' to 'Maybe the Queen is hearing impaired and didn't understand because of her advanced age' proves it.

by Anonymousreply 1506/10/2021

The UK press stated that The Sussex didn't ask permission from the Queen. They didn't specify source. Just said someone high up within Brf staff. Now change that into a physical fight. That was the first jab. How when Harry and Meghan jab back are they the ones always picking a fight. If you simplify it into who hit first it was the UK media and Brf staff members. It just gets disguised by gaslighting articles and mass trolling. Now the UK media get to write multiple articles on how The Sussex are always involved in drama and hurting the Queen. Click click click equals money.

by Anonymousreply 1606/10/2021

Got it, R16.

And I totally agree with you.

by Anonymousreply 1706/10/2021

The first jab was the Sussexes lying - as usual.

by Anonymousreply 1806/10/2021

Tell me again, you two, about your ongoing quest for privacy?

by Anonymousreply 1906/10/2021

Grift-naming your daughter.

by Anonymousreply 2006/10/2021

[quote] Grift-naming your daughter.

You mean like Charlotte Diana?

Yes, I totally agree.

by Anonymousreply 2106/10/2021

Lol, R20. Pretty much.

by Anonymousreply 2206/10/2021

The FIrm is at the Center of all of this drama. They and Piers Morgan’s fat ass are out of control.

by Anonymousreply 2306/10/2021

Yes, if only The Firm would allow the poor, innocent Harkles just have their privacy! The unfairness of their treatment makes one weep!

by Anonymousreply 2406/10/2021

Merchie and Merchlili

by Anonymousreply 2506/10/2021

If they hadn’t named the kid after the Queen they same crew would be yelling “Megain and Harry insult the Queen!”

by Anonymousreply 2606/11/2021

Daily Mail has constant Harry & Meghan articles with the occasional Bennifer thrown in. The tabloids have got to love them.

by Anonymousreply 2706/11/2021

R27, the Daily Fail is a racist rag.

Probably bankrolled by princess michael of KUNT.

Everyone can see it.

I wish that they would go out of business, but the klan grannies will continue to subscribe and keep them afloat.

by Anonymousreply 2806/11/2021

They didn't name the kid after the Queen, r26. The Queen's name is Elizabeth.

by Anonymousreply 2906/11/2021

And how is that legal threat going, dear, now that Britain's Head of State came out and exposed her grandson as a liar prepared to make legal threats to defend a story she confirmed was NOT false, as his threatening letter claimed?

by Anonymousreply 3006/14/2021

TBH R30, I am a (considered) a pretty bright guy in general and I don't understand most of these posts. The Queen and palace did what? When? Who says? I never heard an official announcement of anything. Neither that H and M actually made an official threat of a lawsuit.

by Anonymousreply 3106/14/2021

The Queen authorized the release. She hosted G-7 successfully. She is neither deaf or senile. The RF is sick of the Sussex lies.

by Anonymousreply 3206/14/2021

The BBC editorial board must still be smirking through the corridors at its royal pardon from the Diana-Panorama disgrace.

In one devastating swift silent right uppercut, tiny, hunched over 95 year old Gran takes out lying Sussexes and shuts them up. Leaves egg all over their faces and makes their distinguished law firm look at best foolish and at worst unprincipled.

Because she's still the Queen and she matters in a way Hatry and Meghan don't and never will,

by Anonymousreply 3306/15/2021

^* Harry (not Hatry)

But you knew that.

by Anonymousreply 3406/15/2021

Lilibet sounds like the name of a demonic child doll, the sequel to Annabelle. Ghastly name, they must really hate this child already.

by Anonymousreply 3506/15/2021

Precisely r31, there was no official announcement and no unofficial leak to back Harry up and deny the reports that the Queen had not given her approval to have the baby named Lilibet. The deafening silence from the palace after the Harkles' allegation that the BBC report was a lie is in itself proof that the BBC report was correct. The fact that both Edward and Kate avoided mentioning the baby's name when asked directly about her, with the name Lilibet in the question, underscores that.

The Harkles couldn't threaten a lawsuit because they don't have a case.

by Anonymousreply 3606/15/2021

How are they paying for everything? Harry’s $30 mill must be dwindling rapidly.

by Anonymousreply 3706/15/2021

R35 As the Queen's childhood nickname, the moniker is charming.

As the legal, formal, first name of a child who will one day be a no longer young American woman . . .

Twee doesn't begin to cover it.

by Anonymousreply 3806/15/2021

Did they actually suggest that the Queen is deaf and/or senile?

by Anonymousreply 3906/15/2021

That would surprise you? These are people who merched a funeral wreath. During a funeral.

by Anonymousreply 4006/15/2021

And used the funeral procession for photo ops.

by Anonymousreply 4106/15/2021

M and H are like the fart smell in the toilet that just won't go away.

by Anonymousreply 4206/15/2021

R42 Especially as neither give the impression of great attention to hygiene.

by Anonymousreply 4306/15/2021

Happy Pride to every one but Harry.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4406/15/2021

Royal people problems

by Anonymousreply 4506/15/2021

Brand empire, lol.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4606/15/2021

Mapinduzi, Barcelona, Spain, 6 hours ago

Oh my god, they are so desperate they are willing to flog any old thing now! They are flogging their house for $17m, next it will be used cars. The trouble is their brand is so toxic they will be the kiss of death for any company or product linked with them. And what about 'leading by example' with 20 weeks maternity leave?! Maybe Harry has lost his mental health job due to being mentally unhealthy?

LilyTheOpinionator, Philadelphia, United States, 10 minutes ago

There's no changing this repulsive pair. M commandeered precious PR efforts and look what that has garnered them - they're now the laughingstock of the world and their greedy and shameless intentions have been highlighted. What company would want to poison their own brand with association of this vile pair?

by Anonymousreply 4706/15/2021


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4806/15/2021

The ANTIMEGHAN crowd on here are only blinded by their hatred of her. First they hated the name and now they're jumping on the bandwagon of the false scandal from by the British press about the name. I mean, really, couldn't the British Press just report on the baby girl and her name being the nickname used for the Queen? WHY did they have to go down the "Meghan and Harry did not get permission to use the name" route? That is looking for drama and clicks and likes from the anti-Meghan crowd who thinks her just breathing is a crime against humanity.

by Anonymousreply 4906/15/2021

People who hate the British press ignore the fact that this was a report on BBC Radio 4 originally.

by Anonymousreply 5006/15/2021

Queen is done

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5106/15/2021

Pats R49 on the head.

by Anonymousreply 5206/15/2021

LOL - what a ridiculous position.

They either did or did not. Whose word are people going to take - the Queen's or the Gifters?

Also, as a PR move, naming her after Diana has both upside and downside.

by Anonymousreply 5306/15/2021

R49 - I don't hate or love either but R42 makes a good point. He doesn't seem too interested in hygiene and both look slovenly most of the time.

by Anonymousreply 5406/15/2021

[quote]They either did or did not. Whose word are people going to take - the Queen's or the Gifters?

Maybe they THINK they did.

by Anonymousreply 5506/15/2021

These two are something else.

by Anonymousreply 5606/15/2021

[quote]Probably bankrolled by princess michael of KUNT.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Marie-Christine hasn't got that kind of money.

by Anonymousreply 5706/15/2021

Lilibet is an incredibly ugly-sounding name. I think celebrities do this so their kids will be more unique and a "brand". I'm indifferent when it comes to Markle but this has grasping Hollywood type written all over it. They blew the chance to simply name her "Diana", a perfectly fine name with more emotional weight than Lilibet Diana. Jesus Christ......

by Anonymousreply 5806/16/2021

Gives r52 a doggie treat. Gives IT two !

by Anonymousreply 5906/16/2021

R58 - totally fine point. Neither of the two brothers (and I don't like constipated brown-toothed Caucasian penis head William or his dim and slovenly brother) had enough courage to just name her Diana instead of kissing that old crone's butt. She's been celebrated least name one child Diana ffs. Royal twits with unremarkable wives. At least Meghan is a smart (if gauche) bitch but Kate is a frau-ish boring one.

by Anonymousreply 6006/16/2021

Princess Charlotte has both Elizabeth and Dians as part of her name. Would you like her to be Princess Diana and given a load of baggage from birth R60?

by Anonymousreply 6106/16/2021

So are they suing or was it just a strongly-worded letter from a law firm?

by Anonymousreply 6206/16/2021

Gives R59 a second pat on the head. And another out of pity.

by Anonymousreply 6306/16/2021
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!