Meghan, Harry and the fresh row over Lilibet’s name

Amidst the endless controversy that surrounds Harry and Meghan, there was at least one topic that seemed to be innocuous enough: the Christian name that they chose to give their now 2-year old daughter. She was named Lilibet, a reference to the childhood nickname Elizabeth II was given by her father George VI.

The choice of name was widely seen as a rather self-conscious form of homage by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to the one member of the Royal Family that both claimed to venerate. It was disliked by some courtiers who regarded its use as ‘bewildering’ and ‘rather presumptuous’. But according to Gyles Brandreth’s 2022 biography of the Queen, Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait, she was pleased with it, taking it as a compliment and quoted as saying ‘I hear they’re calling her “Lili”, which is very pretty and seems just right’.

There, for most people, the matter would have rested. Unfortunately for the Sussexes, the veracity of this rather charming story has now been questioned in the serialisation of Robert Hardman’s forthcoming biography of the King, Charles III: New King, New Court. Hardman’s version of events is that, according to one courtier, the Queen was ‘as angry as I’d ever seen her’ after Harry and Meghan made a public statement that they would not have christened their daughter Lilibet if the Queen had not been supportive. It was also said that, in the usual manner of these things, the ever-litigious duo instructed the expensive law firm Schillings to sue organisations including the BBC if they suggested that the Queen had not been asked for permission before they used the name. As the apt saying goes, ‘some recollections may vary’.

Hardman also suggests that the duo attempted to ask Buckingham Palace to support their version of events, perhaps in the same way that someone who has done catastrophic building work on their house might retrospectively attempt to obtain planning permission, but with just as little success. In Hardman’s account, the Palace ‘rebuffed’ the Sussexes’ requests to ‘prop up’ the story. As Hardman wrote, ‘Those noisy threats of legal action duly evaporated and the libel actions against the BBC never materialised.’

The story might be front page news for the Daily Mail today, but on its own terms, it is not as catastrophically damaging as it might seem at first. Nevertheless, it is symptomatic of the arrogance and high-handedness that the duo remain synonymous with. It is perfectly possible that the Queen was indeed at peace with the name being used, and indeed even rather liked the ring ‘Lili’ had to it, but that she was also angry if her consent was simply assumed rather than being asked for it.

Harry and Meghan’s spokesperson suggested at the time that ‘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 honour. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.’ It was the denial by sections of the media that this was wholly true that led to the threats of legal action – which appear to have been quietly backed away from. So the story sat, simmering, until it emerged into the public eye today.

2024 will be an interesting year for the Duke and Duchess. Last year was, to be frank, reputationally catastrophic for them. If they had counsellors around them, a period of stepping away from the spotlight might have been advised on the grounds that the furore around the Netflix series and Spare ended up being rather too much of a bad thing. The endless legal cases they are fighting and now this embarrassing disclosure will do nothing to engender public sympathy for them. The miserable bandwagon will rattle on until either they make their peace with the Royal Family and stop causing embarrassment, or until hell freezes over – whichever comes first.